it isn't 24hr, but it is a 100% uptime solution. Many people think that you need direct sunlight, but if you can see, then there's enough light hitting the panels to generate some electricity. It may not generate as much as you'd get when the panels are in direct, full sunlight, but you get something.
To-hit was a measure of attacker's skill (with chance to parry based on opponent's shield, dodge, etc skill). Damage was based on rolled number, minus armour value. It still didn't take into account tye of damage - eg a spear point against mail (compared with a sword slash, the mail doesnt; pretect against the spear nearly as well)
Unfortunately, one of the criticisms levelled at RQ was that characters would die (or run around amputated) far too often.
The other game I know about is Traveller - where, in the first incarnation at least, combat was deadly. The whole point there was not to get hit.
Oh, and Cyberpunk - the rules for combat there were similar to RQ in damage is mitigated by armour, but later rulesets took it too far (where a few kevlar tshirts(!) would protect you from a missile).
What could the average small bussiness need something like this for if they cannot afford to pay a local college student 15k/year for some part time work setting up the network to act as a global game server for him and his mates when he goes back to college.:)
Any small business who doesn't have the in-house admin capabilities should outsource their systems to another small business who does (ie a local small business who specialises in providing admin skills). There's work available for Linux specialists (as long as they have business skills too)
I'm on PlusNet. they've done me well, and 2 colleagues (except once, when lightning blew his router up and he tried phoning them for a free replacement.. obviously he didn't get one)
Its also cheap and uncapped if you go for the slightly more expensive option (I do about 800Mb a day which isn't like some people do, but no hint of a complaint from the ISP). (You want the 'premier' package for £21.99, and buy your own router from ebuyer for example, the one you can buy off them is a bit expensive and cheap and has only 1 ethernet port)
Getting the static IP was simply a matter of clicking the button on the account page once signed up.
Here you go for them, let me know so I can refer you for the 50p:)
If 'the man' wanted to control dissemination of information you'd think he'd try to limit downloads, not uploads.
I think you've bought into the conspiracy that just doesn;t exist. All these ISPs don;t care what you do, they only care that you pay them and don;t cause them any (costly) support calls.
Adding a static IP is something they *can* charge you extra for and people will pay it. So they do.
In the UK, my ISP gives a free static IP if you ask for it, so I have one. I think they have different cost models than the states, ie. no-one thought to charge loads for a static IP, and now no-one can do it because customers would migrate to the other ISPs. (oh also we use PPoA in the UK for our ADSL).
And lastly, you still can act as a server, you need DDNS service to register with - try DNSPark for 1 free entry
I was surprised when this appeared on/. as nowhere I've read has explained what the issue was.
If it was just an upgrade from W2k to XP, they should spend some time rolling back the PCs. No big deal, might take some time, but still - no big deal. I imagine that they have images (or some procedure) prepared for new employees anyway.
The fact that the problem is continuing suggests a major cock up - someone deleted the database kind of thing, and put the backup tapes through the shredder (assuming the scheduled backups were running).
And to answer your other question - no, if it was anyone but MS it wouldn't be so scathing, but occasionally Sun and Oracle are bashed on/. (never Linux though).
If you got directions to a concert in a city, but they listed the wrong subway stop, and the wrong stop brought you to the red light district, would you want the train to just skip that stop?
If you got on the school bus to go to school, but the driver had a wrong address and brought them to the red light crack whore district, would you want the bus to stop there and turf the kids out anyway?
Part of the problem with the web is that you don't know where you're going until you've got there, that and the moral responsibility of society to care for chldren and not expose them to all the filth and depravity we enjo.. err, have to suffer.
So if we assume a CRT uses 110W, and a LCD used 40W; and you run them for 12 hours a day, 5 days a week.
110 - 40 = 70W saving!
70W * 3120 hours (per year) = 218,000 Wh = 218kWh
My domestic electricity supplier charges about 5 pence per kWh.
218kWh * 0.05 = £11.
So, each year, each monitor you replace will reduce your company's leccy bill by £11. Each! Congratulations, the Earth is saved!
Remind me how much the difference in cost is between CRTs and LCDs of a similar size?
(I'm kidding really. Get an LCD if you like, and use any means possible to persuade your boss that a LCD is a good alternatve. But don't imagine that LCDs are a good environmental option. Almost certainly the single best thing you can do to save energy is to forcibly enable power saving mode for all PCs)
Yep, sure. LCDs have higher contrast ratios. Please get a clue.
