I for the most part agree with the previous poster.
Freedom is worth many many lives in wartime, but curiously not any in peacetime.
There is an obvious solution here. Make the punishment for drunk-driving much more severe. It is most certainly 'attempted negligent homicide'. Granted, this would not end drunk driving, but when the stakes are raised the majority will fall into some level of compliance based on the risk/reward with risk being mandatory jail-time and the reward being save $25 on a cab ride.
Additionally, forcing bars and establishments to immediately report drunk people that the staff knows is driving, and allowing police officers to wait in front of such places and also allow those officers to consider slightly suspicious driving immediately after exiting a bar probable cause.
Fat fines for bars not reporting these situations would be clear motivation for them to be more responsible. I know some people may argue that it is not the bars responsibility to keep people from making bad choices but they did serve a product to a person which got them intoxicated and through experience have a good knowledge of when a person is crossing a point where they can act responsibly.
I would also add that someone refusing to take a sobriety test is in itself not probable cause to force a blood test. I believe that the police officer must have witnessed or have substantial complaints/calls to warrant or force test, or to be able to smell alcohol or see open containers (depending on state,some states allow open containers like Wyoming)
Having a judge on-site to issue such a warrant is WAY to judge-dredd and a very clear violation of your rights preventing search and seizure without probable cause for the search or probable cause for the warrant to search.
I guess my point was to tackle the things that we had the technology for and the capability today, because there are things we can do. And as far as nuclear subsidies, maybe to keep old technology working, but France successfully powers the country on Nuclear power very economically, though their reactors are generally much more modern designs that waste far less fuel. Our reactors use control rods, which is roughly equivalent to turning your fuel pump on full blast and controlling your acceleration by diverting fuel from the engine out onto the ground. modern reactors use lower quality fuel and waste far far less by only prepping the appropriate amount of fuel for reaction, which makes it much safer and much more efficient.
Good batteries for electric/hybrid cars could be a decade away WITH a strong research effort. Lets do what we can today and do the research we need for tomorrow at the same time. Electric cars may be a very realistic reality in 2030, but today the batteries are just too expensive for the power they carry. Modern Nuclear plants are an economical solution to part of our energy needs but are not a cure all.
What I think people fail to realize is that we don't have to solve all our problems in a day, in fact doing so may be irresponsible because the decisions end up being rushed and maybe even flat wrong. more efficient cars, more efficient homes, and more efficient buildings coupled with new nuclear, wind, hydro, and solar deployed over the next 30-50 years is a good plan to work today.
I would also add the a big push to reduce ocean pollution and preserve and repair rainforests could be even more important than lowering emissions. The ability to pull greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere at the scale the oceans and rainforest can when not tainted by pollution or chopped down is impressive.
racing performance and longevity has very very little to do with long term engine wear. gaskets and seals do not hold up even in cars that are so-called 'designed for it'. A vehicle would have to on ethanol only to produce a engine components that would hold up, but making something to hold up to ethanol, gasoline, other fuel additives, and heat is very very difficult and something we have not economically mastered.
I am all for alternative fuel and getting off our reliance on oil, but these ideas have to be within the realm of sanity.
The US is just not in a tropical enough climate over enough of the arable land to grow fuel crops like Brazil. What we need is a crop that can be grown in places other crops cant, and that can produce 300+ gallons per acre. Even so, this would still just be a supplement.
I cant find any real numbers on algae+biowaste produce though the idea sounds very interesting. Grow algea blooms in tubes with septic material as the input. apparently it grows very quickly and has a very high oil content but real numbers just dont seem to exist.
ignoring the issue that ethanol cannot be produced economically and on a useful scale. At this point who really cares about how well it runs in an engine if it is not economical to do so.
The issue with Ethanol is really 2 fronts. 1, corn has a low output per crop for food or for fuel. 2, Ethanol is hard on an engine, even an engine designed to handle it.
We are propping up the corn industry claiming that we are saving farmers. The subsidies that keep those farmers on corn is also keeping the from switching to a more appropriate crop.
Ethanol really tears up engine components such as gaskets and seals. As these items wear at a faster pace with Ethanol, they become less efficient and less reliable.
I understand the draw for ethanol, it acts sort-of like gasoline which keeps the many millions of cars on our roads compatible with the 'next-gen' fuel. The problem is that it is from a low yiel crop and has an intense and expensive manufacturing process.
We could product a diesel-compatible biofuel much more easily and out of crops with significantly higher yield. A significant percent of fuel used in America is diesel through trucks and tractors and a push for a more sustainable fuel in a diesel form would change the focus of automakers selling cars in the US.
It is easier and cheaper to make diesel from corn rather than ethanol, but still not efficient.
