Maybe they should just stop calling it "3D" - it is 2D with simulated 3D.
If it were truly 3D, there would be real depth of field that our eyes would have to focus to.
True 3D is years away (if it's coming at all -- holographic viewers?), but when it comes it should take care of everyone's 3D complaints. Well, except for the complaint that filmmakers make 3D a central element of the film rather than the storyline.
That’s more power than Russia uses, according to a new report about cloud-computing from Greenpeace.
Computer servers in data centers account for about 2% of global energy demand, growing about 12% a year, according to the group. The servers, Greenpeace said, can suck up as much power as 50,000 average U.S. homes.
So they are saying that servers use as much power as 50,000 US homes, which is more power than Russia uses.
Which implies that 50,000 USA households use more energy than 53 million Russian households, plus industrial and transportation use.
I know the USA has a high per-capita energy footprint, but that sounds a little ridiculous.
And in the Greenpeace report, they say:
It is challenging, however, to find data on the actual net impacts of applied IT technologies due to information gaps and a multiplicity of variables, as well as a lack of transparency around the lifecycle impacts of IT’s own growing emissions and rising electricity use.
So they are saying that real numbers are hard to find, so instead they just made them up?
And finally, they say that companies need to not just reduce power, but need to use green sources like solar. They mention a 100MW datacenter, even if a company was willing to spend $2B creating a "green" solar plant to power their datacenter, would Greenpeace be ok with them flattening 2000 acres (3 squares miles) of land to build the solar power plant?
This is only really a big deal if it takes up a significant portion of somebody's time. Can you imagine hiring 30 additional officers to replace the current one who's full time job is to review traffic cameras? The city would have to raise a couple hundred thousand dollars, probably via taxes. This seems sort of undesirable when compared to periodically calibrating a sensor specifically manufactured to measure the speed of a moving object.
If one person can issue a ticket in 30 seconds, I think the court costs alone that are added to the ticket will more than cover the cost of labor to review the tickets for accuracy before mailing.
The point of not relying solely on the radar is that radar is not always accurate, so the picture adds a layer of redundancy.
Tickets are not *supposed* to earn revenue, they are supposed to discourage bad behavior. Tickets revenue (except for a small administrative fee) should always go to the federal government -- then it will get rid of the incentive to write excessive tickets to generate revenue. Speed enforcement could go back to being a safety tool rather than a revenue tool.
Yeah, but there's no need to do that (and how reliable will it be in cases like when a truck is overtaking a car - who's centroid is being measured?) - radar is cheap and it works in general for identifying speeders.
The photograph requirement would be a sanity check by making sure that citations are reviewed by a live human being (and a police officer) before being issued.
Making a real live police offer do the calculations to prove that the car was speeding should help reduce illegitimate tickets by adding another layer of verification that's completely independent of the radar.
Oh, and it has the side effect of making these units more costly to operate and less likely to be used as a revenue tool.
The obvious response? They will start sending ONE timestamped photo.
Maybe this should be a new requirement for speed cameras -- they can use the radar/lidar to get an instantaneous speed if they want to, but they can only generate a ticket if the average speed as calculated from 2 photos is above the speed limit and the photo has to be reviewed and the ticket approved by a trained police officer (i.e. not by the private company that earns revenue from the ticket). Since the photos can be a fraction of a second apart and still give enough detail for accurate speed calculations (60 miles/hour is 88 feet/second (translation: 100km/hour = 27 meters/second)), it's not like a driver can do much to slow down between pictures.
I guess they could still fudge the timestamps, but it's a bit harder to do that stealthily.
News reports are spotty, but I imagine that the plant tripped the turbines offline after the tornado damaged the power distribution equipment.
When it's generating 1GW of power and suddenly the load goes down to 0GW, the turbines have to trip offline automatically and immediately to prevent damage.
This may have also triggered a shutdown of the nuclear reactor, and it may take days or longer to bring it online after an emergency shutdown.
On my TV, (37" 720p/1080i) I don't notice any quality difference between Blu-ray and DVD.
Then you're blind. Consider having your vision checked, or your existing prescription adjusted.
