You know those big plastic strips they hang in front of the doors in loading docks to keep the heat in? They're great if you share a room with your racks and want to keep the cooling for your equipment seperate from the rest of the room without building a wall. Why waste your cooling on the empty space, or refrigerate your office to keep your cluster cold? It does a great job of blocking the noise too. This guy had a decent idea... Except that I wouldn't use 4 mil plastic and duct tape. Get the good stuff. Or in his case I'd say "Do some research". If he asked around or searched with google he would have found a good way to do this and not have made a fool out of himself promoting his half-assed job on Slashdot as a novel creation.
What a shortsighted comment... Seems you think there's a vast corporate conspiracy. Corporations get the power and individuals get nothing? So go incorporate yourself. Test your theory. It costs between $40 and $500 in most states... Not that big a deal.
Then you'll find out that nothing has changed, and there's no pro-corporate attitude. It's the same as it's always was. People with money have power. Period.
Lucky for you, unlike in a gulided age, nobody is stopping you from going out and working your ass off to make a whole boatload of money. Just don't try to do it with cable telecommunications. That cash cow is taken.
Now when the RIAA tries to sue individuals, they can honestly and legaly claim that they're not liable for the infringement, instead Kazaa, grokster, napster, etc.. is. Even better if the company that made the sofware and promoted it for piracy is located outside of the US. Major copyright loophole!
I don't know if the submitter is reading the comments or not, but somebody should tell him...
The rack legs aren't for earthquakes. In an earthquake the rack would just tip to the side anyway. The legs are there to prevent some moron who slides out all the rail mounted equipment in the rack at the same time from getting crushed by a falling rack.
There is a difference though. It means that if the state ever tries to do a direct sale there can be another court case. In this particular case the private parties the land will be sold to haven't been selected yet, so there probably wasn't any palm greasing involved. When some other city goes to abuse this ruling the difference means there can be another legal battle with (hopefully) a different outcome.
Also, I hope the elected officials in New London get their asses handed to them in the next election for this. The economy in Connecticut is so terrible because of the tax, welfare, and business laws, not because this land had a few houses on it instead of a commercial district. I lived there most of my life, but had to leave becuase all the jobs left, and stunts like this aren't going to fix the problem. The environment there is so poor that as it is now when I go to start my own business in the future I won't be able to afford to do it there. Even "Taxachusetts" to the north has signifigantly lower overhead.
I can't resist the urge to argue semantics, which is unfortunate in this case because I agree with you...
However...
The city didn't force them to sell it to a private company... They forced them to sell it to the city, who in turn intends to sell it to private companies. Still reprehensable, but I fell it's an important distinction.
How do you go to a citizen, a property owner, someone who as poured his sweat and portion of his life into obtaining and maintaining his land, and then tell him he is to be evicted because some rich guy, or some soulless corporation has decided to take his property over???
With a big check in your hand? These people were offered on average $1.7 million for (again, on average).1 acres of land.
In general the government is only supposed to do this stuff when the value to the community outweighs the harm to the individual. You (and I as well) may disagree that was the case in this particular scenario, but could you say the same thing when they had to take a few houses in order to start providing running water for people for the first time?
I don't agree with what the city of New London is doing in this case, but you've got to admit that when you calm down and think about it a bit the issue isn't so black and white.
Way to be aware of how the society you live in works... Didn't they teach you this shit in High School?
The only part of this that's new is that they're taking the land for private development. The government has *always* been able to take your land. And the *do* have to give you fair market value.
In short... You couldn't be sure you'd have a home tomorrow yesterday either.
Also, to be fair, the specifics of the private development in this case weren't decided before they took the land specifically so you couldn't say that wealthy people influenced this decision to become more wealthy. In other words, they took the land with a plan for private development, but the plan didn't include who would do that development. That is yet to be decided.
