As we've stated a few times already in this thread, Fans are the real source of noise. In Servers especially, cooling 3-5 10K drives requires 3 dedicated fans (in a 2U server). We all know that 'Cuda's get hot. Damn hot. What will this new "fluid" process do to reduce the heat generated by previous drives?
Frankly, I can manage with earplugs in the Data Center. Make those SCSI drives cooler, and make me happy.
Right on. I haven't heard my hard drives make any noise in over a year ( same mobo, similar HSF). Add in the PS Fan and two more case fans, and I can't even hear myself think. I need headphones to listen to mp3's. On the plus side, It heats my computer room during the Winter.
While this is a nice development, I'll be more impressed when Intel or AMD throws a passive cooling CPU (ala the G3/4) into the mix. Give me 1Ghz that doesn't require a ready supply of liquid Nitrogen to keep cool, and I'll be impressed.
I suspect most people say they believe in God because they don't think about it. I also suspect most people don't believe in God, or Christ, at least. Just a suspicion. Many people associate atheism and public denouncing of Christ/God with Communism, and as such are not too vocal about their beliefs (or lack thereof).
I'd like to know where the %60 came from. While that number may hold true for parts of the South, or the White House, I find it difficult to believe it's as widespread as %60 in the Country as a whole.
But then, given how many Americans can'tfind Asia on a world map, it wouldn't be too suprising if %60 proclaim dedication to this hokey "Born Again" scam.
PS: the obove are my OPINIONS. They ain't fact. Correct them if you can.
While you are correct in your analysis of check&balances. However, I think you miss the point here. The Gov't still needs to pursue the case, to lobby for a remedy. The Justice Dept. will head that case. How active they are in going after MS will have a direct impact on how severe the remedies are. While the Exec. brnach does not make the decision, they still need to continue to make their case.
Click Here for the article he references above. It's the fabled tale of Microsoft Technical Support v. The Psychic Friends Network. Please do read it, it's rather entertaining.
I know this is redundant, but I know people are too lazy to cut and paste, so the link is helpful.
More specifically, Compaq is talking about "industry-specific" packages. Niche marketing, basically, but with a very lage company that can concentrate on certain areas.
Sound like Apple to anyone else;)
Seriously, though, The big Q makes some nice servers. Of course the desktops suck goat balls, but the Proliants are damn fine machines. I hope the mid-range and up Server market is one they remain focused on.
True, there are laws that don't impact private citizens. But why don't they? Are we allowed to do things that a Corporation isn't? I don't do most of things Corps do (I don't conduct International transfers of large sums of money, or have employees I need to provide a safe working environment for, etc..) so it makes sense that laws exist to regulate that behavior that don't limit my own. But how many are relevant? How many involve Civil Rights? I don't know, I'm asking.
Can you send a fax to a stranger of the flyer you made up to sell your car? Can IBM send me fax that just says "Hi. How you doin?"? Can they send unsolicited faxes that are NOT advertisements? Does the law say that Corps can't send ads, or that nobody can?
I agree that it needs to be regulated. I just don't know how. You can't trace most of it. So, for the law to have any effect, they would have to make it illegal to send email from an untracable address. They could put this limit in place just for advertisers, but enforcement would be tough and wouldn't extend to Taiwan or Japan or wherever.
I don't think we disagree about too much here. I'm just afraid of a bad law that can't be effective, and would put a dent in my own Freedom.
I was harldy standing up for Spam. I detest it. What I am standing up for is my "right" to send email anonymously. Unfortunately, thanks to a much referenced 1895 SC decision, Corporations have the same rights that I do. They are "persons", for lack of better term. And until that decision is reversed, and they don't share the same protections that we do, any attempt to limit their freedom will negatively impact your own.
It's called Artificial Intelligence for a reason. It isn't to emulate the unreasonable, or to replicate Human thought. It's to be Super-Human; being able to Reason effeciently and consistantly. It doesn't need need to fall in Love.
Don't worry. I get enough spam already. A few more won't hurt.
