It's interesting that RHAS got best of show for clusters. It's verbatim the same code we showed at linuxworld in 2001. They just put it in a box and slapped the redhat name on it two years later and all of a sudden it's award worthy. I guess we didn't give IDG enough money.
the Aqua gui has some of the worst usability booboos around. The dock is a usability nightmare for instance,
I'm curious to hear the reasons you think that. The only real thing I miss on my mac (which is running on my third monitor right next to my dual headed linux setup running niether KDE nor Gnome) is focus follows mouse. The dock problems were fixed in 10.2, and the 'File' and 'Edit' menus are in exactly the same place on the screen no matter which application I select. It also has the most complete use of the drag and drop model I've ever used. You can drag and drop practically anything from anywhere to anywhere and it almost always does what you expect. The inclusion of a unix shell on top of all that not only makes it more useable than windows. but lets you do things in a few keystrokes that would require hundreds of lines of C++ code to do in windows.
Anyway, I'm just curious how you think it's less useable than windows (especially Windows XP with the new unusable start menu).
Linux nor FreeBSD (mostly on account of being dead;-) )will do what I need to do, and that is engineering apps. No EDA software, no software for synthesising FPGA's.
How long have you been working on that type of thing? It wasn't very long ago that you ran solaris or nothing when doing that kind of design work. Windows is a relative newcomer to that industry. You can still get all the best stuff for unix.
I had to threaten a lawsuit in order to get a refund.
That's your own fault. You should purchase your software in a store with a reasonable return policy.
Obviously the store wouldn't care, but threaten to sue an individual, well, things happen much more quickly;)
You had no case against the individual. It's too bad the guy didn't have the balls to tell you to shove it. I don't know why you're so proud of your threat to be litigous. I'm sure you're not interested in people threatening you with frivlous lawsuits.
Less mature processes (smaller transistor sizes), typically give lower yields initially.
You can't base your statistics on the few chips that are produced early in the process lifecycle. When they move to a smaller process, they work to get the yields up to where they were with the previous process or better before they begin mass production. Since the energy used and waste generated are related to the size of the wafer, and not the lithography, they get more chips for the same amount of energy and and chemicals. A vast majority of chips created with a particular process will be created after the yield is improved, so you are absolutely incorrect to say that the amount of waste generated by more advanced chips is higher simply because the initial runs will have lower yields.
Also, the article does not say that the move from 8 inches to twelve inches was in itself the reason for the savings. I would bet that the conservation of water was a seperate development and that they are implementing when it now because it's convienient (they are updating everything else in the building). I take that to mean they are actively working to reduce waste, so as time goes on both complexity and efficiency will be increased.
They say that one 32MB chip equates to X amount of resources used. Now Average Joe looks inside of his computer and sees Y chips implying that it took X * Y resources to make his computer.
That's why I'm saying it's misleading. Just because Joe Average has 512 MB of memory in his computer doesn't mean he's caused ((512 / 32) * X) amount of resources to be wasted. Similarly, if he's only got 16MB of memory, significantly more than ((16 / 32) * X) have been wasted. As far as I'm concerned, neither low estimations of your readerships intelligence nor attempting to make the story sound interesting to attract more readers are good enough a reason to spin a story in a way that makes it less correct.
Actually, that's not what I was saying at all. What I was saying is that this shouldn't come as a shock to people who pay attention. Many people are already aware of the problem and are working to fix it. These people did nothing productive. All they have acomplished is to anger a bunch of people who were too lazy to care a few minutes ago.
I was also pointing out that they were quick to lash out against a technology that they didn't consider worthy, but they're also the same type of people who advocate technologies they think are important while themselves not thinking of the impact.
So, to reiterate in different words: It's easy to point out the flaws in others if you don't have to look at yourself, and you're not interested in a solution, but only in creating outrage by exposing the problem.
A DIMM typically consists of eight chips. If you have any 256MB DIMMs, then you're probably the proud owner of eight 32MB DRAM chips. (Unless, of course, your DIMM has 16 16MB chips on it)
If you ask me, I think the biggest news in this article is that people aren't aware of what goes into making products that they take for granted. It's not like it takes alot of effort to realize that alot of energy and chemicals are required to make microchips. It's just that only a small minority of us actually pay attention.
It's probably mixed with chemicals and sprayed on at some point and then dribbles through catchbasins.
Actually the majority of it is probably used for cooling.