You think this is bad? I've heard stories in the past of local governments taking people's homes because the resident was bringing an environmental suit against the state for a nearby highway project saying the effects would destroy housing values and have negative health impacts... Oh yeah? Well you don't even live there anymore, so you don't have a case! Local government corruption makes the crap in Washington look like a cake walk.
This decision today is fairly minor compared to stuff like that, and it's hardly new.
Let's take a quick look at the comment I was replying to:
Are you interested in joining? The benefits are terrific. The trick is not to get killed.
What I was saying is that not getting killed isn't really that much of a trick... Chances are you're not going to be killed.
Clearly it would be even better if all our military ever did was to hang out back in the States traning and being a deterrant to anybody who wanted to attack us. That would involve almost no deaths, and still justify the price of the benefits paid to our professional military.
Spinning my simple meaning into some far-fetched implication that I was attempting to provide justification for a war that I didn't even mention requires some sort of twisted mind indeed.
The call to action is really for companies first to publish their Sender ID record. There is a tool on our site (www.microsoft.com/senderid) that will help create that record. Once created, companies need to publish that information in the text record in DNS. For senders, this is the only thing they need to do.
Since when are all the e-mail senders on the internet companies? If they don't understand that the internet is open to everybody, and not just people who are in it for a profit (or in it for their profit depending on your perspective) why should we adopt their technology?
Are you interested in joining? The benefits are terrific. The trick is not to get killed.
Do you have any idea how big the US military is? There's more than a half million people on active duty and over 700,000 reservists in the army alone. Taken as a percentage chance, the ods of getting killed these last few years in the military are pretty low... A higher chance than most people are used to, certainly; but there are plenty of riskier jobs people could take.
The only way that the current game retailing situation is sustainable is through collusion between the game distributors and the big retailers. One of two things is going to come out of this.
Either game distributors are going to start realizing that the physical box and media for games are cheap and they're going to move to a magazine sales business model (Buy a bunch of copies... Send back just the disc for whatever doesn't sell and we'll refund most of your money... Probably all but the $2 or so the distributor would have made for profit anyway), or Wal-Mart and EB will work up some deal with the distributors such that they're able to make a profit and any competition that springs up will have such thin margins that they can't stay in business.
One of those two business models is legal. My bet is on the second one until all the small game stores are 10 years out of business and some moderate sized vendor that wants a cut of the profits fronts the money for a lawsuit.
However, it does seem to me that the only practical purpose of the whole bnetd thing was to allow people to play pirated copies of Blizzard games online.
The people who play on the server I've run in the past all shelld out their $50 ($500 total) for the games... There's no piracy. The point is to have an environment where you control the rules and trust the other players you're playing with. The PvPGN faq says it well too... Having your own server is good for "people who want to play on a LAN but with Battle.net-like statistics". That, and tweaking the server side rules is the whole point... Not piracy.
I wouldn't have ever used the software in the first place, except that Blizzard loves to change the gameplay on the server side all the time. The Diablo 2 I bought when it came out isn't the same game you play on Battle.Net now. They should have just included the server software on the CD like most FPS games do. Then they wouldn't have had this problem.
Most of the moderately wealthy people are first generation wealthy people. First generation wealthy people are the most productive members of our society. Once you have enough money to live comfortably for the rest of your life the primary motivation people have to continue to be productive is to provide for their loved ones. If you take that incentive away, you slow the growth of the economy, and the rate at which the average standard of living increases for everybody.
All that and you don't even generate that much tax revenue, since not many people are wealthy.
Try $100k. I know people who technically live below the poverty line that have blown more than $30k on a wedding. The wedding marketing industry has turned people stupid when it comes to buying wedding stuff.
Well, that and the fact that we teach kids that highschool football, the prom, and their wedding are the most important things that will ever happen to a person and they're going to spend the rest of their lives working a miserable job, putting up with their wife/husband's crap, and only having fun on the weekends, when they'll get to watch their kid's football games/dress them up for the prom/nag them in to getting married and providing them with grandkids.