Rapeseed can be be broken down by simply crushing the seed which is ~40% oil. This crop produces about ~127 Gallons per acre. The US in 2009 used about 137Billion gallons of gasoline. with some math 137B/127Gallons = 1.07Billion acres. The US is 2.428Billion acres. There are only 922Million acres of farmland. hmmmm, so we dont have enough land to grown a renewable fuel unless we both a, stop eating AND b, come up with something that has a ~50% oil content.
You dont have to be a rocket scientist to do the math from numbers freely available at usda.gov. I would think that any person pushing to eliminate our need for foreign oil or oil in general and actually expecting some level of success would have done a tiny bit of research. We can't grow our fuel, or at the very least we cant grow all of it. We are going to have to use technology to handle this issue, not brute force.
And on that subject, only ~27% of our energy usage is in transporation. petrolium is about 38% of our energy sources.
So the real question is, should we really be looking at changing the fuel source for cars right now? Shouldn't we continue to improve out technology for electric and/or hybrid systems, batteries, and more efficient engines while targeting industrial and commercial power uses? This way in the future we can make a much better change in cars when the technology is ready? We could reduce our need on oil by a massive amount with nuclear power and converting many fuel burners to electical heating and cooling. With nuclear power alone we could see as much fuel energy savings as completely replacing the fuel in our cars. We already have nuclear power technology and building more plants will push that technology further ahead. btw, nuclear is just 8 1/2% of out power source.
I am not saying that we should ignore oil use in cars, just that it is not the best place to start. Batteries and power production, probably nuclear, is what I think is the best route. if we try, we might actually be doing nuclear fusion this century, but fission is proven and reliable and safe.
Atoms are actually VERY slow. head to head with an ARM CPU mhz to mhz ATOMs dont fare well. Toms hardware has shown that Core2Duo chips are MUCH more power efficient than atoms. What makes the current generation of atoms efficient is actually the chipset.
I have a D510MO board with the dual core atom 1.6Ghz, 2GB RAM, 64GB SSD, and Server2008R2 as a AD DC in testing (in the M350 case). The hardware is fine, despite being fairly slow. The issue here is that the same server license that I can run on a dual socket 8 core system is what I have to use on this machine which is an order of magnitude slower. btw, this machines idles at 17W and load at 21W per my killawat.
I suppose the draw to ARM or something is really the possibility of change in Microsoft opening up to more specific use server licenses. Server2008r2 ADDC only licenses for say $300. Something to bridge the gap between 7Pro and Server. I use 7pro for print and file servers but really need a domain controller license that is less than $700.
Active directory is very handy for small offices with just 5-6 computers. Something like small real estate, mortgage brokers, insurance agencies, etc. These places typically have low technical skill levels and also very small budgets. A CAL is comfortable, but 2 servers and licenses for server2008 plus a print server plus a file server which is microsoft's best practices (2x DC and single use servers/server VMs) gets prohibitive quickly.
A 2U rackmount server with 8 cores @ 2.5Ghz, 48GB RAM and 8x15k RPM pulls under 250W with a light load. Any contemporary, basic "server" (~2Ghz dual-core CPU, 4-8GB RAM, 2-4 hard disks) should rarely, if ever, break 100W in typical usage.
A Dell Poweredge r410 with a dual xeon 2.6Ghz and 8GB RAM, 4 disks draws a steady 300W according to my killawat.
A Dell T100 with a Core2 Duo 2.8Ghz and 8GB RAM, 4 disks pulls ~225W according to the killawat.
in the context of an office's annual budget
Seriously? That kind of justification is a prime example of how to let a business's finances run off the rails.
Considering the disk costs and power consumption are set a different platform wont alter that. Many ARM 'systems' draw under 5W under max load. 10W per drive puts a 4 disks system in under 50W under light load assuming 8-10W per disk and doubling the power draw of the SoC.
Electricity is getting more expensive quickly. At $.12/KWh we are talking hundreds of dollars a year, but electricity is just getting more and more expensive and $.30 is not so far off for a lot of businesses.
I see a gap in microsoft's product line. Its small branch offices where a traditional server is overkill in power usage and expense.
If microsoft were to produce an ARM version of server2008r2 that was able to provide a full AD DC role, print server role, WSUS or IIS as a single role server on a lighter ARM box they would kill.
If you could get a single role, or single primary role such as a AD DC + print server, or IIS + WSUS, at a more fitting price for a low power machine, then AD would find many more homes in small offices.
Considering that ANY full size server is going to chew up 250W, and 350W more often than not, a 100W ARM server, redundant hard disks included, would be a significant savings in expense. 250W*24hours*365 = thats ~2.2MW or around $250, the ARM server would be $150 per year cheaper. Now do 2 AD DC, 1 IIS + WSUS, and 1 fileserver your at 1.25KW*24*365 thats 11MW or $1200 vs $300-$400 for the arm. Microsoft should also license these out at a reduced price (1/2 I think) but keep CALS the same price.