Note that I didn't say that I deny that there's a quality difference, just that I don't notice it - I've done single-blind tests by someone playing a movie on DVD and the same movie in Blu Ray and I was unable to tell the difference in my normal viewing conditions (which is about 15 feet from the TV). Maybe it's my TV (a 4 year old Sony), but I don't think it's my eyes since I have 20/20 uncorrected vision.
Also, I can't tell the difference between 128kbs MP3 versus 192kbs or FLAC.
On my TV, (37" 720p/1080i) I don't notice any quality difference between Blu-ray and DVD.
But I do notice that the disks take a lot longer to load, trailers are harder to skip over (one blu-ray had nearly 15 minutes of trailers that I had to skip by fast-forwarding then when it hit the next one, I had to fast-forward again and repeat about 8 times), and I can't easily rip a Blu-ray to my hard drive so I can watch it on the plane.
Anyone with half a brain will setup a sequested unsecure network for all the wireless and personal shit, if allowed in first place. Which should be allowed for most case. Such server should be accesible that way.
And anyone with a full brain that works in a hospital IT department will not allow rogue servers to undermine their HIPAA compliance. Just because you say "Oh, it's just a scheduling app, there's no patient data there", doesn't mean that a doctor won't include some patient's name in his schedule, and if said patient finds it through a Google search, the HIPAA violation can end up costing the hospital many thousands of dollars.
WSUS / etc won't do much good for a Linux server...
He did say "and other tools", and that's exactly the point - if they can't do patch management for your particular flavor of Linux, they can't easily ensure that it is up to date with security patches.
however in today's world where many departments are capable of managing their own solutions that are not enterprise wide there should be a way for departments to operate outside of the IT domain like external networks
The problem is that departments don't often manage their solutions - they buy something that solves one need, install it and start using it and never touch it again. It never gets patches, backups are sporadic (if they happen at all), hardware is usually a desktop in the corner - no RAID disks.
And these stand along systems don't integrate into the enterprise Compliance and ERP systems so cause a lot of trouble later on when Legal needs to do a legal discovery and finds out that your TWiki server didn't obey the company document retention plan so they are unable to find the documents they need. Or the ERP team is tasked with integrating the sales data that you have locked up in your desktop Sales tracking application with no published spec to get the data out.
How did you even get your server on the network? I don't work in a hospital, just a run-of-the-mill business, but you wouldn't even get a rogue server on our corporate network without IT's permission first. If you found a way to get it on the network, then we'd track it down and confiscate it with management approval (management doesn't like to hear "HIPAA violation") and you might be facing sanctions for violating IT policy.
You wouldn't get that permission to host this server unless the server was sitting in our datacenter running our build of Windows or Linux, configured with our patch management system along with reviews of the configuration and especially any custom code. And yes, we'd have the root password and you would not. If you could guarantee that no HIPAA covered data would live on the server, you might get to have the server in your own DMZ, but IT would still need the root password so we can check it out or shut if down if it does anything suspicious (like become part of a botnet)
HIPAA ceritification is a long expensive process, and allowing self-managed departmental servers on the internal network is not HIPAA compliant. People think that IT just makes arbitrary rules that makes it hard to get real work done, but often those seemingly arbitrary rules are due to the seemingly arbitrary regulations that we have to follow.
I don't think staffing calendars are HIPAA protected data (as long as no patient data is revealed like "Tuesday - Dr Joe performs Joe Doe's sex change operation"), so why not just rent an Amazon EC2 instance and host it outside of the hospital network entirely? Though the IT department may still not allow it unless they have a way to audit the hosted date to ensure it doesn't fall under HIPAA protections.
As long as Comcast makes the cap clear in their advertisements, I don't care what the cap is, even if it's 1GB/month.
If you want unlimited data, you can get it elsewhere, but you've gotta pay. In many cities, you can get metro ethernet for around $3500/month for 100Mbit - and this is with true unlimited bandwidth, you can stream 100Mbit downstream *and* upstream all day long and they don't care.
99% of comcast customers are never going to hit their 250GB cap, and that's who they want to sell to. If you want to download 5 TB of data every month, they don't want you or your money.