Similarly misleading, the inclusion of the useless "32MB" number. Are they trying to make you think that it's worse for bigger chips? There must be a reason they put that 32MB number in there, because chips with the same physical size but a higher storage density require the same materials or less if the process becomes smaller. Wouldn't it have been correct for them to specify how much waste there was per square inch of chip instead?
While they're pointing out how evil we all are for buying memory, why don't they repeat the study for a square inch of solar panel, or better yet, give us some ideas on how to fix the probelm instead of just pushing this crap out there.
Easy, get a motherboard with dual PCI busses. Most multi CPU motherboards have multiple PCI busses already. It's very easy to achieve 100MB/sec to a disk array with a dedicated PCI bus. You're not going to get 132MB of video data from multiple cards because of bus contention, so you probably only need more like 70-80MB/sec to your disks anyway.
You don't need lots of blanks if you do a little research on how your school cuts keys before you start. Particularly, if your school uses sub-mastering along with mastering on the keys, as many as four of the positions on your key may already be at the master heights. If you can find out which ones those are you only need two or three blanks for a six pin lock. You can find out which pins they are by comparing keys to other locks with the same sub-master. My school used keys made by "BEST," as do many schools I've seen. You can get BEST key blanks, along with pretty much any other brand, on the internet.
Like he said, this technique has been know for a while, he's just the first to publish it:)
I meant it would be dangerous for a million years -- in the air, water and eventually enter the food chain.
Again, I think you're wrong. It's not soluable in water. It sinks to the bottom. You could grind a bunch up and put it in a reservoir for a city and probably only cause one additional cancer per 10,000 people. If you ate a piece there's a good chance it would come out the other side and you would be ok. It wouldn't be like fallout from a reactor meltdown, where it's the cesium-137 that's practically impossible to clean up. Also, it wouldn't be "vaporized", just broken into tiny pieces. It would be a serious problem, but not one we couldn't deal with in the short term. I can't find them at the moment, but I remember seeing pictures from the towns around Chernobyl that they were cleaning up so they could keep the other reactor running. They were able to clean up the plutonium and uranium particles because they were easy to detect and remove, but they couldn't clean up the cesium because it reacts with everything, and it attached it self to walls and roofs and rocks and plants. If a nuclear weapon were conventionally detonated over a city, the worst part would be the initial deaths from the people who were underneath the detonation and were unlucky enough to breath some particles in while they were on their way to the ground.
How is a tire shop going to check the serial number of a single tire, when every tire in range answers?
Easy, make the range only a few inches.
You have a license plate on your car, and there's an etched VIN on your dashboard. You register both numbers in the local motor vehicle database. I don't understand how you would use these RFID tags for anything but recall or warranty information. They certainly aren't a privacy issue, because you won't have your name or any identification associated with the ID in any database, especially if you happen to install the tires yourself.
Then you'd get the 12 kg of Pu vaporized and in the air causing cancer for the next million years or so.
Actually, being an amazingly dense material, almost all of it would settle out of the air quickly. Plutonium is way less dangerous than the mainstream media would have you believe (more danger makes for a "better" news story I guess). Don't get me wrong, it's still dangerous, but it certainly wouldn't stay in the air for a million years... or even for one year. Probably more like a few hours. Then you just have to clean the pieces up off the ground.
Re:Not such a good book.
on
F'd Companies
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Wow, so was Salon.com featured in the book? That guy sounded pissed off! It's too bad that he spent most of the review telling us all how he hates Phillip Kaplan, and only got around to making one actual criticism of the writing. He claims he's in the target audience, but I doubt that the target audience consists of the idiots the book is about. I would think it's more aimed at all the people who thought they had missed out on the whole dot-com thing, and are now getting to point and laugh at all their buddies who bragged about being so wealthy for a few years.
It seems really ridiculous to require 11 digit dialing in your own area code. Perhaps if we didn't USE area codes but had an entirely random string numbers 11 digit dialing as a requirement is obviously a necessity.
First of all, it's 10 digit dialing. You don't ned to dial the 1 unless it's long distance, and you already had to dial 11 digits for those calls. Second of all, they need to require 10 digit dialing within your own area code simply to reduce the number of incorrectly dialed calls. Think about it, how do you know what area code the phone you're diaing out from is. If you've made a habit of dialing only seven digits from your home phone and then you go somewhere else and try to call somebody with your home area code, you may call the wrong person. Now imagine this situation in a city of 11 million people. I don't know about you, but I don't want my phone ringing incorrectly that often.
