> I ended up building him a a box (XP2400+, 512MB DDR333, 40GB HD, USB2, 6.1 > sound, geforceFX 5200, dvd, cdrw, etc) for just over $400
Thats sorta the point. Your dad did NOT buy that system for $400. He had it BUILT for $400 (Yes, if he had the know-how, he could also build it himself for $400.. symantics)
Apple doesnt WANT people building macs.
While its also true you can even go out and BUY a PC such as you described for much much less than a Mac, the price will probably be closer to double the above depending on what all came with it.
So its not $400 compared to $1200, its more like $800 compared to $1200 which is a whole 1/3rd difference in price. Still a difference, but not quite as big as you made it out to be:)
But what if something that exists right now has a natural mutation, and it, instead of these GM fish, are inserted into your situation described above. And then these naturally occouring creatures do everything you attributed to the GM creature in your post.
The exact same thing!
So using your logic, nature may distroy us! We better stop it!
> In the future, maybe we can have tigers that get no bigger than house cats, or > something cool like that.
Im not sure if that was intended to be funny or not, but from the next item about "Or photosynthetic pets that you don't have to feed!" I am going to assume you were serious...
Housecats ARE the result of us domesticating the feline's that nature provided.. I can't quite remember if they are from lions or tigers, but i believe it was from tigers.
Granted theres tons of other genes that got mixed in there too due to our crude methods, but still, the idea is the same.
Most people seem to believe that if these 'engineered' creatures get out, it would be doom somehow.
The only difference between 'genetically engineered' and not that is if WE do it intentionally or nature does it at random.
Because of the fact nature can introduce a new random change in genes to create something that does exist, is that reason to stop nature? Not at all.
I aggree that if these things got out there would be changes. But no more than any other evolutionary change. Both are equally unpredictable.
If this was to happen at random in nature, it would be amazing and wonderful, but if we caused it due to a desire, its evil bad and distructive, for the same exact reason, because we (Humans) dont know what it will do.
Why is the reaction different?
Lets just pretend for a second here that we can control whatever is needed to cause humans to grow gills. Granted that type of thing is exponentially complex, and it has almost no chances of happening at random, or really of us creating that atleast for a long long time.. but stick with this for a sec.
Now, if we could do that to ourselfs, the same 'oh no its bad!' reaction would happen. But if it was a natural mutation.. for the same thing.. What then? Would it be bad then too? Would it be ok? Why?
So lets look at small changes. GM grains. They are evil because, why again? They compete with life like everything else and happen to be better than the things they kill off?
What about if we could genetically change a human to not be allergic to something (Say, milk) is that as equally as bad if these changed humans get out and reproduce?
Right now we have both types of humans, the 'older' strains that are allergic to cows milk, and the 'newer' strain that isnt and can drink it. Its a small gene change but it is no different if we do it or it 'just happens'.
A fish is a larger change. But its the same example, whats the differce if it just naturally happened? And who are we to say it never would?
Maybe thats just a far out way of thinking, but no one that reacts aginst genetic engineering can explain to me (or anyone it seems) WHY its so bad?
As just one more lifeform on this planet that came into being due to natures random gene changes, I cant see why ANY human is aginst changing genes, because your basically aginst your own existance.
And if it really is nothing more than a difference between 'nature did it at random' and 'we caused it ourself' then wearing glasses, getting braces, having a tooth pulled, having any medial operation, all of those are non natural changes to our design that you should be aginst too (Yet rarely are, never in my experence with others aginst genetic research so far.)
I'm not looking to change anyones mind, I'm looking for someone to try and change mine, in a way that makes sense. Lil help?
> I'm a bit concerned about the way the cards are mounted.
From the demo I saw about a year ago, the cards mount as-is and get power from the standard PCI bus, but that is all. Then there is a small connector on the edge of the card oposit from the back panel (Some disk cards have LED header pins here, some cards have power connectors here where a floppy power jack like USB and FW cards)
This is where the serial PCI-X will connect, and have a thin cable connecting to whereever on the mobo it will go.
Later, cases can be redesigned to take advantage of better mounting options.
Also, one of the ideas suggested at the time, similar to how we can use empty slots now to hang panels for sound and serial and whatnot, and they just have cables that connect to onboard hardware, PCI-X cards can be made to do the same and not 'plug in' to the PCI bus at all.
Since power can be supplied elsewhere, the edge of the card that plugs into the current PCI slot can even just be PCboard/plastic with no traces, just used to hold it stable.
Additionally, since PCI-X cables can be longer, you can have an external enclosure for your cards and run the cable(s) over to it that way. At that point whatever redesign is needed can be tested and a standard aggreed upon before ATX cases are redesigned to do the same internally.
> What PCI device are you using that is bandwidth limited & will benefit > from a faster PCI bus?
Gigabit ethernet, soon 10gbit ethernet.. multiple firewire buses, or even one firewire 800 bus.. Multiple high speed graphics cards.. Multiple SCSI or fiberchannel buses..
> I don't have anything.
> I really have nothing that will gain any benefit.
