As someone who has painstakingly replaced all the capacitors on two separate motherboards, I can definitely see why this is a good idea. The most recent was my Epox 8kra2+ board (with an Athlon XP 2600+, not over clocked.) I noticed the caps beginning to bulge slightly on top and develop some crusty electrolyte "dandruff" on the heads after 2 years of use, but I decided to hold off on major surgery until I began to notice any problems.
About a year later the system began to lock up mysteriously, and after ruling everything else out (this was my main system after all) I grabbed my soldering iron and began an hour or so of some rather nerve wrecking soldering. Every single 1000F and 1500F cap on the board needed replacement, so an old PIII board became the donor.
I measured the bad caps after removing them and most of them were off by about 300-700F, way outside of tolerance. After I finished I booted the system up, ran memtest for a few hours successfully, and never had a lockup since.
"Yeah - We'll all have flying cars in the year 2000." "Yeah - By 2010 we'll have space hotels and will be permanently living on mars." "Yeah - In the year 2000 we'll all be 7 feet tall and bald."
For every nay saying jerk who ends up being wrong there are 20 nay saying jerks that ended up being right. I for one am sick of new technologies years away, or revolutionary ideas that are supposedly going to change the world. Talk to me when it's concrete, or even 1/5 of the way there.
"When the source code is available to everyone, that also means that it's easier for the enemy to find security holes to exploit.
"Security through obscurity" isn't a bad thing. If you can manage to keep tight control over who has access to the source code, you've eliminated one more security issue. Obviously, the quality of the code is more important. But still."
Only on Slashdot would this be modded as flamebait. Use some logic people! Open source does not necessarely equal more secure. It often can, but it isn't a guarantee. Open source software usually presents an advantage only when a piece of software is popular enough to have enough devs poking at it. Yes, I know, all it takes is one person to find an exploit but I'm just trying to show that OSS is not inherently more secure.
Take this example: You have two software applications for, I don't know, missile tracking and detection. One is open source, one is closed source. Assume for now that they are equally secure. (Yes, this is possible!) Now assume that you are trying to compromise this system. You can grab one application on sourceforge while the other is completely secret. You have no idea how it works - for all you know it could do things completely different than the open source software. Which one will be easier to compromise? Now, I grant this logic doesn't really work for things like Windows XP where Microsoft and not the DoD create and maintain the software but the point remains for a number of situations that I can imagine.
I still don't understand why this whole "Security through obscurity is evil!" sound bite started. Everyone loves steganography around here, right? And I know the concept of hiding things in plain site is often discussed here in a favorable light. Are these not forms of security through obscurity (minus steganogaphy+encryption)? Would you prefer to store your Rolex in a closet safe or in a hidden compartment in the front panel of your dishwasher? And if you do choose the safe, should you advertise it? Maybe post a sign in the front of your house that says "The safe is in the bedroom closet on the right and contains a $20,000 watch. Come test my great security!" (Obviously a well hidden safe combines the best of both worlds here.)
Security through obscurity is not inherently bad. It has merit in *some* situations and to say otherwise is juvenille.
As disgusting as it may be, being a geek I could not resist the urge to examine the camera after it has...er...passed. C'mon! Pill sized cameras? How cool is that? Little rubbing alcohol and it would be fine...
So far, no one has been able to answer this question for me: Why must individual processes be loaded every time a system boots? I'm curious as to why "hibernation" is not the default way of loading an operating system into memory. Why not have a ram image of the operating system that is loaded at boot? It takes seconds flat to go from completely off to ready to go, as opposed to the traditional way of manually starting each process one by one which can take upwards of 20-30 seconds (the terror!) on a new system.
I know that as one does updates to a system (or other kinds of changes) the said processes will change, but could the operating system not just create a new image to reflect that when necessary?
It seems so glaringly obvious to me that there must be a good reason that it does not work like that. I know one thing, I'm quite happy with the hibernation feature on my girlfriend's laptop. I wish my powerbook could do the same thing. Hibernation is vastly superior suspend / sleep. I seem to have some degree of expectation now that when I go to my laptop it should be absolutely ready to go with little to no boot up time, but unless I want to waste battery life by sleeping (And no, the "breathing" LED is not cute) I have to boot from scratch.
This entire question is ridiculous. Although L4 and L5 are points in space, there is a HUGE area of space both circumferance wise and on either side of the actual points to occupy. We're not talking ten square feet here. I imagine every craft and station ever built could easily fit nicely. Perhaps even that number times a thousand. Space is big.
In theory any craft not exactly in the middle will drift over time, but considering the forces involved here and other logistics, small thruster adjustments could easily compensate.
So, let me get this straight: NASA has managed to successfully send two completely functional rovers to the planet Mars 45 million miles away. Since they have arrived, the two rovers have expanded our understanding of the planet greatly and have had few and mostly correctable errors. They are now way, way past their expected mission time and are still running, and a few people have the nerve around to here to bash NASA for their horrible, numerous mistakes?
This stuff isn't easy. Just because you reap the benefits of the entire space program from your living room couch via the TV without actually contributing one bit does not mean you have any understanding of how complex and spectacular these great accomplishments are.
To the NASA / JPL engineers and scientists: Thanks.
Dude, your a FUCKING ASSHOLE. Jeeze, Other guy was just trying to help by posting the link, Some people don't have time to read every single post on a list of 800. Maybe you do but don't the rest of us don't. Thank you for posting the link. Sorry you had an ASSHOLE who has nothing better to do bug you about it. I think I speak for the rest of us when i say, "GO TO HELL":)Keep up the good work posters!
Slashdot Mirror
Good guess - I copy and pasted the microfarad symbol from Wikipedia and then slashcode stripped it.
I copy and pasted the microfarad symbol from Wikipedia which worked fine in the form but didn't survive the preview or post, I swear!
