This is ONLY a concern to the people interested in owning thousands of names. Personally we should go back to $100 with a money pot that reinvest $90 of that to infrastructure or something of the sort.
Going to $100/yr registration will not necessarily bring in more money. It would very likely get rid of most true domain squatters, but many of those squatters are actually domain kiters. Kiting is a problem that is not solved by upping the cost, it's solved by changing the terms on the 5-day grace period in paying for domains.
To add to my point of $100/yr (or any increased amount) yearly registration costs not necessarily bring in more money, consider that as the cost goes up, the number of people purchasing goes down. At some point, the revenue (number of people purchasing times the cost) will be on a downward slope. The point of maximum revenue is usually not where the cost is at its maximum.
To complicate the equation, with less domains registered, there's less cost in servicing the registered domains. But even if there was only one domain registered, the cost does not approach zero. The incremental cost or each extra domain is usually less that the previous domain. This the cost of running DNS spread across the totalitly of domains registered (operation cost per registration) should naturally go down as more domains are added.
There _is_ a problem with squatters and kiters, but I don't believe the biggest problem it creates is with serving DNS for all these domains.
Vonage's businss model depends on Verizon, SBC and the other existing phone companies. It depends on utilization of their facilities without paying anything for the use.
I call bullshit.
Vonage doesn't pay for the line, the customer of both Vonage and the ISP pays for the line. If the ISP isn't getting what they think they should get for the traffic, they should jack the rate to their actual customer... the person with the DSL or Cable connection.
The user pays the ISP to get to Vonage, not the other way around.
So what do their competitors sites' look like from their internal network inside the store? Are they forging Circuit City's, Office Depot's, Office Max's, Staple's,...etc sites? Or can you even see the competitors' sites from their intranet?
Re:Something doesn't add up...
on
Water From Wind
·
· Score: 1
The fresh water was used for tree farms, that created more rainfall by cooling the air.
While water evaporating from trees may cool the air, water vapor converted to liquid and collected by any device will heat the air. (Unless that device has some coolant loop where it's pumping the heat somewhere else... but overall it's still heating the air.) To take water from a gas to a liquid, the latent heat has to come out of the water. That heat goes somewhere. You could then water trees which would cool the local air, but that cooling would be no more than the heating from the dehumidification. Also, the turbulance from the windmill would cause a certain amount of heating. The net total from the windmill in the system would be heating.
Additionally, IIRC from the business law class I took WRT filing patents... to file a patent you must document and disclose your technology in some way, often in a trade journal relevant to your technology. This whole thing about not talking about the technology until the patent is issued strikes me as bogus. If you, yourself, are the 'prior art' (by way of your publication date), then you essentially have the right to acquire the patent. To me, this smells like another VC (venture capitol) scam.
BTW, reading the VISA document above is well worth time. It's useful for those checkout line arguments you invariably find yourself in occasionally. (minimum charges, ID checks, etc.)
If you're a cash customer, you can thank some of those contract terms for driving up the price on what you buy... EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE A CASH CUSTOMER.
All those "rewards" you get, all those cash back bonuses, who do you think pays for them? The customers do. The prices go up on everyone, and the credit card customer gets screwed and shares some of that screwing with the cash customer because of the oligopoly powers of the credit card industry. Ever seen someone try to use a Visa card to buy a guitar pick? I have. He was told where he could shove it. It would've be cheaper if he just shoplifted it.
There currently is litigation going on regarding these types of issues. This site is a blog dedicated to it: http://www.waytoohigh.com/.
Don't bother looking if you're on Linux. The ILM page sent me to Adobe to get Flash, but even the newest version of Flash offered for Linux does not satisfy the requirements of the ILM page.
It might just be more feasible to get rid of pennies altogether.
If you're someone who doesn't like a constant drone of inflation (like me), then keeping the penny is a good thing. By keeping the penny, we have another motivation to keep the face value of the currency greater than the material value of the coinage that represents it. If we just phase out the coins/currency that costs us more than the value of the currency it represents, then we lose a motivation to aim for zero inflation.