Well thank you for deciding that what you need is exactly what everyone else needs and they should be happy with that:P
> Is it what the manufacturers think we want? The traditional Hard Drive is still > the main componant in the PC slowing everything down
That statement is false. It is indeed the bus that is the slowest bottleneck at the moment.
Go out and get a firewire controller. Right there you have almost 3 times the bandwidth of a SCSI controller, and 4 times the bandwidth of an ata100 IDE controller.
If you want full disk IO bandwidth, you can only use ONE ide disk per bus. For scsi its actually the same. Technically you can fit 1.6 disks on a bus, but since we are talking about not sharing bandwidth, you can only put one disk on it, because there is not enough bandwidth left over to speak to a 2nd disk at full speed. Yet people commonly throw 14 disks on a scsi chain. Firewire can support 4 disks at full speed, so using the same math one can throw 52 disks on the bus and be equal with a 160mbit scsi bus.
I have 4 such firewire buses on my system.
PCI is what is limiting me from using ONE of them to its fullest, let alone all 4.
And this is firewire 400.. 800 is out as well, which even ONE card can saturate a PCI bus even with no other devices on the PCI bus at the same time.
Standard PCI also cant fully use Gigabit ethernet to its potential, let alone multiple cards like we do with 100mbit ethernet today.
All of the above apps will use over 100% of the PCI bus *with just one of them in use!*
So, now lets say you want 4 firewire 800 bus's, 2 IDE buses, 2 gigabit ethernet cards.. wow you have just exceeded your PCI bus's capabilitys by over 6 times!
Yes, it is safe to say PCI is our main problem right now.
Also as a nit pick > and increase noise and heat levels.
manufacturers do this? Concidering the only parts in my systemsthat make ANY noise (outside of sound hardware of course) are fans. Nothing else in the computer really makes alot of noise. Disks make some sound yes, but very little. And they are definatly drowned out by the sound of the fans. I cant think of any other devices in my computers that DO make noise except for fans and drives with moving parts now that i think about it.
But comparing a fan design flaw with 'CPU RAM and BUS' technology is like bitching about the color of paint on a car and claiming that effects performance and thus is the car manufacturers problem.
Granted its a pain that parts keep getting faster at the expence of generating more heat, but thats a law of physics so really hard to work with there:) Ideally we need a new cooling system for PCs in general to replace the fan.
Fortunatly PCI express will be a dropin replacement for PCI. Only the electrical connection will actually change, the 'language' spoken over it will be no different than todays PCI, this way drivers will not need changed or upgraded to support the PCI-X version of the hardware.
Its just like how serial ATA is replacing our current ATA. The standard they use to speak is not changing, only the electrical interface.
As a matter of fact, adding DRM (To PCI-X *OR* PCI) would indeed require driver changes, so you could easily tell and avoid that hardware just like you do right now.
Thinking PCI-X is the path to DRM is like refusing to upgrade to a 64 bit CPU because it will be more capable of running DRM as well. Of course both technologys can be used for DRM, but so can the 32 bit CPUs and 32 bit 33mhz PCI buses we have right now.
> Don't you realize that you are pissing off customers such as myself!
No they arnt. You said so yourself!
> Screw the G5; I'm buying a dual opteron!
See? You are not a customer.
Besides, if you believe its perfectly ok for you to make demands of apple such as "I want you to do things with your stuff that *I* want even if you dont want to" then its only fair they do the same in return to you. So while you think apple should be forced to hand over cheap hardware, what if they felt you should be just as forced to hand over 4-5x the cash the rest of us would pay for the same mac?
Dont like that idea? They will just do what you are doing and take someone elses money because "DAMN you expecting to be able to do with your money as you see fit!"
But im sure you will bitch and moan that "Hey, thats the same thing! Its not fair!" somehow.
I got that too at first, zonealarm was blocking the outgoing connection. Maybe its possible they are blocking that port for outbound connections at work?
PS. If you simply uninstall zone alarm, it doesnt remove any of its firewall rules, only the application that asks if you want to let a program access the internet. Took me a while to make the connection of 'random programs not working' to those are the ones I didnt allow because i wanted to be asked (ahem, IE)
UDP doesnt need 'killed' since there is no connection at any time to be killed. Each UDP packet is seperate.
Just block the incoming UDP packets. The stream will just stop.
If you just block a TCP connecting _from being established_, this rule will not effect currently established connections, and that is what this tool is for.
As another poster already pointed out, usually insurance is not required by law in almost all states (possibly every one of them, im not sure)
you just need to prove financial responsibility
In Ohio, you can get a bond for $10,000 and use this as proof of financial responsibility to both the officer pulling you over, and a judge if need be.
This amount is to cover your liability to the Other person if you are at fault.
In a way, this is a cheaper option (How many years would it take to pay 10 grand to your insurance company... and how many years do you plan to drive after that time?)
However insurance does give you other options that you may want. One of which is they can provide coverage for you. To do that on your own you would need more than one bond of $10k.