I agree with Unity and Gnome3, but I don't find KDE 4.6 to be any less usable than Gnome 2 (especially after I switched the launcher to classic style). What about KDE do you find to be unusable?
I really wanted to like xfce, but ran into problems with xfce in Natty beta 1 where the window manager would hang occasionally. I'll try it again after Natty is out of beta.
But in shell that's exactly what you need for the next step of processing. In Perl you'd want to capture this in a variable, or split it on newlines to produce an array value, or something. That's... what, backticks? I am no Perl master.
He was debugging a disk space problem and wanted to see what was using the disk space. No need to put it into variables, no need to build an array, he wanted to see where his disk space was going. Sometimes even in perl, you don't want to do any complicated data manipulations, you just want to see the output.
Though admittedly, there'd be no reason to run his bash commands in Perl, but hey, he asked, so I provided.
He said this:
in bash:
du -x / | sort -n
Now do it in another language
Nothing about storing it in variables, nothing about building an in-memory data structure to calculate average disk usage, all he wanted to do was see the top folders in disk usage.
WTF are you talking about? HTTP requires an inbound connection from the client to the server, and the session is always controlled by the client, but the data can flow as strongly as desired in either direction. I routinely use an HTTPS-based file transfer tool that I wrote some 10 years ago to transfer files of any size, well into the GBs from the client to the server. (it's called POST and isn't particularly tough to do)
I think that's the problem - you use a tool that you wrote. Whenever that tool is available pretty much out of the box for nearly every operating system out there, then HTTP will replace FTP for file transfers.
FTP is a nightmare. It has only remained because A) no command line HTTP file transfer clients ever sprang up, and B) The OpenSSH folks didn't allow you to choose unencrypted data connections for "anonymous" and non sensitive data. Either of the two would blow FTP out of the water so fast it would make your head spin. FTP is just that horrible.
Why does OpenSSH need an unencrypted option (for sFTP?) to make it popular? What advantage is there to having unencrypted file transfers?
I don't think I've ever owned a PC that couldn't encrypt/decrypt at the speed of my WAN connection, and my fastest LAN transfer uses less than 15% of my CPU.
As recently as 5 years ago, I set up an FTP server for use by a number of financial firms to send orders into a specialized stock trading system
$100M worth of orders were FTPed into that system using PGP encrypted text files (with public key fingerprints verified via telephone to make sure that all of the keys were valid). IP filtering was used to give a small additional layer of security.
This system was set up in a short period of time (3 weeks from inception including writing the file spec and setting up the servers) and FTP was the one thing that all parties could count on having (client operating systems included Windows, various flavors of Unix, IBM VM, and I think one customer had Tandem Nonstop). Pushing files via HTTP PUT is possible, but it's a lot easier to script an FTP file transfer.
As a career Perl hacker, I sympathise, but you're enthusiasm is misplaced in this situation.
First, system() only gives you the return value of the command you executed, so you haven't got anything useful. Backticks would work, but they're horribly insecure if you're doing variable interpolation.
That's like saying that the original poster's shell command didn't give him anything useful since it just wrote the output to stdout (i.e. his terminal).
My perl script did the exact same thing since all system does is fork() and exec(), so the stdout/stdin are inherited by the child process(es). In this case, since there were shell metacharacters in the command line, my system() argument was actually passed onto the shell for execution, so in that respect you're right that I haven't gotten anything useful - I started a Perl interpreter to call the shell to run my shell command.
The previous poster's suggestion of using exec() was better than using system() since it avoids the overhead of doing a fork first since I don't really care to return to the Perl session.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they should just stop calling it "3D" - it is 2D with simulated 3D.
If it were truly 3D, there would be real depth of field that our eyes would have to focus to.
True 3D is years away (if it's coming at all -- holographic viewers?), but when it comes it should take care of everyone's 3D complaints. Well, except for the complaint that filmmakers make 3D a central element of the film rather than the storyline.
From TFA:
That’s more power than Russia uses, according to a new report about cloud-computing from Greenpeace.
Computer servers in data centers account for about 2% of global energy demand, growing about 12% a year, according to the group. The servers, Greenpeace said, can suck up as much power as 50,000 average U.S. homes.