Now that we're past the value of the penny, the economic effects of deflation may be more painful than just giving up on the penny. Also, with the cost of copper unusually high, the cost of the penny may come back down a bit if copper returns near its original level. I don't know how much this will affect the cost of a penny.
For those of you the like inflation, I can only assume that you owe more money than you have. Inflation benefits the person or entity who's in debt. You owe a dollar with interest today, you'll owe a dollar with interest tomorrow. If that dollar is worth less, and more so if you're on a fixed interest rate of what you owe, you will actually owe less tomorrow than what you other wise would have had owed. Inflation shrinks our national debt. This is why I don't buy bonds.
[...]Eneco is a development stage company that claims to have invented and patented a "solid state energy conversion/generation chip" that will convert heat directly into electricity or alternatively refrigerate down to -200 degrees celsius when electricity is applied.
[...]the energy of a hot metal over comes the electrostatic forces holding electrons to its surface. These free electrons then pass across a vacuum to a cold metal[...]
The two above quotes are mutually exclusive. I'm starting to see that this looking like very sloppy article writing. The one thing I can say with confidence is that the writer probably doesn't have any engineering or scientific degree.
If the first assertion is true, they're violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If the second assertion is true, they just reinvented a peltier device or thermocouple. My two canned responses are "*sarcastically* yeah right" and "*sarcastically* big whoop", respectively.
Specifically, it reduces the entropy of the system. The heat going into and supposedly being consumed by the device has a higher entropy than the electricity coming out.
It would be great if the 2nd law was wrong and they disproved it, but until then this looks like a scam for investors. If it's not a scam for investors, they need to publish a research paper where the phenomena can be independently tested and observed. If they publish properly they will protect any patent position they wish to pursue. If they go the route of 'trade secret' then they reek of yet another perpertual motion investor scam.
A thermocouple derives energy (in the form of electricity) from the flow of heat from one side to another. That process (thermocouple) is not a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
If he's that serious about it, and truly sincere about it, Gore should set up a bit-torrent of his film and provide it for free. I'm sure George Soros would be happy to pay off Gore's investors to allow this.
I've had enough of those who want to tell me that the sky is falling yet want me to pay them to tell me so. If the sky is really falling I expect you to tell me for free.
I'm also not gonna pay you to lie to me (talking to you, Michael Moore).
As an EE, when TFA uses phrases like "[...] 500 megawatts a year.", it gives me that warm fuzzy feeling that the writer really knows science and engineering. (Sarcasm intended) It makes me wonder how good the rest of the information in the article is.
For those who are honorably ignorant of what I'm splitting hairs on (honorably in that you're not trying to write about something you don't know about): A 'watt' is already a rate of something per unit time. If the energy produced was to be quantified in units per year, it should be joules per year.
George Bush Jr's grandfather Prescott Bush was a eugenicist,[...]
And (formally vice President) Al Gore's father, Al Gore Sr., was against the civil rights act of 1964 and tried various congressional tricks to cripple it. (Google for Al Gore Sr and civil rights act)
Let's not attribute guilt upon someone for something a relative of theirs did. If you do that, you might as well believe in Original Sin where we're guilty for what Adam and Eve did. Given enough data, I'll get all of you condemned to death for evils your ancestors commited, myself included.
What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?
Not too much, IMO, except an experience that will cause you to learn the fundamentals... if becoming an uber-linux-geek is your goal.
What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?
Just last night I started building another firewall/router/fileserver/VPN box for a friend. I've been using Kubuntu on all my desktops for about the last year, so I was going to try to put a strip down Ubuntu on this little (processor/memory wise) machine. My machine was too small for even a non-X Ubuntu. I went back to Slack for all my server type (non-X, non-desktop) machines. With Slack, I can still make a usable machine out of a 486 with 16M ram.
The only bummer for me is that I started this install last night with 10.2 and woke up this morning to see the post that 11.0 had been released.
Would be interesting to know what the efficiency is of a 380 -> 12/5 DC-DC converter, compared to a traditional 110 AC -> 12/5 DC converter.