You are also paying the insurance company for their lawyers. If this is a good deal or not is up to you of course:)
But if you have the money, and can afford to replace your own car, pay your own possible medical bills, and pay for your own lawyer, you should look into what the bond amount in your state is. Then you can finally tell the insurance company where they can shove it:)
(snip) You dont have proof we landed on the moon (/snip)
Well, we do have proof that we have sent craft to the moon. There is a flag on a pole that you can see with a powerful telescope, controlled by the same places that give us the wonders of technology we can see the outcome of on earth.
There are also mirrors on the moon which you can use to reflect lasers back (Granted the hardware to do this is pricy, but 'anyone' can do it)
Now, this just proves we have sent things up into space that ended up on the moon. Doesnt prove it was a person.
But using your basic logic, if we have the technology to send a craft to the moon that can plant a flag and posistion mirrors, and return with samples from the moon, that exact same technology could very well hold a person inside as well.
Its sorta like saying people dont fly fighter jets because you cant see the people when the planes fly overhead. While that is logically true, if you look at a jet, there IS room for a person in there, so its not at all improbable or impossible.
But there is just no convincing some people i guess:)
> I cannot believe for one second that the domain - even over the course of 6 > years - would've made even close to $65m! Maybe close to $1m, but even that's > probably pushing it! This is rediculous.
Actually that is what he pointed out (proved?) in court. sex.com would bring in $500,000 per MONTH.
So he made 1 mil per 2 months, or 6 mil per year.
Assuming of course that number didnt decrease over the years (which we know it would, but according to the RIAA/MPAA it would double each year, and the courts seem to believe that BS, so... assuming its $500,000 for all 6 years afterwards) it works out to 36 million dollars over the 6 years.
Nomrally if you can prove bad faith, you can be rewarded 3x for impunitive damages. He is basically trying to get twice, not three times, the damages. (Ok, i dont know if thats what hes asking for, or what the lawyers are just trying for.. but you know what i mean)
He is being ripped off basically, and should get around $108 million, not $65 million, assuming he wins.
> Ahh grasshopper I think you need to drink from the well of how the real telcom > industry works as far as pricing.
Concidering I am a network engineer for a tier 1 provider in the US, i think i am pretty qualified to tell you how we charge people...
The loop charge Never changes on how much bandwidth you use. If you are under the impression it does, you need to move out of that city and away from that phone company.
The loop is the pipe. you dont pay based on bandwidth because you are paying for the WHOLE pipe. If i get a T1 from me to you, as far as the phone company is concerned, we can use 100% of that bandwidth 24/7, as that is exactly what one of us is paying for.
Bandwidth charge (Actually called port charge) is what the ISP says. While you CAN get a t1 that is burstable and you pay very little until you hit a threshhold, then are charged per [some-unit]bytes, that is not the way any ISP or datacenter buys bandwidth (Or atleast not the ones that plan to stay in business)
In the above example, i can (if i am the isp) charge you however i want for that data going over the pipe. I can charge you $100/mo for 128kbps sustained and if you go over its $10/meg or something... Or i can just say $2000/month and you get 1.54mbit sustained.
As an ISP, assuming there is no peer agreement with the other end of the link, the latter is the type of package you get.
Then your last comment about all of SCO's services being lumped into one pipe.. so it can be filled and waste resources used by other services... that is Exactly what i said in my post.
So, your points are wrong, wrong, and then agree with me (in that order.) And I am the grasshopper?:)
> Both terms "Apple" and "Macintosh" were generic years before computer era
Thats why trademarks are only good for one small field. You proved your own point wrong in the same line.
Apple has a trademark on macintosh when used in reference to computers. Before computers existed, NOBODY used apple to refer to computers!
Is apple sueing anyone for using the term apple to describe something that isnt a computer? Go make something that isnt a computer and name it apple, wont even need to add stars to the name to not get sued.
Unix is in my opinion pretty generic, but what the hey.
Only UNIX is trademarked. All apple has to do is not make all four letters caps whenever they use the word unix, and they are not infringing. Easy fix for now and the future.
As for the past, if they publicly appologized and claimed it was an honest mistake, they did not realize they used the term in a trademarked way, and had it changed on their pages and ads and whatnot Very fast (IE any day now), a judge may even let them off without having to pay damages for the time they have been using UNIX on their site.
> make their bandwidth spike for weeks on end and perhaps we'll drive them into > slashdotting-induced bankruptcy
Unfortunatly for this idea, sco (as well as most IT companys) host their servers on their own network in their own building. This means they get internet connections like T1's and T3's
At this point you are usually not charged for bandwidth. Its $2000/month for the ISP fee on a T1, and you can use that T1 100% 24/7 (man thats alot of numbers in a row) and pay the same.
Granted filling their pipes and making their network useless (In and out) is still very amusing though! But it wont cost them a penny more most likely:(
But wha!? Where have you been living the past 10 years??
Look at all the laws bought by companys...
Copyright, DMCA, all drug laws, any law that involves the internet (generally having the word 'cyber' in it) that is obviously different from its real world counter-part law, any/all deregulation laws... The list goes on and on.