So they are saying that servers use as much power as 50,000 US homes, which is more power than Russia uses.
Which implies that 50,000 USA households use more energy than 53 million Russian households, plus industrial and transportation use.
I know the USA has a high per-capita energy footprint, but that sounds a little ridiculous.
And in the Greenpeace report, they say:
It is challenging, however, to find data on the actual net impacts of
applied IT technologies due to information gaps and a multiplicity of
variables, as well as a lack of transparency around the lifecycle
impacts of IT’s own growing emissions and rising electricity use.
So they are saying that real numbers are hard to find, so instead they just made them up?
And finally, they say that companies need to not just reduce power, but need to use green sources like solar. They mention a 100MW datacenter, even if a company was willing to spend $2B creating a "green" solar plant to power their datacenter, would Greenpeace be ok with them flattening 2000 acres (3 squares miles) of land to build the solar power plant?
Or you just paint one-foot marks on the ground or put posts every one foot at the side of the road. Simple, low tech, and hard to get wrong.
This is only really a big deal if it takes up a significant portion of somebody's time. Can you imagine hiring 30 additional officers to replace the current one who's full time job is to review traffic cameras? The city would have to raise a couple hundred thousand dollars, probably via taxes. This seems sort of undesirable when compared to periodically calibrating a sensor specifically manufactured to measure the speed of a moving object.
If one person can issue a ticket in 30 seconds, I think the court costs alone that are added to the ticket will more than cover the cost of labor to review the tickets for accuracy before mailing.
The point of not relying solely on the radar is that radar is not always accurate, so the picture adds a layer of redundancy.
Tickets are not *supposed* to earn revenue, they are supposed to discourage bad behavior. Tickets revenue (except for a small administrative fee) should always go to the federal government -- then it will get rid of the incentive to write excessive tickets to generate revenue. Speed enforcement could go back to being a safety tool rather than a revenue tool.
Yeah, but there's no need to do that (and how reliable will it be in cases like when a truck is overtaking a car - who's centroid is being measured?) - radar is cheap and it works in general for identifying speeders.
The photograph requirement would be a sanity check by making sure that citations are reviewed by a live human being (and a police officer) before being issued.
Making a real live police offer do the calculations to prove that the car was speeding should help reduce illegitimate tickets by adding another layer of verification that's completely independent of the radar.
Oh, and it has the side effect of making these units more costly to operate and less likely to be used as a revenue tool.
which include timestamps of two photos.
The obvious response? They will start sending ONE timestamped photo.
Maybe this should be a new requirement for speed cameras -- they can use the radar/lidar to get an instantaneous speed if they want to, but they can only generate a ticket if the average speed as calculated from 2 photos is above the speed limit and the photo has to be reviewed and the ticket approved by a trained police officer (i.e. not by the private company that earns revenue from the ticket). Since the photos can be a fraction of a second apart and still give enough detail for accurate speed calculations (60 miles/hour is 88 feet/second (translation: 100km/hour = 27 meters/second)), it's not like a driver can do much to slow down between pictures.
I guess they could still fudge the timestamps, but it's a bit harder to do that stealthily.
News reports are spotty, but I imagine that the plant tripped the turbines offline after the tornado damaged the power distribution equipment.
When it's generating 1GW of power and suddenly the load goes down to 0GW, the turbines have to trip offline automatically and immediately to prevent damage.
This may have also triggered a shutdown of the nuclear reactor, and it may take days or longer to bring it online after an emergency shutdown.
Never heard of it - I checked Sourceforge, but can't find it. Can you send me the source tarball?
What has happened to slashdot!? I get modded down as a 'troll' because I rejected a closed source solution and asked for the source!?
... I can't easily rip a Blu-ray to my hard drive so I can watch it on the plane.
Umm, ever hear of AnyDVD HD?
Never heard of it - I checked Sourceforge, but can't find it. Can you send me the source tarball?
On my TV, (37" 720p/1080i) I don't notice any quality difference between Blu-ray and DVD.
Then you're blind. Consider having your vision checked, or your existing prescription adjusted.