I would venture to say it's a little bit better, and here's why:
Your average switching computer power supply unit (PSU) (including the commodity consumer one's like the one running your computer used to access./) converts either the 120Vac or 240Vac into it immediately into about 300-340Vdc with a standard bridge rectifier. That little switch on the back of your PSU changes a connection between the rectifier and the capacitors to double the rectified voltage from the 120Vac so that it's near 300-340Vdc too. That DC supply is then used to feed a switching circuit that changes it back to AC at a frequency significantly higher than 60Hz that is fed into the transformer. Because the (AC) frequency is much higher, the transformer can be much smaller for a given power level.
I've gutted many a PSU, and nearly all of them have a pair of 200V capacitors in series (making a capacitor with a 400V rating and a center tap that's used for the voltage doubler circuit necessary for 120Vac input). The selection of 380Vdc makes sense as the common PSU is easily modified to feed directly from it. On many PSUs (don't try this at home unless you know what you're doing, lest you get a Darwin award) if you switch the input switch to 240Vac you can drive the supply with 300 to 380 Vdc. For a little more efficiency, you take out the bridge rectifier in the front of the supply, and can shrink the input capacitors for a manufacturing cost savings.
The efficiency you save in each supply may be lost in the AC input to DC converstion that you have to do somewhere else in the data center. The advantage of doing the AC to DC conversion in fewer large units is that you can add some complexity to the circuit to improve the power factor of the conversion. Strait up bridge rectifiers on the fronts of most PSU don't lead or lag power factor, but they only draw power during the peaks of the AC wave. This makes them generate noise on the power line. Put enough of them in a room and it becomes something you have to take into consideration.
Putting a UPS on a DC system is easier than on an AC system... just stack up enough batteries to meet the necessary voltage. Well, it a bit more complicated than that, but it's much less complicated than what you need for an AC system.
BTW, IAAEE... I am an electrical engineer. Everything else, IANAx
To the comment somewhere else in this story that you can get 120 from a 277/480 supply by using the neutral, WRONG! Someone please mod up the response that said otherwise. Using the neutral on a 277/480 supply gives you 277.
So everyone thinks they want a direct popular vote for the President. If they can't have it directly, they'll come up with these plans to make an end run around the constitution.
Well, I'm here to tell you what the Electoral College is good for. Containing and mitigating election fraud. And here's why:
With a direct (popular vote) democracy, if the mayor in Chicago or the election board in King county (WA state) decides that they're going to stuff the ballot box for one particular candidate, those fraudulant votes effect EVERYONE in EVERY state. With a strait popular vote, it would on take a few corrupt election boards in large cities to create enough fraudulant votes to affect the entire election. With the electoral college, the fraudulant votes are contained within the state they're generated in and only affect the electors of that state.
So I say we utilize nice side effect of having the Electoral College... let's have each individual elector be decided by the popular vote within its congressional district. The two extra electors given to each state can be given to the state wide winner.
Doing such would break up the electors for a given state to be more closely representative of the popular vote in that state. It would also keep and strengthen the side effect of containing vote fraud and corruption.
These are nasty claims, but they seem to match other reports I've seen, and the claims of harassment against osirusoft.com are poorly documented at best in their own webpage.
Look and read some more.
So I'm inclined to think that Mr. Rambam had nothing to do with this and is simply trying to slap down an incompetent blacklist author.
The proper way to take down an incompetent DNSbl operator is to document and expose their incompentence to the extent that no one (or very few) utilize their data for blocking email.
Especially discussion on turbine/electric hybrids. Why are we still using rubegoldberg-styled piston-based engines, with so many moving parts? I would like to see something effective and efficient for my morning commute.
The last time I researched this, in fuel efficiency (work out per work in), the piston engine beat the turbine. In weight effiency (power out per weight engine), the turbine beats the piston. Turbines have less moving parts and can generally be less complex, but the materials and tolerances for those parts are more complex.
If you distill all this down, what you come out with is that a piston is still the better choice for a car/truck, and the turbine is great for an airplane. The reason a turbine works in an airplane is because engine weight means much more to an airplane than a car/truck. It means so much more that it's actually worth losing the efficiency of a piston engine because you gain much of it back in not needing as much power because the engine is lighter.
I'm putting my money on biodiesel, and maybe a hybrid made with a diesel engine. On the ground, my engine will have pistons.