Then on top of it, there are three types of lawsuits all handled differently. Person vs person. Company vs person. and Company vs company. They are all handled Very differently in reality. Person vs person = Generally this is the only way our legal system works as it was intended. Company vs Company = whichever has the largest legal team wins. Company vs person = company always wins.
You dont think this wasnt encouraged and backed by companys to keep this aragement?
Copyright has been changed by companys (one company, disney, mainly) so a company doesnt have to pay for copyright and can keep their works forever.
Drug laws were created purely for racist segragation (The white christian government didnt like the fact other countrys workers used a standard drug, wanted those workers gone to make more jobs for said white christian workers, and so made outlaws of the group by making the comon drug of the time illegal) They are currently enforced because, for example, if weed was legal, the entire oil business would pretty much go away, as hemp oils burn over 50% cleaner and are way over 10 times cheaper to produce, plus will never go away as the case with oils refined from ore. (Just one example, there are many others)
All the laws that already have real world counterparts but because it now involves the internet its somehow different. If I stole a CD from a store, i get a fine, and on my 2nd offence MAYBE a day or two of jail time. If i download the same data from the internet, its somehow changed into 5 years of prison time and $10,000 per song.
Deregulation laws. Yes, basically in english they all read identical: "If you can make a better product than I do, cheaper, we will sue you for preventing us from making money" (See airlines, phone company, sony, etc)
Any law that only helps a small minority while at the same time hurting the entire majority is most likely made by a company and bought.
That pretty much describes all of the laws passed in the past few years... Sad but true *shrug*
So i had an idea, think of it as invensting in our futures.
Anyone out there happen to have about 2+ million dollars sitting doing nothing? Wanna not spend a dime of that, and cause lots of grief for the **AA's?
So heres what you do.. Invest that huge chunk of cash in a bank, even a savings account will give enough interest on that to basically pay someone every month a 22k/year salary.
Now find a lawyer fresh out of school whos pissed at the **AA's as much as we are.
Tell said lawyer "I will pay you a salary of 22k/year if you make your full time job to be finding reasons to press charges aginst the RIAA/MPAA."
The goal is mainly to harass, and leech resources from the **AA legal department wasting time with this. If the public is the one starting the charges, there are very good chances of winning and both leeching money back out of the **AA's as well as getting laws made/removed/fixed/changed.
If enough people would do this.. Just 10 in the country.. It would be comparible to a decent sized companys legal firm, which are exactly who the **AA's are trying to avoid.
Or if all 10 of these people would pool their interest, they possibly COULD pay for a legal firm, so the lawyers can work together much the same way as a companys legal board would.
You wont lose any of your capital. The charges can be 'Public vs RIAA' if you dont want your name involved. Some fresh new lawyers are getting a pretty sweet deal, granted not as sweet as im sure it could be, but it would also give that warm fuzzy feeling i cant imagine lawyers get all too often anymore (Sorry, cheap jab)
Once we put the public voice on the offence, the **AA's will have a much harder time with it while being on the defensive.
> So what happens when a terrorist with a bomb explodes the plane over a city as > it is landing or taking off.
And how does the no fly list we have now protect aginst that?
Fact of the matter is, you are proven wrong simply because 90% of us on slashdot can board a plane and get by the no fly list, and any one of us can blow up a plane if we chose to.
Adding the protective wall is additional protection, not total protection.
Comdoms CAN break, but statistically they dont all that often. Does this mean becuase nothing at all can be 100% effective at stopping aids, one shouldnt bother using anything? (Appologies for this particular example, but it really works well in this case)
Same logic applys to the wall to protect pilots. It cant stop 100% of all possible ways to distroy the plane, but it protects aginst quite a large number of them. It cant hurt and can only help. If it cant hurt, may as well do it, as every little bit helps.
> Something you have to wonder is if they are going to patent this > information
Thats the nice thing about being a University, they dont need to patent, they just publish. Why pay for a patent if its suppost to be open? When you publish, you can always prove prior art to any future patents a jerk would try to make to steal the technology. And thats all that needs to be protected if it is to be open and public knowledge.
I just hope having it open instead of using it to make huge profits is exactly what they have on their minds.
Slashdot Mirror
> I ended up building him a a box (XP2400+, 512MB DDR333, 40GB HD, USB2, 6.1
:)
> sound, geforceFX 5200, dvd, cdrw, etc) for just over $400
Thats sorta the point.
Your dad did NOT buy that system for $400.
He had it BUILT for $400
(Yes, if he had the know-how, he could also build it himself for $400.. symantics)
Apple doesnt WANT people building macs.
While its also true you can even go out and BUY a PC such as you described for much much less than a Mac, the price will probably be closer to double the above depending on what all came with it.
So its not $400 compared to $1200, its more like $800 compared to $1200 which is a whole 1/3rd difference in price.
Still a difference, but not quite as big as you made it out to be
> Non-Profit Business. RTFA, Ass
Key word is business, not profit or non-profit
He is using it as a business, so its comercial.
commercial
1.