There are many roles that just arent worthy of an entire machine and shouldnt be put in a VM. A backup server for DPM for instance. Doesnt need much horsepower, just diskspace, server 2008r2, and the DPM software. PERFECT for a small ARM platform like a dual core 1.5-2Ghz.
Clearly, the sphere that surrounds us that is the known universe has some sort of fluid oil stuck to it. That is the simplest and most correct way to describe the movement of the 'so-called' stars. The oil slowly shifts due to the orbit of the sun around the earth.
"It isn't collecting revenue for a business. It is making these million dollar verdicts against individuals irrelevant"
This is a completely false statement. Collecting tax revenue to compensate a business is absolutely collecting revenue for a business. It is also unfair taxation because many people do not purchase or consume music or consume music at a much lesser rate than others. This would be constitutionally illegal, 'commerce clause'
"It is also doing a Constitutional duty for facilitating trade."
also entirely false. The government does not have the right to collect revenue for a business, it is outside the scope of their duties. The federal government may only facilitate foreign, interstate, and indian commerce but not commerce within the states. A federal law would be unconstitutional. Only a state could pass such a law. Article 1, section 8, clause 3. The federal government can only enact laws when the authority to do so is either defined in the constitution, or completely omitted. In this case, the commerce clause defines the federal governments role in commerce.
"We in the US have two choices: Continue to criminalize this, so we have another set of people to join the pot smokers in our prison system, or find a way to ensure artists and labels are properly compensated for their work and save the jail bed space for the real criminals."
again, incorrect. The US government must only determine statues for punishment and damages. The justice system's job is ONLY to facilitate the law, which is well established. The only thing that is not yet defined clearly by statute or precedent is how much damage is incurred and how that damage is measured, which would help to determine what reasonable punishment is. So neither of your proposed solutions is even valid for discussion because they are outside the scope of the legal system.
Everything you propose is in 100% contrast to the Constitution, which is the only thing holding our country together. People like you who think that making a little exception to the long established rule is ok are the ones who create the pinholes in our rights, degrading them until they are nearly transparent. Only states, individually, can do such things, and still must follow their own constitutions. Additionally, the federal government cannot force states to enforce federal policy, which is how California and Montana and other states have legalized medicinal marijuana despite federal law. Those states do not have to enforce the federal law banning the use and the federal government cant enforce it unless someone passes into their jurisdiction.
The US and Canada are very VERY different countries in regards to government. This tax may be legal in Canada but it would be completely illegal in the US according to the tenth amendment(twice, forced participation in federal statute and the commerce clause).
How is this different than any other crime? really, what is the value of what is stolen? $1 each? How many were stolen? 24? so $24. What is the typical penalty? double damages. $48. Criminal record? yes. probation? yes. pay court fees? yes. ( lets say that you get a class which has fees, court fees, fees for being served paperwork etc, probably $1000 in total )
how many people downloaded the song? lets say 1000. So how much is your fine for that? $0. Who is fined? the 1000 people, for $48 + probation + criminal record + court expenses.
Make an example out of people you say? bull s h i t. Punishment fits the crime, not punishment fits the example you like to make. Should punishment be a deterrent, yes. But theft of a $1 item, even two dozen $1 items, should not functionally force a person into perpetual poverty. $1.5M in fines is not just excessive, it is fascist. It reeks of corruption. It is every penny the average person will earn for nearly 50 years. How might a person conceivably pay this? Is this our path back to indentured servitude? yes.
The fact is that these products have a one time expense. Actual losses? If this is a product that is on the hit charts and has active marketing then there is likely some loss of sales and I admit that it would be difficult to actually determine if the thieves would have purchased the product but in contrast, these things are available free-to-hear on radio can be recorded from there as well, so that must be taken into account as well. If someone downloads 1982's Violent Femmes self titled album then actual losses are likely immeasurable.
I, for one, believe that an artist should get paint for the art. What I mean by that is a painter should get paid for selling a painting, not when people view the painting. A singer should get paid for singing a song, not for a speaker playing the song back. Make your money in concerts. The culture of celebrity(at least how it exists today) is tiresome and vampiric to society. The RIAA and the entire process to producing music after is unsustainable in such a well connected world.
Get the hint record companies, we are beyond caring about album art and fancy packaging for music, we can get that on google. We dont care for a pressed CD, we use iPods, Zunes. We arent willing to pay $15 for these things. As sales decrease, which they will, you will see that people are completely unwilling to pay $1 for a B track, making artists skip them and release only singles. Less product, less money period. The movement away from the RIAA to sources where an artist can sell their tracks for less money but make more profit per has already begun.