If the rich paid disproportionately more than they have, compared to poorer people, how would that be fair? It wouldn't be, just vindictive.
Actually, politicians like to call it "progressive".
You're fighting a losing argument. Children are taught that every dollar somebody else has is deducts from the pool of availble wealth by misguided highschool economics teachers. There are too many people who don't understand that whan a "rich person" invests their money, even by putting it into a savings account, that it means they're paying it out as salary to a worker that will labor to grow the wealth pool.
As long as our children are taught that progressive taxation is fair, we will have unfair taxation.
It's fairly easy to find shops that will print with a 'lightjet' printer onto actual photo paper these days. 4x6 for $0.25 on media that's proven to last decades.... Try that at home at any price.
Right, because children are so much better off without their parents than they are if, god forbid, they're disciplined a little bit.
Re:Only going to work if it became standard
on
Advocating Dvorak
·
· Score: 1
Have you even read the typing injury FAQ? Do you have a good doctor, or one who's just trying to take your money?
It's not about "bad and less bad". You shouldn't be doing it differently in different places. You should be doing it right everywhere. You don't have to be doing it wrong for very long to hurt yourself. A few hours a day is plenty.
Normally I'd just be argumentative with you for fun, but really, you should be doing more research if you think that. Start here.
the BT Fusion handset behaves like a conventional fixed line cordless phone when it's near its base station [...], and connects to the [cellular] network once it's out of range
So? Panasonic made phones like that as early as 1998.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, don't knock the plastic thing.
You know those big plastic strips they hang in front of the doors in loading docks to keep the heat in? They're great if you share a room with your racks and want to keep the cooling for your equipment seperate from the rest of the room without building a wall. Why waste your cooling on the empty space, or refrigerate your office to keep your cluster cold? It does a great job of blocking the noise too. This guy had a decent idea... Except that I wouldn't use 4 mil plastic and duct tape. Get the good stuff. Or in his case I'd say "Do some research". If he asked around or searched with google he would have found a good way to do this and not have made a fool out of himself promoting his half-assed job on Slashdot as a novel creation.
What a shortsighted comment... Seems you think there's a vast corporate conspiracy. Corporations get the power and individuals get nothing? So go incorporate yourself. Test your theory. It costs between $40 and $500 in most states... Not that big a deal.
Then you'll find out that nothing has changed, and there's no pro-corporate attitude. It's the same as it's always was. People with money have power. Period.
Lucky for you, unlike in a gulided age, nobody is stopping you from going out and working your ass off to make a whole boatload of money. Just don't try to do it with cable telecommunications. That cash cow is taken.
Now when the RIAA tries to sue individuals, they can honestly and legaly claim that they're not liable for the infringement, instead Kazaa, grokster, napster, etc.. is. Even better if the company that made the sofware and promoted it for piracy is located outside of the US. Major copyright loophole!
Woohoo!
Pirate all you want with Grokster (while it still exists) and you're not liable! The Supreme Court said so themselves!
I don't know if the submitter is reading the comments or not, but somebody should tell him...
The rack legs aren't for earthquakes. In an earthquake the rack would just tip to the side anyway. The legs are there to prevent some moron who slides out all the rail mounted equipment in the rack at the same time from getting crushed by a falling rack.
It's not off topic in relation to the parent comment, which expressed a lack of knowledge that even "normal" eminenent domain existed...
There is a difference though. It means that if the state ever tries to do a direct sale there can be another court case. In this particular case the private parties the land will be sold to haven't been selected yet, so there probably wasn't any palm greasing involved. When some other city goes to abuse this ruling the difference means there can be another legal battle with (hopefully) a different outcome.
Also, I hope the elected officials in New London get their asses handed to them in the next election for this. The economy in Connecticut is so terrible because of the tax, welfare, and business laws, not because this land had a few houses on it instead of a commercial district. I lived there most of my life, but had to leave becuase all the jobs left, and stunts like this aren't going to fix the problem. The environment there is so poor that as it is now when I go to start my own business in the future I won't be able to afford to do it there. Even "Taxachusetts" to the north has signifigantly lower overhead.