Better refresh, well, apart from the fact that the 2 types of screen refresh differently so its a bit oranges-and-apples here, modern CRTs will refresh at stupidly quick refresh rates (200Hz?!). LCDs on the other hand have to be careful with their refresh rates - 16ms is good, 25ms is the older, slower type where you will see 'motion blur' type effects occasionally.
or http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php ?s=&th readid=335093 or even this thread (crikey, 5TB/month): http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthr ead.php?s=&th readid=342082
I think most unmetered servers will come to $200/mo or so.
eg. Ev1Servers Although they're all sold out, you could do worse than contact them and see if they have something for you for december.
rackforce are cheap, and do several unlimited packages that could suit you.
Basically you're saying that you want to release *your* code however you want, but you don't feel that people that release GPLed code should have the same right. They've decided that they want their code to always remain open.
just one point here - I only want *my* changes to be released under my licence. The GPL code still gets published as it was, and I would never thnk of changing that. My problem is that when you release under the GPL you don't want control of your code, but of mine too! That ain't on. Just as you choose what to do with your code, I want the same right.
This really applies when I create something that uses a GPL 'library' that comprises a very small part of my project, it contributes a tiny amount, yet the entire work is suddenly GPL. Not good for free software, and thank goodness most of the really common stuff is BSD (maybe that's not so much a coincidence)
GPL doesn't really give you any more control over it - I can do what I like with it, as long as the result is GPL too. I do care what happens to some of my code, but the stuff I give away, I want to really give away.
I just think the world would be better for using the free licences instead of the GPL. And fewer people arguing over whether the GPL is good or not.:)
Look. The GPL ONLY applies to code that is released under it. Yes, but that applies to every licence ever invented. My code, I do what I want with it. I get to choose.
YOUR code, if you choose, can be released under whatever licence that YOU choose. Now, in the context of the GPL... I CANNOT choose. I have to go GPL if I have anything at all to do with GPL code being involved in my changes.
What you can't do is mix your code with GPL code in a single application under any other license but the GPL. Exactly my problem. Its a restrictive licence. It takes away my ability to choose any relevant licence. I HAVE to 'choose' GPL.
Now, I'm all for open source, but I don't release my stuff under the GPL because I want to give it away. Fro all things, I stand on the shoulders of others that have gone before me, I'd like to keep doing that. But with the GPL, there are many times where I cannot leverage the 'free' code because my boss won't let me use it, or I don't want to give all my hard work away for free (sometimes this is appropriate). In all such cases I have to find alternatives - the GPL free and open and use-me-all-you-want-I-give-to-society isn't any use to me all of a sudden. That's bad because people don't get the benefit of open source any more.
I dislike the GPL because of that - no matter what the circumstances, it decides what's best.
I release most stuff under BSD (though another reply suggested Apache/BSD licence), and I have released 1 thing as QPL - why? because I want the changes anyone makes to be sent back to me. (do what you want with the code, but let me know what you did to it).
Example, if someone took my QPL code, made changes and released them under the GPL.. I wouldn't be able to incorporate them back into the original without changing the licence to GPL!
I know I've used the commercial-software angle to explain why GPL isn't so good, but most people would return contributions anyway (as they do even with the GPL forcing them). Those that won't, will ignore the GPL today and hope you don't find out, so its not like GPL is required for free software to work.
Anyway, rant over. Maybe I just don't like licences telling me what I can and can't do with my work.
If I write work based on GPL code (say I make improvements of some sort), when I release this, I have to release both my and the original under the GPL, that's what the GPL is all about. Derivative works must be GPLd too.
I'd be happy if the GPL said, anything I do can be released under whatever licence I like, as long as the original GPL stuff is still GPL (obviously), but it doesn't say that.
debian stable? yep, sounds like it - only I think Debian Stable is a little too far behind the times now. (I know, its a fine line between what I want, and what I can have )
IIRC Debian Unstable is about to be promoted to Stable, so that should fix all the problems I'd have with older versions of software.
I think that RedHat isn't missing the point - if you want a desktop OS, you want Fedora, with all its bells and whistles and fancy cutting-edge stuff.
If you want a server OS, you're stuck with RHEL at more cost than Windows.