Carrier Grade Linux (CGL) is basically just plain old linux with some "real-time" modifications in the kernel, and some QA. The main thing that seperates a CGL distribution from other distributions is the marketing. Intel is pushing CGL to all the big telco equipment makers that are thinking of switching to Intel hardware. United Linux is 10 months late to the party. Montavista is releasing their third CGL soon, and RedHat is also already done with theirs. There are a few other companies out there that are mostly done too. Somehow I'm not surprised that a project of Mr. Love's would be too little too late.
We use CGL when we're selling our clusters to telcos because by the time we get there they've already been sold the CGL bill of goods. In reality we wish we could use debian, and we typically replace the kernel with our own for performance reasons anyway. The CGL distros out there right now are a waste of money in my opinion.
The problem is that it hasn't been the profit generator that Red Hat was hoping it would be.
That's because RedHat resisted moving into the embedded linux market until the last minute. Either way, people using linux in their embedded devices usually just want engineering work and a development environment. Montevista is making a fortune selling just that, and so are other companies and independant developers. Just because RedHat didn't figure out a buisness model that works until 6 months ago doesn't mean other people haven't been making money all along. I've personally worked on two embedded ports in the last three years. Each one paid well over $400,000 and was worked by three engineers. Seems profitable to me.
RedHat is not linux. RedHat is just a tiny piece of the puzzle that happens to be publicly traded.
Ok, so it seems you don't get the bonus no matter what the state of the check box. I suppose filling out a bug report would be the correct thing to do.. Off I go.
They also changed the text next to the box. It now says "No Karma Bonus". I would assume that means if you check the box you post at score 1, and if you leave it unchecked you post at score 2. Right now if you leave it unchecked you post at score one. I haven't tried checking it yet. If this message starts at score 2, they got either the button logic or the wording wrong. If it starts at Score 1 they broke the whole thing... Lets try it.
The trend in the US is exactly the opposite of what you say. The amount of data you can fit on a disk and mail is increasing, while the amount of data you can transmit per unit time is decreasing. This is occuring through advances in optical storage, and association of broadband ISPs with large media companies that have an interest in you not being ablt to transmit very much data (since they both want to be the only source of information and entertainment, and assert that the data you're transmitting is probably stolen from them anyway).
If you can see the gray smears on your hands and fingers after handling the lead, you probably have more than that right there on your hands. Wash it off.
You, sir, have a problem. All I said was that having it on your hands isn't dangerous it you wash it off afterward. I don't see why you have a problem with this. I don't disagree that lead is as toxic as you say. I simply disagree that it is sufficient reason not to use it. Besides. You won't see any lead smeared on your hands after touching the rod. It's soft, but not that soft. Though it seems like a small number,.0001 is alot of lead if you compare it to what left on your hand after light handling, and you would only end up with all that lead in you if you were sucking on your fingers afterward. Admitedly, this is something that a child might do, but if they wash their hands it's not a problem.
If you swallowed a fishing weight, only the lead on the surface of the weight would be harmful to you. You would not absorb 35% of that lead into your blood stream because 99.9+% of it would come out the other end before it disolved. Again, before you flip out, I'm not advocating you do this, but you are being misleading. You wouldn't end up with 1 million times more lead in your bloodstream.
But don't go telling people stuff like "it's OK, that's not enough lead to hurt you or your kid." That's irresponsible in the extreme.
All that matters is if it's true of not. What I said was true since all I said was that the lead will not harm you or your child as long as you take the most basic of precautions. It is okay to use lead as weight in your car. It can be safer than drinking out of a public water fountain (Which may be old enough to have trace amounts of lead in the pipe solder), or eating vegetables from the garden next to your house (which may have lead paint chips in the soil).
If your car is.1 gram overweight at the official scale, use a drill and remove wood instead of lead.
Well, first off you should be able to get closer than this at home, but if you are overweight I also advocate removing wood. Simply from the technical perspective, it's too easy to remove too much lead. Besides, your lead will be sealed up, remember?
You can use mcore instead. (If you're running linux, that is.) That'll save your dump even if the crash made the hard drive unaccessable, and it doesn't require swap.