That's fine and dandy if you're specifically targeting a particular Linux user, but it doesn't scale well to the type of infections discussed in TFA. A reason that the infections work so well in the Windows world is because there are so few variations in the systems people are running.
I'm not saying that you couldn't infect a Linux user with an exploit of code in a video file, I'm just saying that because of the wide variety of different (video player) software options and system configurations across the Gnu/Linux/OSS userbase, such a 'viral' approach to installing malware would be MUCH LESS effective.
Have you posted a write-up about this online (with all relevant information)? A decent write-up of all the details (including the bogus spam report) would do well in showing malfeasance on GD's part. Without that, it's just another complaint without any specifics from an AC.
I don't consider any site that has over 50% of the page content taken by ads as an authority in the matter.
Anti-global-warming scientists have to make their living in someway. There's no federal grant money for those who don't say that the sky is falling. If the sky's not falling, then there's no need to spend tax money on it.
Well anyway, that move has made all but one of my domains hosted with GoDaddy appear as if it's being hosted on IIS. I use the 'parked server' there to redirect the domains I manage onto another server. (I checked by actually typing in a few of my domains in Netcraft.) The meat of the sites I host are on a Linux server.
The first thing to ask is... what determines what a site is host on? Is it the server that answers directly for the domain name, or the server that provides the actual content of the site? (Obviously, the Netcraft data reflects the server that directly answers for the domain.) For most sites that's all one and the same. For me, that's about a dozen domains that show up in the wrong column.
But that's just my little handful of customers. I don't know how many other people do the same thing I do in hosting. If enough people are doing the same, the Netcraft numbers are seriously flawed.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh really? Why don't you work those averages for me? Or is this just an "well, everybody *knows* this to be true" statement?
Last time I worked those averages I found the opposite conclusion.
Going to $100/yr registration will not necessarily bring in more money. It would very likely get rid of most true domain squatters, but many of those squatters are actually domain kiters. Kiting is a problem that is not solved by upping the cost, it's solved by changing the terms on the 5-day grace period in paying for domains.
To add to my point of $100/yr (or any increased amount) yearly registration costs not necessarily bring in more money, consider that as the cost goes up, the number of people purchasing goes down. At some point, the revenue (number of people purchasing times the cost) will be on a downward slope. The point of maximum revenue is usually not where the cost is at its maximum.
To complicate the equation, with less domains registered, there's less cost in servicing the registered domains. But even if there was only one domain registered, the cost does not approach zero. The incremental cost or each extra domain is usually less that the previous domain. This the cost of running DNS spread across the totalitly of domains registered (operation cost per registration) should naturally go down as more domains are added.
There _is_ a problem with squatters and kiters, but I don't believe the biggest problem it creates is with serving DNS for all these domains.
The first thing they should do is change the "~all" to "-all" at the end of their SPF records.
paypal.com. 3600 IN TXT "spf2.0/pra mx include:s._sid.ebay.com include:m._sid.ebay.com include:p._sid.ebay.com include:c._sid.ebay.com include:spf-2._sid.paypal.com ~all"
paypal.com. 3600 IN TXT "v=spf1 mx include:s._spf.ebay.com include:m._spf.ebay.com include:p._spf.ebay.com include:c._spf.ebay.com include:spf-1.paypal.com ~all"
Vonage's businss model depends on Verizon, SBC and the other existing phone companies. It depends on utilization of their facilities without paying anything for the use.
I call bullshit.
Vonage doesn't pay for the line, the customer of both Vonage and the ISP pays for the line. If the ISP isn't getting what they think they should get for the traffic, they should jack the rate to their actual customer... the person with the DSL or Cable connection.
The user pays the ISP to get to Vonage, not the other way around.
So what do their competitors sites' look like from their internal network inside the store? Are they forging Circuit City's, Office Depot's, Office Max's, Staple's, ...etc sites? Or can you even see the competitors' sites from their intranet?
The fresh water was used for tree farms, that created more rainfall by cooling the air.