I'm not sure which is worse, oversimplifying a point (as I did w/respect to your Right's wrt your home)or responding in such an incredibly chldish way as you did. Perhaps you should take a few deep breaths. And don't forget to exhale.
FYI, I hate Spam. With the white hot intensity of a thousand Suns. I feel the same way about Top 40 radio. However, I won't suggest that we should outlaw it. That was the thrust of the article we are suppossed to be referring to: that they won't support outlawing it. Please do stay on topic. And don't support Spammers by giving them addresses. At least make them pay for the lists.
I agree that it is a matter of scale. However, isn't this ability to do things cheaply and on a massive scale the same argument that the RIAA makes when asserting that sharing mp3's is not Fair Use? Do you agree that Rights aren't scalable?
What we need is accountability, to know just where this crap comes from. But how do we do that without limiting our personal freedom to use email anonymously?
I agree. It' snot so much that I get junk that pisses me off, it's that it comes from a different address every day. I must have 500 address filtered on my hotmail account, but not a single message has ever been thrown in the "spam" folder.
The problem we run into is that when we stop Spammers from sending effectively anonymous email, we will be limiting OUR ability to do the same.
Hardly. Billboards are not email. Email doesn't block my view of the trees. The only right you have with regards to your home (aside from owning it) is that the Gov't can't make you house soldiers in it, and they can't search it without a warrent.
The fact is, if you get DirecTV or pay for cable, you get innundated with commercials in the comfort of your home through a medium that YOU pay for, using electricity that YOU pay for, on a TV that YOU paid for. Sure, it's regulated. But there is still a shitload of it, and you still didn't ask for it. And it wastes more of your time that SPAM ever will.
Mailing someone is (roughly) the same as emailing them. Companies have to pay to mail something to me, why shouldn't they pay to email something to me? Telemarketers have to pay for all of the many phone lines they use to call me and 1000 other people in a 12 hour period. Spammers only need to borrow one computer for 10 seconds to spam a million people.
While it is true that telemarketers pay for their phones, they don't pay for YOUR phone. You still pay to have a phone at which to be reached. They are using a resource _you_ paid for to bother you. Not too mention they are a much greater annoyance, truly interupting whatever it is that you are doing. It takes longer to get the phone, relaize it's a marketer, and hang up as it does to delete 10 emails. The difference being that you can delete the email at your leisure.
How is it different from getting Car Wash coupons in the mail? Or health club flyers on your windshield? It's an inconvience and it's annoying. But it's not illegal.
They aren't painting on your house. They're leaving a note on your windshield. Only you don't have to throw it away, you just hit "delete". Sure, you do it 10 times a day, but it still doesn't compare to painting it on your house.
The Right to send email unsolicited is what's at question here. No self-respecting defender of Free Speech would limit offensive or inconvenience causing speech. Hate spammers all you want (and I do) but they have a right to send you stuff you don't want to get. Deal with it, don't outlaw it.
Dukakis lost because he looked stupid in a tank, Willie killed someone on Furlough, and Ollie North kept his mouth shut. To say he lost for lack of substance is to imply that Bush The First offered some. As I recall, he didn't.
Ther once was a politician at whom much mud was thrown. "We must not stoop to thier level" he'd say. "The American People are smart, they'll see through my opposition's lack of substance"
That politician's name was Micheal Dukakis. If you recall, he got the shit beat of him by an eventual one-termer (Bush I)
Mud matters. It's about PR, it's ALL about PR where the press is concerned. Inflamatory remarks ALWAYS make headlines. Reasonable, thoughtful exchange of ideas is rare, in the Press it's alomst non-existant. If you want to beat m$, you must fight on both fronts. Beating them technically, and making them sound every bit as dirty as they are.
Not in my experiance. I've gotten 3 tickets in the last 3 years. One for 13 over in Ohio. One for 9 over in WV. And one for 15 over in VA.
In each of those states, it was a minimum of around 70 bucks, with 5-10 bucks additional for each 5mph increment you were over. One, VA, I think, was $1 per mph over, plus ~65 bucks. There is really little difference b/t getting busted going +2mph and +15.