Slashdot Mirror
It's interesting that RHAS got best of show for clusters. It's verbatim the same code we showed at linuxworld in 2001. They just put it in a box and slapped the redhat name on it two years later and all of a sudden it's award worthy. I guess we didn't give IDG enough money.
the Aqua gui has some of the worst usability booboos around. The dock is a usability nightmare for instance,
I'm curious to hear the reasons you think that. The only real thing I miss on my mac (which is running on my third monitor right next to my dual headed linux setup running niether KDE nor Gnome) is focus follows mouse. The dock problems were fixed in 10.2, and the 'File' and 'Edit' menus are in exactly the same place on the screen no matter which application I select. It also has the most complete use of the drag and drop model I've ever used. You can drag and drop practically anything from anywhere to anywhere and it almost always does what you expect. The inclusion of a unix shell on top of all that not only makes it more useable than windows. but lets you do things in a few keystrokes that would require hundreds of lines of C++ code to do in windows.
Anyway, I'm just curious how you think it's less useable than windows (especially Windows XP with the new unusable start menu).
Linux nor FreeBSD (mostly on account of being dead ;-) )will do what I need to do, and that is engineering apps. No EDA software, no software for synthesising FPGA's.
How long have you been working on that type of thing? It wasn't very long ago that you ran solaris or nothing when doing that kind of design work. Windows is a relative newcomer to that industry. You can still get all the best stuff for unix.
I had to threaten a lawsuit in order to get a refund.
;)
That's your own fault. You should purchase your software in a store with a reasonable return policy.
Obviously the store wouldn't care, but threaten to sue an individual, well, things happen much more quickly
You had no case against the individual. It's too bad the guy didn't have the balls to tell you to shove it. I don't know why you're so proud of your threat to be litigous. I'm sure you're not interested in people threatening you with frivlous lawsuits.
Less mature processes (smaller transistor sizes), typically give lower yields initially.
You can't base your statistics on the few chips that are produced early in the process lifecycle. When they move to a smaller process, they work to get the yields up to where they were with the previous process or better before they begin mass production. Since the energy used and waste generated are related to the size of the wafer, and not the lithography, they get more chips for the same amount of energy and and chemicals. A vast majority of chips created with a particular process will be created after the yield is improved, so you are absolutely incorrect to say that the amount of waste generated by more advanced chips is higher simply because the initial runs will have lower yields.
Also, the article does not say that the move from 8 inches to twelve inches was in itself the reason for the savings. I would bet that the conservation of water was a seperate development and that they are implementing when it now because it's convienient (they are updating everything else in the building). I take that to mean they are actively working to reduce waste, so as time goes on both complexity and efficiency will be increased.
They say that one 32MB chip equates to X amount of resources used. Now Average Joe looks inside of his computer and sees Y chips implying that it took X * Y resources to make his computer.
That's why I'm saying it's misleading. Just because Joe Average has 512 MB of memory in his computer doesn't mean he's caused ((512 / 32) * X) amount of resources to be wasted. Similarly, if he's only got 16MB of memory, significantly more than ((16 / 32) * X) have been wasted. As far as I'm concerned, neither low estimations of your readerships intelligence nor attempting to make the story sound interesting to attract more readers are good enough a reason to spin a story in a way that makes it less correct.
Chips with higher densities are more fragile, and therefore will give lower yields.
Tell that to Intel They seem to have increased the circuit density, wafer size, performance and yield, all while reducing consumption.
Actually, that's not what I was saying at all. What I was saying is that this shouldn't come as a shock to people who pay attention. Many people are already aware of the problem and are working to fix it. These people did nothing productive. All they have acomplished is to anger a bunch of people who were too lazy to care a few minutes ago.
I was also pointing out that they were quick to lash out against a technology that they didn't consider worthy, but they're also the same type of people who advocate technologies they think are important while themselves not thinking of the impact.
So, to reiterate in different words: It's easy to point out the flaws in others if you don't have to look at yourself, and you're not interested in a solution, but only in creating outrage by exposing the problem.
A DIMM typically consists of eight chips. If you have any 256MB DIMMs, then you're probably the proud owner of eight 32MB DRAM chips. (Unless, of course, your DIMM has 16 16MB chips on it)
Actually, reusing this water is one of the priorities of a few notable chip manufacturers right now. Not only are we learning how to reduse the amount of water used, but we're cleaning as much of it as we can afterward.
If you ask me, I think the biggest news in this article is that people aren't aware of what goes into making products that they take for granted. It's not like it takes alot of effort to realize that alot of energy and chemicals are required to make microchips. It's just that only a small minority of us actually pay attention.