Its strange how many hosting companies offer Fedora as a server install, but they have little choice anymore - Server Linux is not getting easier to use, its actually getting more expensive, more fragmented.
I'd love to see a server-only distro, something suited for web serving that practically every Web host would offer, that installs with the minimum of apps required, and easy access to install new ones and keep them all up to date. And not be updated every 6 months for the fun of it.
What exactly, is wrong with RPM then? I only partly ask fo you to justify your comment, but also to educate me to its shortcomings, and the alternative's improvements.
I need a new server OS soon, and I'm a bit fed up with RedHat's obsolescence program - ie every time I install a RH OS, its obsolete in what seems like a few months.
Actually, I was discussing C++, which is a very valid MS language still - even if they plug C# for everything, most of microsoft's code is written in C++.
The references to the MS tools (yes, I know there are tools out there, but who really uses them?) were more about the 'marketing' of them as tools that people will use because they're fully integrated and easy to set going - 2 clicks and it tells you what you've done wrong:)
As for the security flaws in the STL (I meant that, not the C standard library, sorry if that was confusing), I don't think that's going to be less secure than the same thing effectively implemented in other languages.
Just because it was written a few years back doesn't make it less useful. Some things are universally true, and actually made more valid by still being used after all this time. (eg. Linux/Unix. how old is that design?!)
The attitude that says 'what 1971, how obsolete' is the reason we get so much cruft created by people who just think they can do better, for the sake of something 'new' and 'different'.
Slashdot Mirror
and tell him that he can release without a changelog, as you've got a copy of Winmerge
it isn't 24hr, but it is a 100% uptime solution. Many people think that you need direct sunlight, but if you can see, then there's enough light hitting the panels to generate some electricity. It may not generate as much as you'd get when the panels are in direct, full sunlight, but you get something.
I know its not funny, but Dilbert was modelled after AT&T (well, Pacific Bell)
5 /s cott.adams/
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/CAREER/trends/10/0
You've not played Runequest then.
To-hit was a measure of attacker's skill (with chance to parry based on opponent's shield, dodge, etc skill). Damage was based on rolled number, minus armour value. It still didn't take into account tye of damage - eg a spear point against mail (compared with a sword slash, the mail doesnt; pretect against the spear nearly as well)
Unfortunately, one of the criticisms levelled at RQ was that characters would die (or run around amputated) far too often.
The other game I know about is Traveller - where, in the first incarnation at least, combat was deadly. The whole point there was not to get hit.
Oh, and Cyberpunk - the rules for combat there were similar to RQ in damage is mitigated by armour, but later rulesets took it too far (where a few kevlar tshirts(!) would protect you from a missile).
yeah, I thought they got better as they went along too :)
I think that's what he wrote - the mixed up propositions in that sentence just makes my head hurt.
What could the average small bussiness need something like this for if they cannot afford to pay a local college student 15k/year for some part time work setting up the network to act as a global game server for him and his mates when he goes back to college. :)
Any small business who doesn't have the in-house admin capabilities should outsource their systems to another small business who does (ie a local small business who specialises in providing admin skills). There's work available for Linux specialists (as long as they have business skills too)
your Wiki is world-writable. And some 'AnonymousGnome' on revision 56 of the Windows Install page replaced it with adverts to poker and spam sites.
I've replaced it with the previous revision, but I noticed a few other 'Anonymous' revisions had been made.
I'm on PlusNet. they've done me well, and 2 colleagues (except once, when lightning blew his router up and he tried phoning them for a free replacement.. obviously he didn't get one)
:)
Its also cheap and uncapped if you go for the slightly more expensive option (I do about 800Mb a day which isn't like some people do, but no hint of a complaint from the ISP). (You want the 'premier' package for £21.99, and buy your own router from ebuyer for example, the one you can buy off them is a bit expensive and cheap and has only 1 ethernet port)
Getting the static IP was simply a matter of clicking the button on the account page once signed up.
Here you go for them, let me know so I can refer you for the 50p
If 'the man' wanted to control dissemination of information you'd think he'd try to limit downloads, not uploads.
I think you've bought into the conspiracy that just doesn;t exist. All these ISPs don;t care what you do, they only care that you pay them and don;t cause them any (costly) support calls.
Adding a static IP is something they *can* charge you extra for and people will pay it. So they do.