We will be buying our music in the future and it will be reasonably priced. There will always be piracy, because some people wouldnt pay a dime for a song if they could pay nothing, start targeting people who care about music and want to keep artists in business. Some of us would pay the $1 for the hit song and $.2 per B-Track(bundled up as an album, sure!). I would. 16 tracks please. $4. or just the single for a $buck.
I wonder if the RIAA has ever considered that trying to sell to customers is better that suing people who aren't customers? When has this tactic ever EVER worked. never.
Despite your correction of the previous poster, some of his comment still stands as true. Though killing your would-be killer during the act as self defense is not murder, it is killing. Having a blanket exemption for killing in self defense is to vague, too open. For instance, someone is coming at you to kill you and you can overt that without killing your attacker, you should be required to take that route. Your killers life is functionally less valuable than yours at the moment but not value-less.
Along those same lines, capital punishment is truly murder. It fits all the qualifications for murder. Planning, motive, malicious intent (wanting to end a life is malicious), but by making this act NOT murder, effectively the 'target' ( I hesitate to say victim ) as a life value of approx ZERO. If it had any value, then there should be repercussions for killing them.
In war, the enemy has a very low 'value' on their life as well. It is ok to kill them and it is not self defense for the most part. Yet another example of all life not being equal.
|Many sites block entire countries, because they don't have the legal right to serve the same content in all regions. -Nothing wrong with this, it crosses and international border. There is no violation of real or even percieved rights here.
|Many sites ban entire countries or IP blocks due to spamming and/or other malicious behavior that has come from those blocks. Is that acceptable? -absolutely. again, my rights as an american extend only to our borders. We need to extend the rights of american citizens to chinese citizens outside of our borders.
|If so, given that you can find malicious behavior coming just about every IP block (botnets), does that mean that it could be used an excuse to ban whoever you wish? -thats the question then isnt it? what are our rights in regards to internet access and accessibility? Blocking servers from the outside world from connecting in is certainly acceptable. Hopefully some reasonable restraint is used in this blocking but totally acceptable and legal. blocking our access to information beyond our borders is questionable.
is it legal for a company (A) to block access to their product to a specific organization (B) over a contract dispute? yes. absolutely. and despite the inconvenience it causes company B's customers, any law restricting anyones ability to do such a thing is clearly a violation of their rights.
The many comments here about using just imap with maildir or mbox storage backends forget to mention that these are all very slow to search when you have thousands of messages. They dont store the files in any kind of disk-seek friendly format. soo..
I suggest either putting a dovecot with maildir++ system on fast SSD to overcome the poorly organized(on disk) files -and/or- using a mysql/postgresql backend on dovecot or courier or your favorite imap that supports *sql. The mail would be stored with each detail in a different column in the table. Then you can index the sender, recipient, subject etc. You will need to either have a mail client that can use imap search so you can get the search to happen on the db side, or you could put together a php interface to search the database directly for the messages you are looking for.
imap isnt going away in the next decade and either is mysql or postgresql or the sql language in general. worse case would be to migrate the mail table to a new db, which would be done with a db dump and fairly trivially.
I think that it is a VERY difficult metric to determine how many lost sales this means.
For instance, I purchased World of Goo in Wii Ware but I also grabbed it for the PC without paying.
Another example is when a person would not have purchased the software but downloaded it because it was 'free'.
Adobe Photoshop or Autodesk 3DS max are excellent examples of what I am describing, the VAST majority of people who pirate these programs would NEVER purchase them because of their cost, they would use Paint.net, pbrush, buy something cheaper etc. So each person that pirates 3DS max isnt a lost sale, only a small percentage is.
With a game I would say that the 'lost sale' rate is many times higher than with a professional software BUT I doubt that they lost 80% of their income on this game from piracy, probably some fraction of that. Totally unscientific guess here would be 30-40% lost sales due to piracy.
Slashdot Mirror
I for the most part agree with the previous poster.
Freedom is worth many many lives in wartime, but curiously not any in peacetime.
There is an obvious solution here. Make the punishment for drunk-driving much more severe. It is most certainly 'attempted negligent homicide'. Granted, this would not end drunk driving, but when the stakes are raised the majority will fall into some level of compliance based on the risk/reward with risk being mandatory jail-time and the reward being save $25 on a cab ride.
Additionally, forcing bars and establishments to immediately report drunk people that the staff knows is driving, and allowing police officers to wait in front of such places and also allow those officers to consider slightly suspicious driving immediately after exiting a bar probable cause.