1. Of or relating to commerce: a commercial loan; a commercial attaché.
2. Engaged in commerce: a commercial trucker.
3. Involved in work that is intended for the mass market: a commercial artist.
2. Of, relating to, or being goods, often unrefined, produced and distributed in large quantities for use by industry.
3. Having profit as a chief aim: a commercial book, not a scholarly tome.
4. Sponsored by an advertiser or supported by advertising: commercial television.
Sounds like he fits the definition to me.
But what if something that exists right now has a natural mutation, and it, instead of these GM fish, are inserted into your situation described above.
And then these naturally occouring creatures do everything you attributed to the GM creature in your post.
The exact same thing!
So using your logic, nature may distroy us! We better stop it!
> In the future, maybe we can have tigers that get no bigger than house cats, or
> something cool like that.
Im not sure if that was intended to be funny or not, but from the next item about "Or photosynthetic pets that you don't have to feed!" I am going to assume you were serious...
Housecats ARE the result of us domesticating the feline's that nature provided..
I can't quite remember if they are from lions or tigers, but i believe it was from tigers.
Granted theres tons of other genes that got mixed in there too due to our crude methods, but still, the idea is the same.
So, this is an honest question here.
Most people seem to believe that if these 'engineered' creatures get out, it would be doom somehow.
The only difference between 'genetically engineered' and not that is if WE do it intentionally or nature does it at random.
Because of the fact nature can introduce a new random change in genes to create something that does exist, is that reason to stop nature?
Not at all.
I aggree that if these things got out there would be changes. But no more than any other evolutionary change. Both are equally unpredictable.
If this was to happen at random in nature, it would be amazing and wonderful, but if we caused it due to a desire, its evil bad and distructive, for the same exact reason, because we (Humans) dont know what it will do.
Why is the reaction different?
Lets just pretend for a second here that we can control whatever is needed to cause humans to grow gills. Granted that type of thing is exponentially complex, and it has almost no chances of happening at random, or really of us creating that atleast for a long long time.. but stick with this for a sec.
Now, if we could do that to ourselfs, the same 'oh no its bad!' reaction would happen.
But if it was a natural mutation.. for the same thing.. What then?
Would it be bad then too?
Would it be ok?
Why?
So lets look at small changes.
GM grains. They are evil because, why again? They compete with life like everything else and happen to be better than the things they kill off?
What about if we could genetically change a human to not be allergic to something (Say, milk) is that as equally as bad if these changed humans get out and reproduce?
Right now we have both types of humans, the 'older' strains that are allergic to cows milk, and the 'newer' strain that isnt and can drink it.
Its a small gene change but it is no different if we do it or it 'just happens'.
A fish is a larger change. But its the same example, whats the differce if it just naturally happened? And who are we to say it never would?
Maybe thats just a far out way of thinking, but no one that reacts aginst genetic engineering can explain to me (or anyone it seems) WHY its so bad?
As just one more lifeform on this planet that came into being due to natures random gene changes, I cant see why ANY human is aginst changing genes, because your basically aginst your own existance.
And if it really is nothing more than a difference between 'nature did it at random' and 'we caused it ourself' then wearing glasses, getting braces, having a tooth pulled, having any medial operation, all of those are non natural changes to our design that you should be aginst too (Yet rarely are, never in my experence with others aginst genetic research so far.)
I'm not looking to change anyones mind, I'm looking for someone to try and change mine, in a way that makes sense.
Lil help?
> I'm a bit concerned about the way the cards are mounted.
From the demo I saw about a year ago, the cards mount as-is and get power from the standard PCI bus, but that is all.
Then there is a small connector on the edge of the card oposit from the back panel (Some disk cards have LED header pins here, some cards have power connectors here where a floppy power jack like USB and FW cards)
This is where the serial PCI-X will connect, and have a thin cable connecting to whereever on the mobo it will go.
Later, cases can be redesigned to take advantage of better mounting options.
Also, one of the ideas suggested at the time, similar to how we can use empty slots now to hang panels for sound and serial and whatnot, and they just have cables that connect to onboard hardware, PCI-X cards can be made to do the same and not 'plug in' to the PCI bus at all.
Since power can be supplied elsewhere, the edge of the card that plugs into the current PCI slot can even just be PCboard/plastic with no traces, just used to hold it stable.
Additionally, since PCI-X cables can be longer, you can have an external enclosure for your cards and run the cable(s) over to it that way.
At that point whatever redesign is needed can be tested and a standard aggreed upon before ATX cases are redesigned to do the same internally.
> What PCI device are you using that is bandwidth limited & will benefit
:P
> from a faster PCI bus?
Gigabit ethernet, soon 10gbit ethernet..
multiple firewire buses, or even one firewire 800 bus..
Multiple high speed graphics cards..
Multiple SCSI or fiberchannel buses..
> I don't have anything.
> I really have nothing that will gain any benefit.
Well thank you for deciding that what you need is exactly what everyone else needs and they should be happy with that
> Is it what the manufacturers think we want? The traditional Hard Drive is still
:)
> the main componant in the PC slowing everything down
That statement is false.