As someone who has painstakingly replaced all the capacitors on two separate motherboards, I can definitely see why this is a good idea. The most recent was my Epox 8kra2+ board (with an Athlon XP 2600+, not over clocked.) I noticed the caps beginning to bulge slightly on top and develop some crusty electrolyte "dandruff" on the heads after 2 years of use, but I decided to hold off on major surgery until I began to notice any problems.
About a year later the system began to lock up mysteriously, and after ruling everything else out (this was my main system after all) I grabbed my soldering iron and began an hour or so of some rather nerve wrecking soldering. Every single 1000F and 1500F cap on the board needed replacement, so an old PIII board became the donor.
I measured the bad caps after removing them and most of them were off by about 300-700F, way outside of tolerance. After I finished I booted the system up, ran memtest for a few hours successfully, and never had a lockup since.
You forgot these:
"Yeah - We'll all have flying cars in the year 2000."
"Yeah - By 2010 we'll have space hotels and will be permanently living on mars."
"Yeah - In the year 2000 we'll all be 7 feet tall and bald."
For every nay saying jerk who ends up being wrong there are 20 nay saying jerks that ended up being right. I for one am sick of new technologies years away, or revolutionary ideas that are supposedly going to change the world. Talk to me when it's concrete, or even 1/5 of the way there.
"When the source code is available to everyone, that also means that it's easier for the enemy to find security holes to exploit.
"Security through obscurity" isn't a bad thing. If you can manage to keep tight control over who has access to the source code, you've eliminated one more security issue. Obviously, the quality of the code is more important. But still."
Only on Slashdot would this be modded as flamebait. Use some logic people! Open source does not necessarely equal more secure. It often can, but it isn't a guarantee. Open source software usually presents an advantage only when a piece of software is popular enough to have enough devs poking at it. Yes, I know, all it takes is one person to find an exploit but I'm just trying to show that OSS is not inherently more secure.
Take this example: You have two software applications for, I don't know, missile tracking and detection. One is open source, one is closed source. Assume for now that they are equally secure. (Yes, this is possible!) Now assume that you are trying to compromise this system. You can grab one application on sourceforge while the other is completely secret. You have no idea how it works - for all you know it could do things completely different than the open source software. Which one will be easier to compromise? Now, I grant this logic doesn't really work for things like Windows XP where Microsoft and not the DoD create and maintain the software but the point remains for a number of situations that I can imagine.
I still don't understand why this whole "Security through obscurity is evil!" sound bite started. Everyone loves steganography around here, right? And I know the concept of hiding things in plain site is often discussed here in a favorable light. Are these not forms of security through obscurity (minus steganogaphy+encryption)? Would you prefer to store your Rolex in a closet safe or in a hidden compartment in the front panel of your dishwasher? And if you do choose the safe, should you advertise it? Maybe post a sign in the front of your house that says "The safe is in the bedroom closet on the right and contains a $20,000 watch. Come test my great security!" (Obviously a well hidden safe combines the best of both worlds here.)
Security through obscurity is not inherently bad. It has merit in *some* situations and to say otherwise is juvenille.
As disgusting as it may be, being a geek I could not resist the urge to examine the camera after it has...er...passed. C'mon! Pill sized cameras? How cool is that? Little rubbing alcohol and it would be fine...
So far, no one has been able to answer this question for me: Why must individual processes be loaded every time a system boots? I'm curious as to why "hibernation" is not the default way of loading an operating system into memory. Why not have a ram image of the operating system that is loaded at boot? It takes seconds flat to go from completely off to ready to go, as opposed to the traditional way of manually starting each process one by one which can take upwards of 20-30 seconds (the terror!) on a new system.
I know that as one does updates to a system (or other kinds of changes) the said processes will change, but could the operating system not just create a new image to reflect that when necessary?
It seems so glaringly obvious to me that there must be a good reason that it does not work like that. I know one thing, I'm quite happy with the hibernation feature on my girlfriend's laptop. I wish my powerbook could do the same thing. Hibernation is vastly superior suspend / sleep. I seem to have some degree of expectation now that when I go to my laptop it should be absolutely ready to go with little to no boot up time, but unless I want to waste battery life by sleeping (And no, the "breathing" LED is not cute) I have to boot from scratch.
Please, save me from my ignorance!
This entire question is ridiculous. Although L4 and L5 are points in space, there is a HUGE area of space both circumferance wise and on either side of the actual points to occupy. We're not talking ten square feet here. I imagine every craft and station ever built could easily fit nicely. Perhaps even that number times a thousand. Space is big.
In theory any craft not exactly in the middle will drift over time, but considering the forces involved here and other logistics, small thruster adjustments could easily compensate.
POTD (Pointless Question of the Day)
So, let me get this straight: NASA has managed to successfully send two completely functional rovers to the planet Mars 45 million miles away. Since they have arrived, the two rovers have expanded our understanding of the planet greatly and have had few and mostly correctable errors. They are now way, way past their expected mission time and are still running, and a few people have the nerve around to here to bash NASA for their horrible, numerous mistakes?
This stuff isn't easy. Just because you reap the benefits of the entire space program from your living room couch via the TV without actually contributing one bit does not mean you have any understanding of how complex and spectacular these great accomplishments are.
To the NASA / JPL engineers and scientists: Thanks.
Isn't 2048 x 1080 significantly less than regular movie film as far as resolution goes?
Dude, your a FUCKING ASSHOLE. Jeeze, Other guy was just trying to help by posting the link, Some people don't have time to read every single post on a list of 800. Maybe you do but don't the rest of us don't. Thank you for posting the link. Sorry you had an ASSHOLE who has nothing better to do bug you about it. I think I speak for the rest of us when i say, "GO TO HELL" :)Keep up the good work posters!