Note that I didn't say that I deny that there's a quality difference, just that I don't notice it - I've done single-blind tests by someone playing a movie on DVD and the same movie in Blu Ray and I was unable to tell the difference in my normal viewing conditions (which is about 15 feet from the TV). Maybe it's my TV (a 4 year old Sony), but I don't think it's my eyes since I have 20/20 uncorrected vision.
Also, I can't tell the difference between 128kbs MP3 versus 192kbs or FLAC.
On my TV, (37" 720p/1080i) I don't notice any quality difference between Blu-ray and DVD.
But I do notice that the disks take a lot longer to load, trailers are harder to skip over (one blu-ray had nearly 15 minutes of trailers that I had to skip by fast-forwarding then when it hit the next one, I had to fast-forward again and repeat about 8 times), and I can't easily rip a Blu-ray to my hard drive so I can watch it on the plane.
Anyone with half a brain will setup a sequested unsecure network for all the wireless and personal shit, if allowed in first place. Which should be allowed for most case. Such server should be accesible that way.
And anyone with a full brain that works in a hospital IT department will not allow rogue servers to undermine their HIPAA compliance. Just because you say "Oh, it's just a scheduling app, there's no patient data there", doesn't mean that a doctor won't include some patient's name in his schedule, and if said patient finds it through a Google search, the HIPAA violation can end up costing the hospital many thousands of dollars.
WSUS / etc won't do much good for a Linux server...
He did say "and other tools", and that's exactly the point - if they can't do patch management for your particular flavor of Linux, they can't easily ensure that it is up to date with security patches.
however in today's world where many departments are capable of managing their own solutions that are not enterprise wide there should be a way for departments to operate outside of the IT domain like external networks
The problem is that departments don't often manage their solutions - they buy something that solves one need, install it and start using it and never touch it again. It never gets patches, backups are sporadic (if they happen at all), hardware is usually a desktop in the corner - no RAID disks.
And these stand along systems don't integrate into the enterprise Compliance and ERP systems so cause a lot of trouble later on when Legal needs to do a legal discovery and finds out that your TWiki server didn't obey the company document retention plan so they are unable to find the documents they need. Or the ERP team is tasked with integrating the sales data that you have locked up in your desktop Sales tracking application with no published spec to get the data out.
How did you even get your server on the network? I don't work in a hospital, just a run-of-the-mill business, but you wouldn't even get a rogue server on our corporate network without IT's permission first. If you found a way to get it on the network, then we'd track it down and confiscate it with management approval (management doesn't like to hear "HIPAA violation") and you might be facing sanctions for violating IT policy.
You wouldn't get that permission to host this server unless the server was sitting in our datacenter running our build of Windows or Linux, configured with our patch management system along with reviews of the configuration and especially any custom code. And yes, we'd have the root password and you would not. If you could guarantee that no HIPAA covered data would live on the server, you might get to have the server in your own DMZ, but IT would still need the root password so we can check it out or shut if down if it does anything suspicious (like become part of a botnet)
HIPAA ceritification is a long expensive process, and allowing self-managed departmental servers on the internal network is not HIPAA compliant. People think that IT just makes arbitrary rules that makes it hard to get real work done, but often those seemingly arbitrary rules are due to the seemingly arbitrary regulations that we have to follow.
I don't think staffing calendars are HIPAA protected data (as long as no patient data is revealed like "Tuesday - Dr Joe performs Joe Doe's sex change operation"), so why not just rent an Amazon EC2 instance and host it outside of the hospital network entirely? Though the IT department may still not allow it unless they have a way to audit the hosted date to ensure it doesn't fall under HIPAA protections.
As long as Comcast makes the cap clear in their advertisements, I don't care what the cap is, even if it's 1GB/month.
If you want unlimited data, you can get it elsewhere, but you've gotta pay. In many cities, you can get metro ethernet for around $3500/month for 100Mbit - and this is with true unlimited bandwidth, you can stream 100Mbit downstream *and* upstream all day long and they don't care.
99% of comcast customers are never going to hit their 250GB cap, and that's who they want to sell to. If you want to download 5 TB of data every month, they don't want you or your money.
Try again... I'm not taking a flight to the data center to plug in a usb flash drive.
