Why not use battery-powered radio-controlled dampers that fit over the floor units. Probably not as efficient, but it's easier than tearing apart the walls.
> This in turn signifies it is not really a viable option.
By your logic, thermostats wouldn't be a very viable option either. Keeping the thermostat's electronics turned on costs a lot less than keeping the coolers on. It would be the same way for this system, obviously. Needing 30% less AC capacity will likely save more than the (one-time) cost of a slightly-more-complex thermostat, I would imagine.
Let's look at it this way. How about I pay your coworkers to tape record all conversations that they have with you. They send them to me. I then pick out the part on how you "hate that guy", and send it to your boss. You might not get fired, but you'll be passed up for promotions or at the very least have your time wasted.
But hey, it's not the government... so it's perfectly OK. That's your argument, anyway.
After you type your password, you'll have the option to deauthorize all computers -- allowed only once per year. You can deauthorize the computer that the command was run on as many times as you like.
> You cannot deny that the holocaust has happened.
Those are the exact same things. Saying the wrong thing is, "The holocaust never happened." If you say that they'll put you away. That's not free speech. That's a "gestapo-esque" police state.
If it doesn't validate, it means that someone could have setup a web server pretending to be the one asking for your credit card. It's a common man-in-the-middle attack, and is very easy to do with automated tools (like ettercap). You are protected, though, since the certificate (shouldn't be) valid in this case... the trusted CAs are trusted because they won't give a valid certificate to someone that's doing MITM attacks in Starbucks. (However, the CAs have been known to lapse. A certificate was granted a while back to something like paypa1.com and was used to phish paypal details. Users thought it was OK because the cert was valid, but it was valid for the wrong site.)
> Yes, but he was saying that it has 2 SATA ports, and RAID is not supported on the PATA ports. So how do you get 4 drives into the array?
Partitioning, man, partitioning. I have a nice 4G drive partitioned into 4 1G disks and am running RAID 5 on it. Not only are read speeds increased, but if one partition fails I'll only have to replace that partition. Amazing!:)
AFAIK, these iMacs are sealed like the iSight G5 iMacs. We tried to open one, but all that's there is a slot for the memory. If you want to get to the real insides, fine, but the thing's not going back together.
> Fixing this flaw does in fact break backwards compatibility, and that means somewhere some random app we've never heard is is broken right about now - of this I am almost certain
A worldwide botnet that cripples the Internet is the potential price to pay for (ass-) backwards compatibility? No fucking thanks. Hint: if you want real backwards compatibility, release the source. Then it's a small matter of changing a few lines when your critical functionality becomes a virus infection vector.
> So again how is it a safer OS if these exploits existed in the first place? Go stick you head in the sand until the great Mac worm hits that erases everyone's OSX drives. Then maybe people will realize that NO Operating System is completely safe. PERIOD.
If you look at the OS X `exploits' (quotes because that's not what they are), most of them are holes in software that doesn't even run by default. Are you using Apache 2 (not 1.3) on your desktop? If so, the security update will prevent a malicious trusted (!) proxy server from crashing one thread of your Apache instance.
If you're using Windows, you need the security update to prevent the web browser from downloading an image that puts a rootkit on your machine.
It's all about severity, and OS X's "holes" just aren't that bad. However, MS consistently manages to provide a multitude of auto-infection routes to virus writers.
I say publish the history. The worst case scenario is that it's not useful to anyone. If that's true, there's no loss on your part. The advantage of providing the history is that if there was, say, a bug in your dependency removal, someone can go look at the history and fix the bug. When you're fixing bugs, extra information never hurts...
Umm, this just means your camera's white balance guessed wrong. You can correct this (easily) inside the computer. If you use RAW, you won't even "lose" any data.
If you're doing real scientific work, you should be getting grants to pay for this kind of equipment.
I use my camera not-for-real-scientific-work, but somehow I managed to scrape together $300 for one that has great macro functions, a hot shoe, manual exposure and focus (if needed), and 8 megapixels.
For some reason, I get the feeling that you are just more comfortable with 35mm than digital and want to somehow justify that...
Yeah, I guess it didn't work out of the box... but it worked 30 seconds out of the box. You can still use the Internet and transfer MP3s to the phone via bluetooth, though.
Xserve and Xserve RAIDs are totally different animals. An Xserve is a rack-mountable dual-processor server (G5s now). An Xserve RAID is a rack-mountable 3U fibrechannel drive enclosure. Now, they do work rather well together... but one is not like the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not use battery-powered radio-controlled dampers that fit over the floor units. Probably not as efficient, but it's easier than tearing apart the walls.
Ever hear of "harassment"? That's a crime.
And BTW, UCLA is a state school. State as in the state.
> This in turn signifies it is not really a viable option.
By your logic, thermostats wouldn't be a very viable option either. Keeping the thermostat's electronics turned on costs a lot less than keeping the coolers on. It would be the same way for this system, obviously. Needing 30% less AC capacity will likely save more than the (one-time) cost of a slightly-more-complex thermostat, I would imagine.