It is indeed the bus that is the slowest bottleneck at the moment.
Go out and get a firewire controller.
Right there you have almost 3 times the bandwidth of a SCSI controller, and 4 times the bandwidth of an ata100 IDE controller.
If you want full disk IO bandwidth, you can only use ONE ide disk per bus. For scsi its actually the same. Technically you can fit 1.6 disks on a bus, but since we are talking about not sharing bandwidth, you can only put one disk on it, because there is not enough bandwidth left over to speak to a 2nd disk at full speed. Yet people commonly throw 14 disks on a scsi chain.
Firewire can support 4 disks at full speed, so using the same math one can throw 52 disks on the bus and be equal with a 160mbit scsi bus.
I have 4 such firewire buses on my system.
PCI is what is limiting me from using ONE of them to its fullest, let alone all 4.
And this is firewire 400.. 800 is out as well, which even ONE card can saturate a PCI bus even with no other devices on the PCI bus at the same time.
Standard PCI also cant fully use Gigabit ethernet to its potential, let alone multiple cards like we do with 100mbit ethernet today.
All of the above apps will use over 100% of the PCI bus *with just one of them in use!*
So, now lets say you want 4 firewire 800 bus's, 2 IDE buses, 2 gigabit ethernet cards.. wow you have just exceeded your PCI bus's capabilitys by over 6 times!
Yes, it is safe to say PCI is our main problem right now.
Also as a nit pick
> and increase noise and heat levels.
manufacturers do this? Concidering the only parts in my systemsthat make ANY noise (outside of sound hardware of course) are fans.
Nothing else in the computer really makes alot of noise.
Disks make some sound yes, but very little. And they are definatly drowned out by the sound of the fans. I cant think of any other devices in my computers that DO make noise except for fans and drives with moving parts now that i think about it.
But comparing a fan design flaw with 'CPU RAM and BUS' technology is like bitching about the color of paint on a car and claiming that effects performance and thus is the car manufacturers problem.
Granted its a pain that parts keep getting faster at the expence of generating more heat, but thats a law of physics so really hard to work with there
Ideally we need a new cooling system for PCs in general to replace the fan.
Fortunatly PCI express will be a dropin replacement for PCI.
Only the electrical connection will actually change, the 'language' spoken over it will be no different than todays PCI, this way drivers will not need changed or upgraded to support the PCI-X version of the hardware.
Its just like how serial ATA is replacing our current ATA.
The standard they use to speak is not changing, only the electrical interface.
As a matter of fact, adding DRM (To PCI-X *OR* PCI) would indeed require driver changes, so you could easily tell and avoid that hardware just like you do right now.
Thinking PCI-X is the path to DRM is like refusing to upgrade to a 64 bit CPU because it will be more capable of running DRM as well.
Of course both technologys can be used for DRM, but so can the 32 bit CPUs and 32 bit 33mhz PCI buses we have right now.
> what are the practicle applications for this research?
:)
> How will it benifit mankind?
Same way as the discovery and learning about the electron and the proton and the photon and the quark...
How all of those benifited mankind I'll leave for you to look into
> I believe in the right to anonymity, not the right to tell everyone you're me!
:(
Thats why all emails need to be cryptographically signed.
Then you dont accept unsigned emails into your mail server.
Unfortunatly this goes aginst the business modals of most ISPs and companys like MS, so it will never be allowed to happen
> Don't you realize that you are pissing off customers such as myself!
No they arnt. You said so yourself!
> Screw the G5; I'm buying a dual opteron!
See? You are not a customer.
Besides, if you believe its perfectly ok for you to make demands of apple such as "I want you to do things with your stuff that *I* want even if you dont want to" then its only fair they do the same in return to you. So while you think apple should be forced to hand over cheap hardware, what if they felt you should be just as forced to hand over 4-5x the cash the rest of us would pay for the same mac?
Dont like that idea? They will just do what you are doing and take someone elses money because "DAMN you expecting to be able to do with your money as you see fit!"
But im sure you will bitch and moan that "Hey, thats the same thing! Its not fair!" somehow.
I got that too at first, zonealarm was blocking the outgoing connection.
Maybe its possible they are blocking that port for outbound connections at work?
PS. If you simply uninstall zone alarm, it doesnt remove any of its firewall rules, only the application that asks if you want to let a program access the internet. Took me a while to make the connection of 'random programs not working' to those are the ones I didnt allow because i wanted to be asked (ahem, IE)
UDP doesnt need 'killed' since there is no connection at any time to be killed.
Each UDP packet is seperate.
Just block the incoming UDP packets. The stream will just stop.
If you just block a TCP connecting _from being established_, this rule will not effect currently established connections, and that is what this tool is for.
As another poster already pointed out, usually insurance is not required by law in almost all states (possibly every one of them, im not sure)
:)
:)
you just need to prove financial responsibility
In Ohio, you can get a bond for $10,000 and use this as proof of financial responsibility to both the officer pulling you over, and a judge if need be.
This amount is to cover your liability to the Other person if you are at fault.