Fat fines for bars not reporting these situations would be clear motivation for them to be more responsible. I know some people may argue that it is not the bars responsibility to keep people from making bad choices but they did serve a product to a person which got them intoxicated and through experience have a good knowledge of when a person is crossing a point where they can act responsibly.
I would also add that someone refusing to take a sobriety test is in itself not probable cause to force a blood test. I believe that the police officer must have witnessed or have substantial complaints/calls to warrant or force test, or to be able to smell alcohol or see open containers (depending on state ,some states allow open containers like Wyoming)
Having a judge on-site to issue such a warrant is WAY to judge-dredd and a very clear violation of your rights preventing search and seizure without probable cause for the search or probable cause for the warrant to search.
I guess my point was to tackle the things that we had the technology for and the capability today, because there are things we can do. And as far as nuclear subsidies, maybe to keep old technology working, but France successfully powers the country on Nuclear power very economically, though their reactors are generally much more modern designs that waste far less fuel. Our reactors use control rods, which is roughly equivalent to turning your fuel pump on full blast and controlling your acceleration by diverting fuel from the engine out onto the ground. modern reactors use lower quality fuel and waste far far less by only prepping the appropriate amount of fuel for reaction, which makes it much safer and much more efficient.
Good batteries for electric/hybrid cars could be a decade away WITH a strong research effort. Lets do what we can today and do the research we need for tomorrow at the same time. Electric cars may be a very realistic reality in 2030, but today the batteries are just too expensive for the power they carry. Modern Nuclear plants are an economical solution to part of our energy needs but are not a cure all.
What I think people fail to realize is that we don't have to solve all our problems in a day, in fact doing so may be irresponsible because the decisions end up being rushed and maybe even flat wrong. more efficient cars, more efficient homes, and more efficient buildings coupled with new nuclear, wind, hydro, and solar deployed over the next 30-50 years is a good plan to work today.
I would also add the a big push to reduce ocean pollution and preserve and repair rainforests could be even more important than lowering emissions. The ability to pull greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere at the scale the oceans and rainforest can when not tainted by pollution or chopped down is impressive.
it doesnt scale up well. NAT is also somewhat heavy on routers and massive NAT tables would require investment in equipment.
essentially all modern computing platforms are IP6 capable, the best choice is to make the switch and not mess with large scale NAT.
Because a lot of services don't work well through NAT. VPN and voice services are good examples.
racing performance and longevity has very very little to do with long term engine wear. gaskets and seals do not hold up even in cars that are so-called 'designed for it'. A vehicle would have to on ethanol only to produce a engine components that would hold up, but making something to hold up to ethanol, gasoline, other fuel additives, and heat is very very difficult and something we have not economically mastered.
I am all for alternative fuel and getting off our reliance on oil, but these ideas have to be within the realm of sanity.
The US is just not in a tropical enough climate over enough of the arable land to grow fuel crops like Brazil. What we need is a crop that can be grown in places other crops cant, and that can produce 300+ gallons per acre. Even so, this would still just be a supplement.
I cant find any real numbers on algae+biowaste produce though the idea sounds very interesting. Grow algea blooms in tubes with septic material as the input. apparently it grows very quickly and has a very high oil content but real numbers just dont seem to exist.
ignoring the issue that ethanol cannot be produced economically and on a useful scale. At this point who really cares about how well it runs in an engine if it is not economical to do so.
I have the same (or similar enough) measurement in my 2009 civic, and worse in my 2001 chevy truck.
Holiday stations here do the 10% ethanol thing, I get 13.8mpg on it
Conoco stations here advertise 'no ethanol' and I get 15.6mpg on that.
as the previous poster showed, Ethanol is actually worse than water as a fuel additive for some situations, including mine and his.
i didnt give any sources, oops. mostly usda.gov but also some wikipedia and lawrence livermore natial laboratory.
The issue with Ethanol is really 2 fronts.
1, corn has a low output per crop for food or for fuel.
2, Ethanol is hard on an engine, even an engine designed to handle it.
We are propping up the corn industry claiming that we are saving farmers. The subsidies that keep those farmers on corn is also keeping the from switching to a more appropriate crop.
Ethanol really tears up engine components such as gaskets and seals. As these items wear at a faster pace with Ethanol, they become less efficient and less reliable.
I understand the draw for ethanol, it acts sort-of like gasoline which keeps the many millions of cars on our roads compatible with the 'next-gen' fuel. The problem is that it is from a low yiel crop and has an intense and expensive manufacturing process.
We could product a diesel-compatible biofuel much more easily and out of crops with significantly higher yield. A significant percent of fuel used in America is diesel through trucks and tractors and a push for a more sustainable fuel in a diesel form would change the focus of automakers selling cars in the US.