While water evaporating from trees may cool the air, water vapor converted to liquid and collected by any device will heat the air. (Unless that device has some coolant loop where it's pumping the heat somewhere else... but overall it's still heating the air.) To take water from a gas to a liquid, the latent heat has to come out of the water. That heat goes somewhere. You could then water trees which would cool the local air, but that cooling would be no more than the heating from the dehumidification. Also, the turbulance from the windmill would cause a certain amount of heating. The net total from the windmill in the system would be heating.
Additionally, IIRC from the business law class I took WRT filing patents... to file a patent you must document and disclose your technology in some way, often in a trade journal relevant to your technology. This whole thing about not talking about the technology until the patent is issued strikes me as bogus. If you, yourself, are the 'prior art' (by way of your publication date), then you essentially have the right to acquire the patent. To me, this smells like another VC (venture capitol) scam.
If you're a cash customer, you can thank some of those contract terms for driving up the price on what you buy... EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE A CASH CUSTOMER.
All those "rewards" you get, all those cash back bonuses, who do you think pays for them? The customers do. The prices go up on everyone, and the credit card customer gets screwed and shares some of that screwing with the cash customer because of the oligopoly powers of the credit card industry. Ever seen someone try to use a Visa card to buy a guitar pick? I have. He was told where he could shove it. It would've be cheaper if he just shoplifted it.
There currently is litigation going on regarding these types of issues. This site is a blog dedicated to it: http://www.waytoohigh.com/.
Don't bother looking if you're on Linux. The ILM page sent me to Adobe to get Flash, but even the newest version of Flash offered for Linux does not satisfy the requirements of the ILM page.
It might just be more feasible to get rid of pennies altogether.
If you're someone who doesn't like a constant drone of inflation (like me), then keeping the penny is a good thing. By keeping the penny, we have another motivation to keep the face value of the currency greater than the material value of the coinage that represents it. If we just phase out the coins/currency that costs us more than the value of the currency it represents, then we lose a motivation to aim for zero inflation.
Now that we're past the value of the penny, the economic effects of deflation may be more painful than just giving up on the penny. Also, with the cost of copper unusually high, the cost of the penny may come back down a bit if copper returns near its original level. I don't know how much this will affect the cost of a penny.
For those of you the like inflation, I can only assume that you owe more money than you have. Inflation benefits the person or entity who's in debt. You owe a dollar with interest today, you'll owe a dollar with interest tomorrow. If that dollar is worth less, and more so if you're on a fixed interest rate of what you owe, you will actually owe less tomorrow than what you other wise would have had owed. Inflation shrinks our national debt. This is why I don't buy bonds.
Looking at this closer, from TFA:
[...]Eneco is a development stage company that claims to have invented and patented a "solid state energy conversion/generation chip" that will convert heat directly into electricity or alternatively refrigerate down to -200 degrees celsius when electricity is applied.
[...]the energy of a hot metal over comes the electrostatic forces holding electrons to its surface. These free electrons then pass across a vacuum to a cold metal[...]
The two above quotes are mutually exclusive. I'm starting to see that this looking like very sloppy article writing. The one thing I can say with confidence is that the writer probably doesn't have any engineering or scientific degree.
If the first assertion is true, they're violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If the second assertion is true, they just reinvented a peltier device or thermocouple. My two canned responses are "*sarcastically* yeah right" and "*sarcastically* big whoop", respectively.
The device sounds legit (it certainly doesn't break any laws of physics),[...]
No... it exactly DOES break a law of physics (specifically thermodynamics). The 2nd law of Thermodynamics.
Specifically, it reduces the entropy of the system. The heat going into and supposedly being consumed by the device has a higher entropy than the electricity coming out.
It would be great if the 2nd law was wrong and they disproved it, but until then this looks like a scam for investors. If it's not a scam for investors, they need to publish a research paper where the phenomena can be independently tested and observed. If they publish properly they will protect any patent position they wish to pursue. If they go the route of 'trade secret' then they reek of yet another perpertual motion investor scam.
A thermocouple derives energy (in the form of electricity) from the flow of heat from one side to another. That process (thermocouple) is not a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
If he's that serious about it, and truly sincere about it, Gore should set up a bit-torrent of his film and provide it for free. I'm sure George Soros would be happy to pay off Gore's investors to allow this.