It's probably mixed with chemicals and sprayed on at some point and then dribbles through catchbasins.
Actually the majority of it is probably used for cooling.
Similarly misleading, the inclusion of the useless "32MB" number. Are they trying to make you think that it's worse for bigger chips? There must be a reason they put that 32MB number in there, because chips with the same physical size but a higher storage density require the same materials or less if the process becomes smaller. Wouldn't it have been correct for them to specify how much waste there was per square inch of chip instead?
While they're pointing out how evil we all are for buying memory, why don't they repeat the study for a square inch of solar panel, or better yet, give us some ideas on how to fix the probelm instead of just pushing this crap out there.
Easy, get a motherboard with dual PCI busses. Most multi CPU motherboards have multiple PCI busses already. It's very easy to achieve 100MB/sec to a disk array with a dedicated PCI bus. You're not going to get 132MB of video data from multiple cards because of bus contention, so you probably only need more like 70-80MB/sec to your disks anyway.
You don't need lots of blanks if you do a little research on how your school cuts keys before you start. Particularly, if your school uses sub-mastering along with mastering on the keys, as many as four of the positions on your key may already be at the master heights. If you can find out which ones those are you only need two or three blanks for a six pin lock. You can find out which pins they are by comparing keys to other locks with the same sub-master. My school used keys made by "BEST," as do many schools I've seen. You can get BEST key blanks, along with pretty much any other brand, on the internet.
:)
Like he said, this technique has been know for a while, he's just the first to publish it
I meant it would be dangerous for a million years -- in the air, water and eventually enter the food chain.
Again, I think you're wrong. It's not soluable in water. It sinks to the bottom. You could grind a bunch up and put it in a reservoir for a city and probably only cause one additional cancer per 10,000 people. If you ate a piece there's a good chance it would come out the other side and you would be ok. It wouldn't be like fallout from a reactor meltdown, where it's the cesium-137 that's practically impossible to clean up. Also, it wouldn't be "vaporized", just broken into tiny pieces. It would be a serious problem, but not one we couldn't deal with in the short term. I can't find them at the moment, but I remember seeing pictures from the towns around Chernobyl that they were cleaning up so they could keep the other reactor running. They were able to clean up the plutonium and uranium particles because they were easy to detect and remove, but they couldn't clean up the cesium because it reacts with everything, and it attached it self to walls and roofs and rocks and plants. If a nuclear weapon were conventionally detonated over a city, the worst part would be the initial deaths from the people who were underneath the detonation and were unlucky enough to breath some particles in while they were on their way to the ground.
How is a tire shop going to check the serial number of a single tire, when every tire in range answers?
Easy, make the range only a few inches.
You have a license plate on your car, and there's an etched VIN on your dashboard. You register both numbers in the local motor vehicle database. I don't understand how you would use these RFID tags for anything but recall or warranty information. They certainly aren't a privacy issue, because you won't have your name or any identification associated with the ID in any database, especially if you happen to install the tires yourself.
Then you'd get the 12 kg of Pu vaporized and in the air causing cancer for the next million years or so.
Actually, being an amazingly dense material, almost all of it would settle out of the air quickly. Plutonium is way less dangerous than the mainstream media would have you believe (more danger makes for a "better" news story I guess). Don't get me wrong, it's still dangerous, but it certainly wouldn't stay in the air for a million years... or even for one year. Probably more like a few hours. Then you just have to clean the pieces up off the ground.
Wow, so was Salon.com featured in the book? That guy sounded pissed off! It's too bad that he spent most of the review telling us all how he hates Phillip Kaplan, and only got around to making one actual criticism of the writing. He claims he's in the target audience, but I doubt that the target audience consists of the idiots the book is about. I would think it's more aimed at all the people who thought they had missed out on the whole dot-com thing, and are now getting to point and laugh at all their buddies who bragged about being so wealthy for a few years.
Somebody explain to me why salon is still around.
It seems really ridiculous to require 11 digit dialing in your own area code. Perhaps if we didn't USE area codes but had an entirely random string numbers 11 digit dialing as a requirement is obviously a necessity.
First of all, it's 10 digit dialing. You don't ned to dial the 1 unless it's long distance, and you already had to dial 11 digits for those calls. Second of all, they need to require 10 digit dialing within your own area code simply to reduce the number of incorrectly dialed calls. Think about it, how do you know what area code the phone you're diaing out from is. If you've made a habit of dialing only seven digits from your home phone and then you go somewhere else and try to call somebody with your home area code, you may call the wrong person. Now imagine this situation in a city of 11 million people. I don't know about you, but I don't want my phone ringing incorrectly that often.