It is easier and cheaper to make diesel from corn rather than ethanol, but still not efficient.
Rapeseed can be be broken down by simply crushing the seed which is ~40% oil. This crop produces about ~127 Gallons per acre. The US in 2009 used about 137Billion gallons of gasoline.
with some math 137B/127Gallons = 1.07Billion acres. The US is 2.428Billion acres. There are only 922Million acres of farmland.
hmmmm, so we dont have enough land to grown a renewable fuel unless we both a, stop eating AND b, come up with something that has a ~50% oil content.
You dont have to be a rocket scientist to do the math from numbers freely available at usda.gov. I would think that any person pushing to eliminate our need for foreign oil or oil in general and actually expecting some level of success would have done a tiny bit of research. We can't grow our fuel, or at the very least we cant grow all of it. We are going to have to use technology to handle this issue, not brute force.
And on that subject, only ~27% of our energy usage is in transporation. petrolium is about 38% of our energy sources.
So the real question is, should we really be looking at changing the fuel source for cars right now? Shouldn't we continue to improve out technology for electric and/or hybrid systems, batteries, and more efficient engines while targeting industrial and commercial power uses? This way in the future we can make a much better change in cars when the technology is ready? We could reduce our need on oil by a massive amount with nuclear power and converting many fuel burners to electical heating and cooling. With nuclear power alone we could see as much fuel energy savings as completely replacing the fuel in our cars. We already have nuclear power technology and building more plants will push that technology further ahead. btw, nuclear is just 8 1/2% of out power source.
I am not saying that we should ignore oil use in cars, just that it is not the best place to start. Batteries and power production, probably nuclear, is what I think is the best route. if we try, we might actually be doing nuclear fusion this century, but fission is proven and reliable and safe.
Atoms are actually VERY slow. head to head with an ARM CPU mhz to mhz ATOMs dont fare well. Toms hardware has shown that Core2Duo chips are MUCH more power efficient than atoms. What makes the current generation of atoms efficient is actually the chipset.
I have a D510MO board with the dual core atom 1.6Ghz, 2GB RAM, 64GB SSD, and Server2008R2 as a AD DC in testing (in the M350 case). The hardware is fine, despite being fairly slow. The issue here is that the same server license that I can run on a dual socket 8 core system is what I have to use on this machine which is an order of magnitude slower. btw, this machines idles at 17W and load at 21W per my killawat.
I suppose the draw to ARM or something is really the possibility of change in Microsoft opening up to more specific use server licenses. Server2008r2 ADDC only licenses for say $300. Something to bridge the gap between 7Pro and Server. I use 7pro for print and file servers but really need a domain controller license that is less than $700.
Active directory is very handy for small offices with just 5-6 computers. Something like small real estate, mortgage brokers, insurance agencies, etc. These places typically have low technical skill levels and also very small budgets. A CAL is comfortable, but 2 servers and licenses for server2008 plus a print server plus a file server which is microsoft's best practices (2x DC and single use servers/server VMs) gets prohibitive quickly.
A 2U rackmount server with 8 cores @ 2.5Ghz, 48GB RAM and 8x15k RPM pulls under 250W with a light load. Any contemporary, basic "server" (~2Ghz dual-core CPU, 4-8GB RAM, 2-4 hard disks) should rarely, if ever, break 100W in typical usage.
A Dell Poweredge r410 with a dual xeon 2.6Ghz and 8GB RAM, 4 disks draws a steady 300W according to my killawat.
A Dell T100 with a Core2 Duo 2.8Ghz and 8GB RAM, 4 disks pulls ~225W according to the killawat.
in the context of an office's annual budget
Seriously? That kind of justification is a prime example of how to let a business's finances run off the rails.
Considering the disk costs and power consumption are set a different platform wont alter that. Many ARM 'systems' draw under 5W under max load. 10W per drive puts a 4 disks system in under 50W under light load assuming 8-10W per disk and doubling the power draw of the SoC.
Electricity is getting more expensive quickly. At $.12/KWh we are talking hundreds of dollars a year, but electricity is just getting more and more expensive and $.30 is not so far off for a lot of businesses.
I see a gap in microsoft's product line. Its small branch offices where a traditional server is overkill in power usage and expense.
If microsoft were to produce an ARM version of server2008r2 that was able to provide a full AD DC role, print server role, WSUS or IIS as a single role server on a lighter ARM box they would kill.
If you could get a single role, or single primary role such as a AD DC + print server, or IIS + WSUS, at a more fitting price for a low power machine, then AD would find many more homes in small offices.