I've had enough of those who want to tell me that the sky is falling yet want me to pay them to tell me so. If the sky is really falling I expect you to tell me for free.
I'm also not gonna pay you to lie to me (talking to you, Michael Moore).
I viewed it with Firefox and AdBlock.
I did too, but I had to add "*.clicksor.com/*" to my adblock filters. I'm now immunised for the future.
As an EE, when TFA uses phrases like "[...] 500 megawatts a year.", it gives me that warm fuzzy feeling that the writer really knows science and engineering. (Sarcasm intended) It makes me wonder how good the rest of the information in the article is.
For those who are honorably ignorant of what I'm splitting hairs on (honorably in that you're not trying to write about something you don't know about): A 'watt' is already a rate of something per unit time. If the energy produced was to be quantified in units per year, it should be joules per year.
George Bush Jr's grandfather Prescott Bush was a eugenicist,[...]
And (formally vice President) Al Gore's father, Al Gore Sr., was against the civil rights act of 1964 and tried various congressional tricks to cripple it. (Google for Al Gore Sr and civil rights act)
Let's not attribute guilt upon someone for something a relative of theirs did. If you do that, you might as well believe in Original Sin where we're guilty for what Adam and Eve did. Given enough data, I'll get all of you condemned to death for evils your ancestors commited, myself included.
What does Slackware offer the newbie Linux user that something like Ubuntu doesn't?
Not too much, IMO, except an experience that will cause you to learn the fundamentals... if becoming an uber-linux-geek is your goal.
What selling points does Slackware have for the interested & experienced Linux geek?
Just last night I started building another firewall/router/fileserver/VPN box for a friend. I've been using Kubuntu on all my desktops for about the last year, so I was going to try to put a strip down Ubuntu on this little (processor/memory wise) machine. My machine was too small for even a non-X Ubuntu. I went back to Slack for all my server type (non-X, non-desktop) machines. With Slack, I can still make a usable machine out of a 486 with 16M ram.
The only bummer for me is that I started this install last night with 10.2 and woke up this morning to see the post that 11.0 had been released.
Would be interesting to know what the efficiency is of a 380 -> 12/5 DC-DC converter, compared to a traditional 110 AC -> 12/5 DC converter.
I would venture to say it's a little bit better, and here's why:
Your average switching computer power supply unit (PSU) (including the commodity consumer one's like the one running your computer used to access ./) converts either the 120Vac or 240Vac into it immediately into about 300-340Vdc with a standard bridge rectifier. That little switch on the back of your PSU changes a connection between the rectifier and the capacitors to double the rectified voltage from the 120Vac so that it's near 300-340Vdc too. That DC supply is then used to feed a switching circuit that changes it back to AC at a frequency significantly higher than 60Hz that is fed into the transformer. Because the (AC) frequency is much higher, the transformer can be much smaller for a given power level.
I've gutted many a PSU, and nearly all of them have a pair of 200V capacitors in series (making a capacitor with a 400V rating and a center tap that's used for the voltage doubler circuit necessary for 120Vac input). The selection of 380Vdc makes sense as the common PSU is easily modified to feed directly from it. On many PSUs (don't try this at home unless you know what you're doing, lest you get a Darwin award) if you switch the input switch to 240Vac you can drive the supply with 300 to 380 Vdc. For a little more efficiency, you take out the bridge rectifier in the front of the supply, and can shrink the input capacitors for a manufacturing cost savings.
The efficiency you save in each supply may be lost in the AC input to DC converstion that you have to do somewhere else in the data center. The advantage of doing the AC to DC conversion in fewer large units is that you can add some complexity to the circuit to improve the power factor of the conversion. Strait up bridge rectifiers on the fronts of most PSU don't lead or lag power factor, but they only draw power during the peaks of the AC wave. This makes them generate noise on the power line. Put enough of them in a room and it becomes something you have to take into consideration.
Putting a UPS on a DC system is easier than on an AC system... just stack up enough batteries to meet the necessary voltage. Well, it a bit more complicated than that, but it's much less complicated than what you need for an AC system.