I can't resist the urge to argue semantics, which is unfortunate in this case because I agree with you...
However...
The city didn't force them to sell it to a private company... They forced them to sell it to the city, who in turn intends to sell it to private companies. Still reprehensable, but I fell it's an important distinction.
In most cases I agree... But in this country the citizens have never had that right.
How do you go to a citizen, a property owner, someone who as poured his sweat and portion of his life into obtaining and maintaining his land, and then tell him he is to be evicted because some rich guy, or some soulless corporation has decided to take his property over???
.1 acres of land.
With a big check in your hand? These people were offered on average $1.7 million for (again, on average)
In general the government is only supposed to do this stuff when the value to the community outweighs the harm to the individual. You (and I as well) may disagree that was the case in this particular scenario, but could you say the same thing when they had to take a few houses in order to start providing running water for people for the first time?
I don't agree with what the city of New London is doing in this case, but you've got to admit that when you calm down and think about it a bit the issue isn't so black and white.
Way to be aware of how the society you live in works... Didn't they teach you this shit in High School?
The only part of this that's new is that they're taking the land for private development. The government has *always* been able to take your land. And the *do* have to give you fair market value.
In short... You couldn't be sure you'd have a home tomorrow yesterday either.
Also, to be fair, the specifics of the private development in this case weren't decided before they took the land specifically so you couldn't say that wealthy people influenced this decision to become more wealthy. In other words, they took the land with a plan for private development, but the plan didn't include who would do that development. That is yet to be decided.
You think this is bad? I've heard stories in the past of local governments taking people's homes because the resident was bringing an environmental suit against the state for a nearby highway project saying the effects would destroy housing values and have negative health impacts... Oh yeah? Well you don't even live there anymore, so you don't have a case! Local government corruption makes the crap in Washington look like a cake walk.
This decision today is fairly minor compared to stuff like that, and it's hardly new.
Dear god no, that's not what I'm saying.
Let's take a quick look at the comment I was replying to:
Are you interested in joining? The benefits are terrific. The trick is not to get killed.
What I was saying is that not getting killed isn't really that much of a trick... Chances are you're not going to be killed.
Clearly it would be even better if all our military ever did was to hang out back in the States traning and being a deterrant to anybody who wanted to attack us. That would involve almost no deaths, and still justify the price of the benefits paid to our professional military.
Spinning my simple meaning into some far-fetched implication that I was attempting to provide justification for a war that I didn't even mention requires some sort of twisted mind indeed.
The call to action is really for companies first to publish their Sender ID record. There is a tool on our site (www.microsoft.com/senderid) that will help create that record. Once created, companies need to publish that information in the text record in DNS. For senders, this is the only thing they need to do.
Since when are all the e-mail senders on the internet companies? If they don't understand that the internet is open to everybody, and not just people who are in it for a profit (or in it for their profit depending on your perspective) why should we adopt their technology?
Are you interested in joining? The benefits are terrific. The trick is not to get killed.
Do you have any idea how big the US military is? There's more than a half million people on active duty and over 700,000 reservists in the army alone. Taken as a percentage chance, the ods of getting killed these last few years in the military are pretty low... A higher chance than most people are used to, certainly; but there are plenty of riskier jobs people could take.
They thought they were going to have a contract with the entire games industry?
Excuse me while I catch my breath from laughing so hard.
Looks like game developers will have to continue doing what they do most of the time... Hire non-union talent.
Oh no.
The only way that the current game retailing situation is sustainable is through collusion between the game distributors and the big retailers. One of two things is going to come out of this.