In the UK, my ISP gives a free static IP if you ask for it, so I have one. I think they have different cost models than the states, ie. no-one thought to charge loads for a static IP, and now no-one can do it because customers would migrate to the other ISPs. (oh also we use PPoA in the UK for our ADSL).
And lastly, you still can act as a server, you need DDNS service to register with - try DNSPark for 1 free entry
and you missed out big time. 4 years later you could have been naming your own price for Y2k fixes.
You'd probably be retired now! Pity you chose long hair, and have another 40 years of work to go.
I was surprised when this appeared on /. as nowhere I've read has explained what the issue was.
/. (never Linux though).
If it was just an upgrade from W2k to XP, they should spend some time rolling back the PCs. No big deal, might take some time, but still - no big deal. I imagine that they have images (or some procedure) prepared for new employees anyway.
The fact that the problem is continuing suggests a major cock up - someone deleted the database kind of thing, and put the backup tapes through the shredder (assuming the scheduled backups were running).
And to answer your other question - no, if it was anyone but MS it wouldn't be so scathing, but occasionally Sun and Oracle are bashed on
maybe they have, just that they can't call 911 afterwards :)
I thought about comparing that statistic with the chance of getting struck by lightning.. off I go to google, and look what I found:
Two Koreans with cellphones struck by lightning
Forget dodgy batteries - you're going to die no matter what you do!
(FYI: for an American, you have a 1 in 280,000 chance of being zapped.)
If you got directions to a concert in a city, but they listed the wrong subway stop, and the wrong stop brought you to the red light district, would you want the train to just skip that stop?
If you got on the school bus to go to school, but the driver had a wrong address and brought them to the red light crack whore district, would you want the bus to stop there and turf the kids out anyway?
Part of the problem with the web is that you don't know where you're going until you've got there, that and the moral responsibility of society to care for chldren and not expose them to all the filth and depravity we enjo.. err, have to suffer.
So if we assume a CRT uses 110W, and a LCD used 40W; and you run them for 12 hours a day, 5 days a week.
110 - 40 = 70W saving!
70W * 3120 hours (per year) = 218,000 Wh = 218kWh
My domestic electricity supplier charges about 5 pence per kWh.
218kWh * 0.05 = £11.
So, each year, each monitor you replace will reduce your company's leccy bill by £11. Each! Congratulations, the Earth is saved!
Remind me how much the difference in cost is between CRTs and LCDs of a similar size?
(I'm kidding really. Get an LCD if you like, and use any means possible to persuade your boss that a LCD is a good alternatve. But don't imagine that LCDs are a good environmental option. Almost certainly the single best thing you can do to save energy is to forcibly enable power saving mode for all PCs)
Yep, sure. LCDs have higher contrast ratios. Please get a clue.
Better refresh, well, apart from the fact that the 2 types of screen refresh differently so its a bit oranges-and-apples here, modern CRTs will refresh at stupidly quick refresh rates (200Hz?!). LCDs on the other hand have to be careful with their refresh rates - 16ms is good, 25ms is the older, slower type where you will see 'motion blur' type effects occasionally.
As for your sties, try blinking occasionally.
/. is not really the place to ask this question. Try
h p?s=&th readid=343281
p ?s=&th readid=335093r ead.php?s=&th readid=342082
WebHostingTalk forum instead.
eg.
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.p
or
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.ph
or even this thread (crikey, 5TB/month):
http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showth
I think most unmetered servers will come to $200/mo or so.
eg.
Ev1Servers
Although they're all sold out, you could do worse than contact them and see if they have something for you for december.
rackforce are cheap, and do several unlimited packages that could suit you.
Basically you're saying that you want to release *your* code however you want, but you don't feel that people that release GPLed code should have the same right. They've decided that they want their code to always remain open.
:)
just one point here - I only want *my* changes to be released under my licence. The GPL code still gets published as it was, and I would never thnk of changing that. My problem is that when you release under the GPL you don't want control of your code, but of mine too! That ain't on. Just as you choose what to do with your code, I want the same right.
This really applies when I create something that uses a GPL 'library' that comprises a very small part of my project, it contributes a tiny amount, yet the entire work is suddenly GPL. Not good for free software, and thank goodness most of the really common stuff is BSD (maybe that's not so much a coincidence)
GPL doesn't really give you any more control over it - I can do what I like with it, as long as the result is GPL too. I do care what happens to some of my code, but the stuff I give away, I want to really give away.