Considering that ANY full size server is going to chew up 250W, and 350W more often than not, a 100W ARM server, redundant hard disks included, would be a significant savings in expense. 250W*24hours*365 = thats ~2.2MW or around $250, the ARM server would be $150 per year cheaper. Now do 2 AD DC, 1 IIS + WSUS, and 1 fileserver your at 1.25KW*24*365 thats 11MW or $1200 vs $300-$400 for the arm. Microsoft should also license these out at a reduced price (1/2 I think) but keep CALS the same price.
There are many roles that just arent worthy of an entire machine and shouldnt be put in a VM. A backup server for DPM for instance. Doesnt need much horsepower, just diskspace, server 2008r2, and the DPM software. PERFECT for a small ARM platform like a dual core 1.5-2Ghz.
Clearly, the sphere that surrounds us that is the known universe has some sort of fluid oil stuck to it. That is the simplest and most correct way to describe the movement of the 'so-called' stars. The oil slowly shifts due to the orbit of the sun around the earth.
"It isn't collecting revenue for a business. It is making these million dollar verdicts against individuals irrelevant"
This is a completely false statement. Collecting tax revenue to compensate a business is absolutely collecting revenue for a business. It is also unfair taxation because many people do not purchase or consume music or consume music at a much lesser rate than others. This would be constitutionally illegal, 'commerce clause'
"It is also doing a Constitutional duty for facilitating trade."
also entirely false. The government does not have the right to collect revenue for a business, it is outside the scope of their duties. The federal government may only facilitate foreign, interstate, and indian commerce but not commerce within the states. A federal law would be unconstitutional. Only a state could pass such a law. Article 1, section 8, clause 3. The federal government can only enact laws when the authority to do so is either defined in the constitution, or completely omitted. In this case, the commerce clause defines the federal governments role in commerce.
"We in the US have two choices: Continue to criminalize this, so we have another set of people to join the pot smokers in our prison system, or find a way to ensure artists and labels are properly compensated for their work and save the jail bed space for the real criminals."
again, incorrect. The US government must only determine statues for punishment and damages. The justice system's job is ONLY to facilitate the law, which is well established. The only thing that is not yet defined clearly by statute or precedent is how much damage is incurred and how that damage is measured, which would help to determine what reasonable punishment is. So neither of your proposed solutions is even valid for discussion because they are outside the scope of the legal system.
Everything you propose is in 100% contrast to the Constitution, which is the only thing holding our country together. People like you who think that making a little exception to the long established rule is ok are the ones who create the pinholes in our rights, degrading them until they are nearly transparent. Only states, individually, can do such things, and still must follow their own constitutions. Additionally, the federal government cannot force states to enforce federal policy, which is how California and Montana and other states have legalized medicinal marijuana despite federal law. Those states do not have to enforce the federal law banning the use and the federal government cant enforce it unless someone passes into their jurisdiction.
The US and Canada are very VERY different countries in regards to government. This tax may be legal in Canada but it would be completely illegal in the US according to the tenth amendment(twice, forced participation in federal statute and the commerce clause).
It is definitely not the government's job to collect revenue for a business. In fact, that is rediculous.
Do you really want to government to just tax you on stuff in case you use it?
How is this different than any other crime? really, what is the value of what is stolen? $1 each? How many were stolen? 24? so $24. What is the typical penalty? double damages. $48. Criminal record? yes. probation? yes. pay court fees? yes. ( lets say that you get a class which has fees, court fees, fees for being served paperwork etc, probably $1000 in total )
how many people downloaded the song? lets say 1000. So how much is your fine for that? $0. Who is fined? the 1000 people, for $48 + probation + criminal record + court expenses.
Make an example out of people you say? bull s h i t. Punishment fits the crime, not punishment fits the example you like to make. Should punishment be a deterrent, yes. But theft of a $1 item, even two dozen $1 items, should not functionally force a person into perpetual poverty. $1.5M in fines is not just excessive, it is fascist. It reeks of corruption. It is every penny the average person will earn for nearly 50 years. How might a person conceivably pay this? Is this our path back to indentured servitude? yes.
The fact is that these products have a one time expense. Actual losses? If this is a product that is on the hit charts and has active marketing then there is likely some loss of sales and I admit that it would be difficult to actually determine if the thieves would have purchased the product but in contrast, these things are available free-to-hear on radio can be recorded from there as well, so that must be taken into account as well. If someone downloads 1982's Violent Femmes self titled album then actual losses are likely immeasurable.
I, for one, believe that an artist should get paint for the art. What I mean by that is a painter should get paid for selling a painting, not when people view the painting. A singer should get paid for singing a song, not for a speaker playing the song back. Make your money in concerts. The culture of celebrity(at least how it exists today) is tiresome and vampiric to society. The RIAA and the entire process to producing music after is unsustainable in such a well connected world.