In a way, this is a cheaper option (How many years would it take to pay 10 grand to your insurance company... and how many years do you plan to drive after that time?)
However insurance does give you other options that you may want.
One of which is they can provide coverage for you.
To do that on your own you would need more than one bond of $10k.
You are also paying the insurance company for their lawyers. If this is a good deal or not is up to you of course
But if you have the money, and can afford to replace your own car, pay your own possible medical bills, and pay for your own lawyer, you should look into what the bond amount in your state is. Then you can finally tell the insurance company where they can shove it
(snip) You dont have proof we landed on the moon (/snip)
:)
Well, we do have proof that we have sent craft to the moon.
There is a flag on a pole that you can see with a powerful telescope, controlled by the same places that give us the wonders of technology we can see the outcome of on earth.
There are also mirrors on the moon which you can use to reflect lasers back (Granted the hardware to do this is pricy, but 'anyone' can do it)
Now, this just proves we have sent things up into space that ended up on the moon.
Doesnt prove it was a person.
But using your basic logic, if we have the technology to send a craft to the moon that can plant a flag and posistion mirrors, and return with samples from the moon, that exact same technology could very well hold a person inside as well.
Its sorta like saying people dont fly fighter jets because you cant see the people when the planes fly overhead.
While that is logically true, if you look at a jet, there IS room for a person in there, so its not at all improbable or impossible.
But there is just no convincing some people i guess
> I cannot believe for one second that the domain - even over the course of 6
> years - would've made even close to $65m! Maybe close to $1m, but even that's
> probably pushing it! This is rediculous.
Actually that is what he pointed out (proved?) in court.
sex.com would bring in $500,000 per MONTH.
So he made 1 mil per 2 months, or 6 mil per year.
Assuming of course that number didnt decrease over the years (which we know it would, but according to the RIAA/MPAA it would double each year, and the courts seem to believe that BS, so... assuming its $500,000 for all 6 years afterwards) it works out to 36 million dollars over the 6 years.
Nomrally if you can prove bad faith, you can be rewarded 3x for impunitive damages. He is basically trying to get twice, not three times, the damages.
(Ok, i dont know if thats what hes asking for, or what the lawyers are just trying for.. but you know what i mean)
He is being ripped off basically, and should get around $108 million, not $65 million, assuming he wins.
> Ahh grasshopper I think you need to drink from the well of how the real telcom
/month and you get 1.54mbit sustained.
:)
> industry works as far as pricing.
Concidering I am a network engineer for a tier 1 provider in the US, i think i am pretty qualified to tell you how we charge people...
The loop charge Never changes on how much bandwidth you use.
If you are under the impression it does, you need to move out of that city and away from that phone company.
The loop is the pipe. you dont pay based on bandwidth because you are paying for the WHOLE pipe.
If i get a T1 from me to you, as far as the phone company is concerned, we can use 100% of that bandwidth 24/7, as that is exactly what one of us is paying for.
Bandwidth charge (Actually called port charge) is what the ISP says.
While you CAN get a t1 that is burstable and you pay very little until you hit a threshhold, then are charged per [some-unit]bytes, that is not the way any ISP or datacenter buys bandwidth (Or atleast not the ones that plan to stay in business)
In the above example, i can (if i am the isp) charge you however i want for that data going over the pipe.
I can charge you $100/mo for 128kbps sustained and if you go over its $10/meg or something... Or i can just say $2000
As an ISP, assuming there is no peer agreement with the other end of the link, the latter is the type of package you get.
Then your last comment about all of SCO's services being lumped into one pipe.. so it can be filled and waste resources used by other services...
that is Exactly what i said in my post.
So, your points are wrong, wrong, and then agree with me (in that order.)
And I am the grasshopper?
> Both terms "Apple" and "Macintosh" were generic years before computer era
Thats why trademarks are only good for one small field.
You proved your own point wrong in the same line.
Apple has a trademark on macintosh when used in reference to computers.
Before computers existed, NOBODY used apple to refer to computers!
Is apple sueing anyone for using the term apple to describe something that isnt a computer?
Go make something that isnt a computer and name it apple, wont even need to add stars to the name to not get sued.
Unix is in my opinion pretty generic, but what the hey.
Only UNIX is trademarked.
All apple has to do is not make all four letters caps whenever they use the word unix, and they are not infringing. Easy fix for now and the future.
As for the past, if they publicly appologized and claimed it was an honest mistake, they did not realize they used the term in a trademarked way, and had it changed on their pages and ads and whatnot Very fast (IE any day now), a judge may even let them off without having to pay damages for the time they have been using UNIX on their site.
> make their bandwidth spike for weeks on end and perhaps we'll drive them into
/month for the ISP fee on a T1, and you can use that T1 100% 24/7 (man thats alot of numbers in a row) and pay the same.
:(
> slashdotting-induced bankruptcy
Unfortunatly for this idea, sco (as well as most IT companys) host their servers on their own network in their own building.
This means they get internet connections like T1's and T3's
At this point you are usually not charged for bandwidth.
Its $2000
Granted filling their pipes and making their network useless (In and out) is still very amusing though!