Sounds like you need a different KVM, just mount your virtual USB drive and boot from it remotely.
I agree with Unity and Gnome3, but I don't find KDE 4.6 to be any less usable than Gnome 2 (especially after I switched the launcher to classic style). What about KDE do you find to be unusable?
I really wanted to like xfce, but ran into problems with xfce in Natty beta 1 where the window manager would hang occasionally. I'll try it again after Natty is out of beta.
That's pretty surprising, I only manged to use it for 10 minutes before I ditched it and moved to Kubuntu.
But in shell that's exactly what you need for the next step of processing. In Perl you'd want to capture this in a variable, or split it on newlines to produce an array value, or something. That's... what, backticks? I am no Perl master.
He was debugging a disk space problem and wanted to see what was using the disk space. No need to put it into variables, no need to build an array, he wanted to see where his disk space was going. Sometimes even in perl, you don't want to do any complicated data manipulations, you just want to see the output.
Though admittedly, there'd be no reason to run his bash commands in Perl, but hey, he asked, so I provided.
He said this:
in bash:
du -x / | sort -n
Now do it in another language
Nothing about storing it in variables, nothing about building an in-memory data structure to calculate average disk usage, all he wanted to do was see the top folders in disk usage.
Sadly HTTP is mostly one way
WTF are you talking about? HTTP requires an inbound connection from the client to the server, and the session is always controlled by the client, but the data can flow as strongly as desired in either direction. I routinely use an HTTPS-based file transfer tool that I wrote some 10 years ago to transfer files of any size, well into the GBs from the client to the server. (it's called POST and isn't particularly tough to do)
I think that's the problem - you use a tool that you wrote. Whenever that tool is available pretty much out of the box for nearly every operating system out there, then HTTP will replace FTP for file transfers.
FTP is a nightmare. It has only remained because A) no command line HTTP file transfer clients ever sprang up, and B) The OpenSSH folks didn't allow you to choose unencrypted data connections for "anonymous" and non sensitive data. Either of the two would blow FTP out of the water so fast it would make your head spin. FTP is just that horrible.
Why does OpenSSH need an unencrypted option (for sFTP?) to make it popular? What advantage is there to having unencrypted file transfers?
I don't think I've ever owned a PC that couldn't encrypt/decrypt at the speed of my WAN connection, and my fastest LAN transfer uses less than 15% of my CPU.
Yes please any good tips here guys? I'm a CLI n00b but I need to connect to servers a lot doing web design. There must be a better wayyyyy.
There's no reason why you *have* to use a CLI to use FTP. Try Filezilla - it will do FTP, SFTP and FTPS.
As recently as 5 years ago, I set up an FTP server for use by a number of financial firms to send orders into a specialized stock trading system
$100M worth of orders were FTPed into that system using PGP encrypted text files (with public key fingerprints verified via telephone to make sure that all of the keys were valid). IP filtering was used to give a small additional layer of security.
This system was set up in a short period of time (3 weeks from inception including writing the file spec and setting up the servers) and FTP was the one thing that all parties could count on having (client operating systems included Windows, various flavors of Unix, IBM VM, and I think one customer had Tandem Nonstop). Pushing files via HTTP PUT is possible, but it's a lot easier to script an FTP file transfer.
It's trivial to do it in perl!
#!/usr/bin/perl
system("du -x / | sort -n");
As a career Perl hacker, I sympathise, but you're enthusiasm is misplaced in this situation.
First, system() only gives you the return value of the command you executed, so you haven't got anything useful. Backticks would work, but they're horribly insecure if you're doing variable interpolation.
That's like saying that the original poster's shell command didn't give him anything useful since it just wrote the output to stdout (i.e. his terminal).
My perl script did the exact same thing since all system does is fork() and exec(), so the stdout/stdin are inherited by the child process(es). In this case, since there were shell metacharacters in the command line, my system() argument was actually passed onto the shell for execution, so in that respect you're right that I haven't gotten anything useful - I started a Perl interpreter to call the shell to run my shell command.
The previous poster's suggestion of using exec() was better than using system() since it avoids the overhead of doing a fork first since I don't really care to return to the Perl session.