Either game distributors are going to start realizing that the physical box and media for games are cheap and they're going to move to a magazine sales business model (Buy a bunch of copies... Send back just the disc for whatever doesn't sell and we'll refund most of your money... Probably all but the $2 or so the distributor would have made for profit anyway), or Wal-Mart and EB will work up some deal with the distributors such that they're able to make a profit and any competition that springs up will have such thin margins that they can't stay in business.
One of those two business models is legal. My bet is on the second one until all the small game stores are 10 years out of business and some moderate sized vendor that wants a cut of the profits fronts the money for a lawsuit.
However, it does seem to me that the only practical purpose of the whole bnetd thing was to allow people to play pirated copies of Blizzard games online.
The people who play on the server I've run in the past all shelld out their $50 ($500 total) for the games... There's no piracy. The point is to have an environment where you control the rules and trust the other players you're playing with. The PvPGN faq says it well too... Having your own server is good for "people who want to play on a LAN but with Battle.net-like statistics". That, and tweaking the server side rules is the whole point... Not piracy.
I wouldn't have ever used the software in the first place, except that Blizzard loves to change the gameplay on the server side all the time. The Diablo 2 I bought when it came out isn't the same game you play on Battle.Net now. They should have just included the server software on the CD like most FPS games do. Then they wouldn't have had this problem.
Estate taxes are stupid.
Most of the moderately wealthy people are first generation wealthy people. First generation wealthy people are the most productive members of our society. Once you have enough money to live comfortably for the rest of your life the primary motivation people have to continue to be productive is to provide for their loved ones. If you take that incentive away, you slow the growth of the economy, and the rate at which the average standard of living increases for everybody.
All that and you don't even generate that much tax revenue, since not many people are wealthy.
$30k for a wedding
Try $100k. I know people who technically live below the poverty line that have blown more than $30k on a wedding. The wedding marketing industry has turned people stupid when it comes to buying wedding stuff.
Well, that and the fact that we teach kids that highschool football, the prom, and their wedding are the most important things that will ever happen to a person and they're going to spend the rest of their lives working a miserable job, putting up with their wife/husband's crap, and only having fun on the weekends, when they'll get to watch their kid's football games/dress them up for the prom/nag them in to getting married and providing them with grandkids.
Phew... Sorry about the rant.
If the rich paid disproportionately more than they have, compared to poorer people, how would that be fair? It wouldn't be, just vindictive.
Actually, politicians like to call it "progressive".
You're fighting a losing argument. Children are taught that every dollar somebody else has is deducts from the pool of availble wealth by misguided highschool economics teachers. There are too many people who don't understand that whan a "rich person" invests their money, even by putting it into a savings account, that it means they're paying it out as salary to a worker that will labor to grow the wealth pool.
As long as our children are taught that progressive taxation is fair, we will have unfair taxation.
It's fairly easy to find shops that will print with a 'lightjet' printer onto actual photo paper these days. 4x6 for $0.25 on media that's proven to last decades.... Try that at home at any price.
What discussion? Boxen is a word... Just ask Webster:
Boxen \Box"en\ (b[o^]ks"'n), a.
Made of boxwood; pertaining to, or resembling, the box
({Buxus}). [R.]
[1913 Webster]
Clearly the big name stores aren't eager to offer an OS with low market share on luxury wooden computers that already have such a tiny market appeal.
The police should go after the spankers...
Right, because children are so much better off without their parents than they are if, god forbid, they're disciplined a little bit.
Have you even read the typing injury FAQ? Do you have a good doctor, or one who's just trying to take your money?
It's not about "bad and less bad". You shouldn't be doing it differently in different places. You should be doing it right everywhere. You don't have to be doing it wrong for very long to hurt yourself. A few hours a day is plenty.
Normally I'd just be argumentative with you for fun, but really, you should be doing more research if you think that. Start here.
the BT Fusion handset behaves like a conventional fixed line cordless phone when it's near its base station [...], and connects to the [cellular] network once it's out of range
So? Panasonic made phones like that as early as 1998.