I just think the world would be better for using the free licences instead of the GPL. And fewer people arguing over whether the GPL is good or not.
Let see what you said:
Look. The GPL ONLY applies to code that is released under it.
Yes, but that applies to every licence ever invented. My code, I do what I want with it. I get to choose.
YOUR code, if you choose, can be released under whatever licence that YOU choose.
Now, in the context of the GPL... I CANNOT choose. I have to go GPL if I have anything at all to do with GPL code being involved in my changes.
What you can't do is mix your code with GPL code in a single application under any other license but the GPL.
Exactly my problem. Its a restrictive licence. It takes away my ability to choose any relevant licence. I HAVE to 'choose' GPL.
Now, I'm all for open source, but I don't release my stuff under the GPL because I want to give it away. Fro all things, I stand on the shoulders of others that have gone before me, I'd like to keep doing that. But with the GPL, there are many times where I cannot leverage the 'free' code because my boss won't let me use it, or I don't want to give all my hard work away for free (sometimes this is appropriate). In all such cases I have to find alternatives - the GPL free and open and use-me-all-you-want-I-give-to-society isn't any use to me all of a sudden. That's bad because people don't get the benefit of open source any more.
I dislike the GPL because of that - no matter what the circumstances, it decides what's best.
I release most stuff under BSD (though another reply suggested Apache/BSD licence), and I have released 1 thing as QPL - why? because I want the changes anyone makes to be sent back to me. (do what you want with the code, but let me know what you did to it).
Example, if someone took my QPL code, made changes and released them under the GPL.. I wouldn't be able to incorporate them back into the original without changing the licence to GPL!
I know I've used the commercial-software angle to explain why GPL isn't so good, but most people would return contributions anyway (as they do even with the GPL forcing them). Those that won't, will ignore the GPL today and hope you don't find out, so its not like GPL is required for free software to work.
Anyway, rant over. Maybe I just don't like licences telling me what I can and can't do with my work.
You're thinking of the LGPL, not GPL.
If I write work based on GPL code (say I make improvements of some sort), when I release this, I have to release both my and the original under the GPL, that's what the GPL is all about. Derivative works must be GPLd too.
I'd be happy if the GPL said, anything I do can be released under whatever licence I like, as long as the original GPL stuff is still GPL (obviously), but it doesn't say that.
debian stable? yep, sounds like it - only I think Debian Stable is a little too far behind the times now. (I know, its a fine line between what I want, and what I can have )
IIRC Debian Unstable is about to be promoted to Stable, so that should fix all the problems I'd have with older versions of software.
I think that RedHat isn't missing the point - if you want a desktop OS, you want Fedora, with all its bells and whistles and fancy cutting-edge stuff.
If you want a server OS, you're stuck with RHEL at more cost than Windows.
Its strange how many hosting companies offer Fedora as a server install, but they have little choice anymore - Server Linux is not getting easier to use, its actually getting more expensive, more fragmented.
I'd love to see a server-only distro, something suited for web serving that practically every Web host would offer, that installs with the minimum of apps required, and easy access to install new ones and keep them all up to date. And not be updated every 6 months for the fun of it.
What exactly, is wrong with RPM then? I only partly ask fo you to justify your comment, but also to educate me to its shortcomings, and the alternative's improvements.
I need a new server OS soon, and I'm a bit fed up with RedHat's obsolescence program - ie every time I install a RH OS, its obsolete in what seems like a few months.
Actually, I was discussing C++, which is a very valid MS language still - even if they plug C# for everything, most of microsoft's code is written in C++.
:)
The references to the MS tools (yes, I know there are tools out there, but who really uses them?) were more about the 'marketing' of them as tools that people will use because they're fully integrated and easy to set going - 2 clicks and it tells you what you've done wrong
As for the security flaws in the STL (I meant that, not the C standard library, sorry if that was confusing), I don't think that's going to be less secure than the same thing effectively implemented in other languages.
Just because it was written a few years back doesn't make it less useful. Some things are universally true, and actually made more valid by still being used after all this time. (eg. Linux/Unix. how old is that design?!)
The attitude that says 'what 1971, how obsolete' is the reason we get so much cruft created by people who just think they can do better, for the sake of something 'new' and 'different'.