But it wont cost them a penny more most likely
Wow. if only i had mod points...
In a way, disney wouldnt even exist as a company if they had no story lines... They took almost all of their storys from the public domain.
So in fact, if copyright law is NOT reverted to how it was (7 year terms, one renwal, 14 years total) then disney could not exist at all.
Disney is attempting to pass laws to prevent more disneys (Competition) from starting.
This sounds like the basis of a suit aginst them, and a good reason to revert copyright laws.
> A EULA is not a law.
Granted
> Legislatures make laws, not companies
But wha!? Where have you been living the past 10 years??
Look at all the laws bought by companys...
Copyright, DMCA, all drug laws, any law that involves the internet (generally having the word 'cyber' in it) that is obviously different from its real world counter-part law, any/all deregulation laws... The list goes on and on.
Then on top of it, there are three types of lawsuits all handled differently.
Person vs person. Company vs person. and Company vs company.
They are all handled Very differently in reality.
Person vs person = Generally this is the only way our legal system works as it was intended.
Company vs Company = whichever has the largest legal team wins.
Company vs person = company always wins.
You dont think this wasnt encouraged and backed by companys to keep this aragement?
Copyright has been changed by companys (one company, disney, mainly) so a company doesnt have to pay for copyright and can keep their works forever.
Drug laws were created purely for racist segragation (The white christian government didnt like the fact other countrys workers used a standard drug, wanted those workers gone to make more jobs for said white christian workers, and so made outlaws of the group by making the comon drug of the time illegal)
They are currently enforced because, for example, if weed was legal, the entire oil business would pretty much go away, as hemp oils burn over 50% cleaner and are way over 10 times cheaper to produce, plus will never go away as the case with oils refined from ore. (Just one example, there are many others)
All the laws that already have real world counterparts but because it now involves the internet its somehow different.
If I stole a CD from a store, i get a fine, and on my 2nd offence MAYBE a day or two of jail time. If i download the same data from the internet, its somehow changed into 5 years of prison time and $10,000 per song.
Deregulation laws. Yes, basically in english they all read identical:
"If you can make a better product than I do, cheaper, we will sue you for preventing us from making money" (See airlines, phone company, sony, etc)
Any law that only helps a small minority while at the same time hurting the entire majority is most likely made by a company and bought.
That pretty much describes all of the laws passed in the past few years...
Sad but true *shrug*
So i had an idea, think of it as invensting in our futures.
Anyone out there happen to have about 2+ million dollars sitting doing nothing?
Wanna not spend a dime of that, and cause lots of grief for the **AA's?
So heres what you do.. Invest that huge chunk of cash in a bank, even a savings account will give enough interest on that to basically pay someone every month a 22k/year salary.
Now find a lawyer fresh out of school whos pissed at the **AA's as much as we are.
Tell said lawyer "I will pay you a salary of 22k/year if you make your full time job to be finding reasons to press charges aginst the RIAA/MPAA."
The goal is mainly to harass, and leech resources from the **AA legal department wasting time with this. If the public is the one starting the charges, there are very good chances of winning and both leeching money back out of the **AA's as well as getting laws made/removed/fixed/changed.
If enough people would do this.. Just 10 in the country.. It would be comparible to a decent sized companys legal firm, which are exactly who the **AA's are trying to avoid.
Or if all 10 of these people would pool their interest, they possibly COULD pay for a legal firm, so the lawyers can work together much the same way as a companys legal board would.
You wont lose any of your capital. The charges can be 'Public vs RIAA' if you dont want your name involved. Some fresh new lawyers are getting a pretty sweet deal, granted not as sweet as im sure it could be, but it would also give that warm fuzzy feeling i cant imagine lawyers get all too often anymore (Sorry, cheap jab)
Once we put the public voice on the offence, the **AA's will have a much harder time with it while being on the defensive.
If only I had the contacts to pull this off...
> So what happens when a terrorist with a bomb explodes the plane over a city as
> it is landing or taking off.
And how does the no fly list we have now protect aginst that?
Fact of the matter is, you are proven wrong simply because 90% of us on slashdot can board a plane and get by the no fly list, and any one of us can blow up a plane if we chose to.
Adding the protective wall is additional protection, not total protection.
Comdoms CAN break, but statistically they dont all that often. Does this mean becuase nothing at all can be 100% effective at stopping aids, one shouldnt bother using anything?
(Appologies for this particular example, but it really works well in this case)
Same logic applys to the wall to protect pilots. It cant stop 100% of all possible ways to distroy the plane, but it protects aginst quite a large number of them.
It cant hurt and can only help. If it cant hurt, may as well do it, as every little bit helps.
> Something you have to wonder is if they are going to patent this
> information
Thats the nice thing about being a University, they dont need to patent, they just publish.
Why pay for a patent if its suppost to be open? When you publish, you can always prove prior art to any future patents a jerk would try to make to steal the technology. And thats all that needs to be protected if it is to be open and public knowledge.
I just hope having it open instead of using it to make huge profits is exactly what they have on their minds.