BTW, IAAEE... I am an electrical engineer. Everything else, IANAx
To the comment somewhere else in this story that you can get 120 from a 277/480 supply by using the neutral, WRONG! Someone please mod up the response that said otherwise. Using the neutral on a 277/480 supply gives you 277.
So everyone thinks they want a direct popular vote for the President. If they can't have it directly, they'll come up with these plans to make an end run around the constitution.
Well, I'm here to tell you what the Electoral College is good for. Containing and mitigating election fraud. And here's why:
With a direct (popular vote) democracy, if the mayor in Chicago or the election board in King county (WA state) decides that they're going to stuff the ballot box for one particular candidate, those fraudulant votes effect EVERYONE in EVERY state. With a strait popular vote, it would on take a few corrupt election boards in large cities to create enough fraudulant votes to affect the entire election. With the electoral college, the fraudulant votes are contained within the state they're generated in and only affect the electors of that state.
So I say we utilize nice side effect of having the Electoral College... let's have each individual elector be decided by the popular vote within its congressional district. The two extra electors given to each state can be given to the state wide winner.
Doing such would break up the electors for a given state to be more closely representative of the popular vote in that state. It would also keep and strengthen the side effect of containing vote fraud and corruption.
These are nasty claims, but they seem to match other reports I've seen, and the claims of harassment against osirusoft.com are poorly documented at best in their own webpage.
Look and read some more.
So I'm inclined to think that Mr. Rambam had nothing to do with this and is simply trying to slap down an incompetent blacklist author.
The proper way to take down an incompetent DNSbl operator is to document and expose their incompentence to the extent that no one (or very few) utilize their data for blocking email.
The last time I researched this, in fuel efficiency (work out per work in), the piston engine beat the turbine. In weight effiency (power out per weight engine), the turbine beats the piston. Turbines have less moving parts and can generally be less complex, but the materials and tolerances for those parts are more complex.
If you distill all this down, what you come out with is that a piston is still the better choice for a car/truck, and the turbine is great for an airplane. The reason a turbine works in an airplane is because engine weight means much more to an airplane than a car/truck. It means so much more that it's actually worth losing the efficiency of a piston engine because you gain much of it back in not needing as much power because the engine is lighter.
I'm putting my money on biodiesel, and maybe a hybrid made with a diesel engine. On the ground, my engine will have pistons.
That's fine and dandy if you're specifically targeting a particular Linux user, but it doesn't scale well to the type of infections discussed in TFA. A reason that the infections work so well in the Windows world is because there are so few variations in the systems people are running.
I'm not saying that you couldn't infect a Linux user with an exploit of code in a video file, I'm just saying that because of the wide variety of different (video player) software options and system configurations across the Gnu/Linux/OSS userbase, such a 'viral' approach to installing malware would be MUCH LESS effective.
Have you posted a write-up about this online (with all relevant information)? A decent write-up of all the details (including the bogus spam report) would do well in showing malfeasance on GD's part. Without that, it's just another complaint without any specifics from an AC.
I don't consider any site that has over 50% of the page content taken by ads as an authority in the matter.
Anti-global-warming scientists have to make their living in someway. There's no federal grant money for those who don't say that the sky is falling. If the sky's not falling, then there's no need to spend tax money on it.
Remember just recently when GoDaddy move all their parked domains to IIS? (Y'all should remember that, it was one of those big M$ uproars here on /.) http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/23/ 008229
Well anyway, that move has made all but one of my domains hosted with GoDaddy appear as if it's being hosted on IIS. I use the 'parked server' there to redirect the domains I manage onto another server. (I checked by actually typing in a few of my domains in Netcraft.) The meat of the sites I host are on a Linux server.
The first thing to ask is... what determines what a site is host on? Is it the server that answers directly for the domain name, or the server that provides the actual content of the site? (Obviously, the Netcraft data reflects the server that directly answers for the domain.) For most sites that's all one and the same. For me, that's about a dozen domains that show up in the wrong column.
But that's just my little handful of customers. I don't know how many other people do the same thing I do in hosting. If enough people are doing the same, the Netcraft numbers are seriously flawed.