It looks like some moderator just modded down the first five posts. Strange.
Let's look at it this way. How about I pay your coworkers to tape record all conversations that they have with you. They send them to me. I then pick out the part on how you "hate that guy", and send it to your boss. You might not get fired, but you'll be passed up for promotions or at the very least have your time wasted.
But hey, it's not the government... so it's perfectly OK. That's your argument, anyway.
It's there on my machine.
Anyway, e-mail Apple. Their customer support has been pretty good to me.
Advanced > Deauthorize Computer.
After you type your password, you'll have the option to deauthorize all computers -- allowed only once per year. You can deauthorize the computer that the command was run on as many times as you like.
I'm sure they could just outsource it to AOL.
> Yet, at the same time, the 16 year old (hell, 14 year old) is old enough and mature enough to be tried as an adult and sentenced as an adult.
Yeah, but this is porn. I mean... boobs!
Won't someone please think of the children?
Now excuse me while I go have an affair with a seventeen-year-old.
(Oh sorry... politicians being hypocritical? Never! )
I honestly do hope somebody kills the President.
No, I don't see the difference. GP says:
>> Say the wrong thing, and we'll put you away!
You say:
> You cannot deny that the holocaust has happened.
Those are the exact same things. Saying the wrong thing is, "The holocaust never happened." If you say that they'll put you away. That's not free speech. That's a "gestapo-esque" police state.
If the certificate validates, then probably yes.
If it doesn't validate, it means that someone could have setup a web server pretending to be the one asking for your credit card. It's a common man-in-the-middle attack, and is very easy to do with automated tools (like ettercap). You are protected, though, since the certificate (shouldn't be) valid in this case... the trusted CAs are trusted because they won't give a valid certificate to someone that's doing MITM attacks in Starbucks. (However, the CAs have been known to lapse. A certificate was granted a while back to something like paypa1.com and was used to phish paypal details. Users thought it was OK because the cert was valid, but it was valid for the wrong site.)
Either way, be careful.
Also appears to be working...
> Yes, but he was saying that it has 2 SATA ports, and RAID is not supported on the PATA ports. So how do you get 4 drives into the array?
:)
Partitioning, man, partitioning. I have a nice 4G drive partitioned into 4 1G disks and am running RAID 5 on it. Not only are read speeds increased, but if one partition fails I'll only have to replace that partition. Amazing!
AFAIK, these iMacs are sealed like the iSight G5 iMacs. We tried to open one, but all that's there is a slot for the memory. If you want to get to the real insides, fine, but the thing's not going back together.
Maybe that's an oh-so-subtle hint that looking at the inside of an iMac is not what you're supposed to be doing at work?
> Fixing this flaw does in fact break backwards compatibility, and that means somewhere some random app we've never heard is is broken right about now - of this I am almost certain
A worldwide botnet that cripples the Internet is the potential price to pay for (ass-) backwards compatibility? No fucking thanks. Hint: if you want real backwards compatibility, release the source. Then it's a small matter of changing a few lines when your critical functionality becomes a virus infection vector.
> So again how is it a safer OS if these exploits existed in the first place? Go stick you head in the sand until the great Mac worm hits that erases everyone's OSX drives. Then maybe people will realize that NO Operating System is completely safe. PERIOD.
If you look at the OS X `exploits' (quotes because that's not what they are), most of them are holes in software that doesn't even run by default. Are you using Apache 2 (not 1.3) on your desktop? If so, the security update will prevent a malicious trusted (!) proxy server from crashing one thread of your Apache instance.
If you're using Windows, you need the security update to prevent the web browser from downloading an image that puts a rootkit on your machine.
It's all about severity, and OS X's "holes" just aren't that bad. However, MS consistently manages to provide a multitude of auto-infection routes to virus writers.
I say publish the history. The worst case scenario is that it's not useful to anyone. If that's true, there's no loss on your part. The advantage of providing the history is that if there was, say, a bug in your dependency removal, someone can go look at the history and fix the bug. When you're fixing bugs, extra information never hurts...
No, but Windows would be happy to do that for you with PXE.
> little too red and not enough blue
Umm, this just means your camera's white balance guessed wrong. You can correct this (easily) inside the computer. If you use RAW, you won't even "lose" any data.
If you're doing real scientific work, you should be getting grants to pay for this kind of equipment.
I use my camera not-for-real-scientific-work, but somehow I managed to scrape together $300 for one that has great macro functions, a hot shoe, manual exposure and focus (if needed), and 8 megapixels.
For some reason, I get the feeling that you are just more comfortable with 35mm than digital and want to somehow justify that...
> I wish they would make a Metal iPod.
It's called the iPod mini.
Yeah, I guess it didn't work out of the box... but it worked 30 seconds out of the box. You can still use the Internet and transfer MP3s to the phone via bluetooth, though.
Xserve and Xserve RAIDs are totally different animals. An Xserve is a rack-mountable dual-processor server (G5s now). An Xserve RAID is a rack-mountable 3U fibrechannel drive enclosure. Now, they do work rather well together... but one is not like the other.