Carrier Grade Linux (CGL) is basically just plain old linux with some "real-time" modifications in the kernel, and some QA. The main thing that seperates a CGL distribution from other distributions is the marketing. Intel is pushing CGL to all the big telco equipment makers that are thinking of switching to Intel hardware. United Linux is 10 months late to the party. Montavista is releasing their third CGL soon, and RedHat is also already done with theirs. There are a few other companies out there that are mostly done too. Somehow I'm not surprised that a project of Mr. Love's would be too little too late.
We use CGL when we're selling our clusters to telcos because by the time we get there they've already been sold the CGL bill of goods. In reality we wish we could use debian, and we typically replace the kernel with our own for performance reasons anyway. The CGL distros out there right now are a waste of money in my opinion.
The problem is that it hasn't been the profit generator that Red Hat was hoping it would be.
That's because RedHat resisted moving into the embedded linux market until the last minute. Either way, people using linux in their embedded devices usually just want engineering work and a development environment. Montevista is making a fortune selling just that, and so are other companies and independant developers. Just because RedHat didn't figure out a buisness model that works until 6 months ago doesn't mean other people haven't been making money all along. I've personally worked on two embedded ports in the last three years. Each one paid well over $400,000 and was worked by three engineers. Seems profitable to me.
RedHat is not linux. RedHat is just a tiny piece of the puzzle that happens to be publicly traded.
Ok, so it seems you don't get the bonus no matter what the state of the check box. I suppose filling out a bug report would be the correct thing to do.. Off I go.
They also changed the text next to the box. It now says "No Karma Bonus". I would assume that means if you check the box you post at score 1, and if you leave it unchecked you post at score 2. Right now if you leave it unchecked you post at score one. I haven't tried checking it yet. If this message starts at score 2, they got either the button logic or the wording wrong. If it starts at Score 1 they broke the whole thing... Lets try it.
The trend in the US is exactly the opposite of what you say. The amount of data you can fit on a disk and mail is increasing, while the amount of data you can transmit per unit time is decreasing. This is occuring through advances in optical storage, and association of broadband ISPs with large media companies that have an interest in you not being ablt to transmit very much data (since they both want to be the only source of information and entertainment, and assert that the data you're transmitting is probably stolen from them anyway).
If you can see the gray smears on your hands and fingers after handling the lead, you probably have more than that right there on your hands. Wash it off.
.0001 is alot of lead if you compare it to what left on your hand after light handling, and you would only end up with all that lead in you if you were sucking on your fingers afterward. Admitedly, this is something that a child might do, but if they wash their hands it's not a problem.
.1 gram overweight at the official scale, use a drill and remove wood instead of lead.
You, sir, have a problem. All I said was that having it on your hands isn't dangerous it you wash it off afterward. I don't see why you have a problem with this. I don't disagree that lead is as toxic as you say. I simply disagree that it is sufficient reason not to use it. Besides. You won't see any lead smeared on your hands after touching the rod. It's soft, but not that soft. Though it seems like a small number,
If you swallowed a fishing weight, only the lead on the surface of the weight would be harmful to you. You would not absorb 35% of that lead into your blood stream because 99.9+% of it would come out the other end before it disolved. Again, before you flip out, I'm not advocating you do this, but you are being misleading. You wouldn't end up with 1 million times more lead in your bloodstream.
But don't go telling people stuff like "it's OK, that's not enough lead to hurt you or your kid." That's irresponsible in the extreme.
All that matters is if it's true of not. What I said was true since all I said was that the lead will not harm you or your child as long as you take the most basic of precautions. It is okay to use lead as weight in your car. It can be safer than drinking out of a public water fountain (Which may be old enough to have trace amounts of lead in the pipe solder), or eating vegetables from the garden next to your house (which may have lead paint chips in the soil).
If your car is
Well, first off you should be able to get closer than this at home, but if you are overweight I also advocate removing wood. Simply from the technical perspective, it's too easy to remove too much lead. Besides, your lead will be sealed up, remember?
You can use mcore instead. (If you're running linux, that is.) That'll save your dump even if the crash made the hard drive unaccessable, and it doesn't require swap.