Get the hint record companies, we are beyond caring about album art and fancy packaging for music, we can get that on google. We dont care for a pressed CD, we use iPods, Zunes. We arent willing to pay $15 for these things. As sales decrease, which they will, you will see that people are completely unwilling to pay $1 for a B track, making artists skip them and release only singles. Less product, less money period. The movement away from the RIAA to sources where an artist can sell their tracks for less money but make more profit per has already begun.
We will be buying our music in the future and it will be reasonably priced. There will always be piracy, because some people wouldnt pay a dime for a song if they could pay nothing, start targeting people who care about music and want to keep artists in business. Some of us would pay the $1 for the hit song and $.2 per B-Track(bundled up as an album, sure!). I would. 16 tracks please. $4. or just the single for a $buck.
I wonder if the RIAA has ever considered that trying to sell to customers is better that suing people who aren't customers? When has this tactic ever EVER worked. never.
Despite your correction of the previous poster, some of his comment still stands as true. Though killing your would-be killer during the act as self defense is not murder, it is killing. Having a blanket exemption for killing in self defense is to vague, too open. For instance, someone is coming at you to kill you and you can overt that without killing your attacker, you should be required to take that route. Your killers life is functionally less valuable than yours at the moment but not value-less.
Along those same lines, capital punishment is truly murder. It fits all the qualifications for murder. Planning, motive, malicious intent (wanting to end a life is malicious), but by making this act NOT murder, effectively the 'target' ( I hesitate to say victim ) as a life value of approx ZERO. If it had any value, then there should be repercussions for killing them.
In war, the enemy has a very low 'value' on their life as well. It is ok to kill them and it is not self defense for the most part. Yet another example of all life not being equal.
|Many sites block entire countries, because they don't have the legal right to serve the same content in all regions.
-Nothing wrong with this, it crosses and international border. There is no violation of real or even percieved rights here.
|Many sites ban entire countries or IP blocks due to spamming and/or other malicious behavior that has come from those blocks. Is that acceptable?
-absolutely. again, my rights as an american extend only to our borders. We need to extend the rights of american citizens to chinese citizens outside of our borders.
|If so, given that you can find malicious behavior coming just about every IP block (botnets), does that mean that it could be used an excuse to ban whoever you wish?
-thats the question then isnt it? what are our rights in regards to internet access and accessibility? Blocking servers from the outside world from connecting in is certainly acceptable. Hopefully some reasonable restraint is used in this blocking but totally acceptable and legal. blocking our access to information beyond our borders is questionable.
is it legal for a company (A) to block access to their product to a specific organization (B) over a contract dispute? yes. absolutely. and despite the inconvenience it causes company B's customers, any law restricting anyones ability to do such a thing is clearly a violation of their rights.
IP6 tunnel broker. Done.
The many comments here about using just imap with maildir or mbox storage backends forget to mention that these are all very slow to search when you have thousands of messages. They dont store the files in any kind of disk-seek friendly format. soo..
I suggest either putting a dovecot with maildir++ system on fast SSD to overcome the poorly organized(on disk) files
-and/or-
using a mysql/postgresql backend on dovecot or courier or your favorite imap that supports *sql. The mail would be stored with each detail in a different column in the table. Then you can index the sender, recipient, subject etc. You will need to either have a mail client that can use imap search so you can get the search to happen on the db side, or you could put together a php interface to search the database directly for the messages you are looking for.
imap isnt going away in the next decade and either is mysql or postgresql or the sql language in general. worse case would be to migrate the mail table to a new db, which would be done with a db dump and fairly trivially.
The d525 is a dual core, 4 thread atom at 1.8Ghz.
ION2 = just a low power GPU but can decode high def easily with this CPU
bcm70015 decodes divx, xvid, wmv, mpeg4, vc1, h264.
slam these in a cheap case from newegg for 75 (includes power, is VESA mountable.
Thats a ~$225 system.
This system has zero fans and is completely quiet. no lights blinking, nothing.
that sounds like a job for an arduino/seeeduino or like.
I think that it is a VERY difficult metric to determine how many lost sales this means.
For instance, I purchased World of Goo in Wii Ware but I also grabbed it for the PC without paying.
Another example is when a person would not have purchased the software but downloaded it because it was 'free'.
Adobe Photoshop or Autodesk 3DS max are excellent examples of what I am describing, the VAST majority of people who pirate these programs would NEVER purchase them because of their cost, they would use Paint.net, pbrush, buy something cheaper etc. So each person that pirates 3DS max isnt a lost sale, only a small percentage is.
With a game I would say that the 'lost sale' rate is many times higher than with a professional software BUT I doubt that they lost 80% of their income on this game from piracy, probably some fraction of that. Totally unscientific guess here would be 30-40% lost sales due to piracy.