And I'd like to know where the guy above that regularly goes 90+ and still gets passed drives. My brother is that dangerous, too, but he hardly gets passed on a regular basis. Hell, I do +5 to +10 everywhere and pass %75 of the cars out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly, I can manage with earplugs in the Data Center. Make those SCSI drives cooler, and make me happy.
While this is a nice development, I'll be more impressed when Intel or AMD throws a passive cooling CPU (ala the G3/4) into the mix. Give me 1Ghz that doesn't require a ready supply of liquid Nitrogen to keep cool, and I'll be impressed.
I'd like to know where the %60 came from. While that number may hold true for parts of the South, or the White House, I find it difficult to believe it's as widespread as %60 in the Country as a whole.
But then, given how many Americans can'tfind Asia on a world map, it wouldn't be too suprising if %60 proclaim dedication to this hokey "Born Again" scam.
PS: the obove are my OPINIONS. They ain't fact. Correct them if you can.
What steps are you/IBM taking to counteract Microsoft's efforts to smear Linux and Open Source, particularly with corporate IT departments?
I know this is redundant, but I know people are too lazy to cut and paste, so the link is helpful.
Of course, Dave will just lobby to outlaw TCP/IP b/c it's used to circumvent their encryption.
Sound like Apple to anyone else ;)
Seriously, though, The big Q makes some nice servers. Of course the desktops suck goat balls, but the Proliants are damn fine machines. I hope the mid-range and up Server market is one they remain focused on.
Mod this up. I love Math.
Can you send a fax to a stranger of the flyer you made up to sell your car? Can IBM send me fax that just says "Hi. How you doin?"? Can they send unsolicited faxes that are NOT advertisements? Does the law say that Corps can't send ads, or that nobody can?
I agree that it needs to be regulated. I just don't know how. You can't trace most of it. So, for the law to have any effect, they would have to make it illegal to send email from an untracable address. They could put this limit in place just for advertisers, but enforcement would be tough and wouldn't extend to Taiwan or Japan or wherever.
I don't think we disagree about too much here. I'm just afraid of a bad law that can't be effective, and would put a dent in my own Freedom.
Is that an unreasonable position?,
Intelligence != Human
I'm not sure which is worse, oversimplifying a point (as I did w/respect to your Right's wrt your home)or responding in such an incredibly chldish way as you did. Perhaps you should take a few deep breaths. And don't forget to exhale.
FYI, I hate Spam. With the white hot intensity of a thousand Suns. I feel the same way about Top 40 radio. However, I won't suggest that we should outlaw it. That was the thrust of the article we are suppossed to be referring to: that they won't support outlawing it. Please do stay on topic. And don't support Spammers by giving them addresses. At least make them pay for the lists.
What we need is accountability, to know just where this crap comes from. But how do we do that without limiting our personal freedom to use email anonymously?
The problem we run into is that when we stop Spammers from sending effectively anonymous email, we will be limiting OUR ability to do the same.
The fact is, if you get DirecTV or pay for cable, you get innundated with commercials in the comfort of your home through a medium that YOU pay for, using electricity that YOU pay for, on a TV that YOU paid for. Sure, it's regulated. But there is still a shitload of it, and you still didn't ask for it. And it wastes more of your time that SPAM ever will.
While it is true that telemarketers pay for their phones, they don't pay for YOUR phone. You still pay to have a phone at which to be reached. They are using a resource _you_ paid for to bother you. Not too mention they are a much greater annoyance, truly interupting whatever it is that you are doing. It takes longer to get the phone, relaize it's a marketer, and hang up as it does to delete 10 emails. The difference being that you can delete the email at your leisure.
The Right to send email unsolicited is what's at question here. No self-respecting defender of Free Speech would limit offensive or inconvenience causing speech. Hate spammers all you want (and I do) but they have a right to send you stuff you don't want to get. Deal with it, don't outlaw it.
That politician's name was Micheal Dukakis. If you recall, he got the shit beat of him by an eventual one-termer (Bush I)
Mud matters. It's about PR, it's ALL about PR where the press is concerned. Inflamatory remarks ALWAYS make headlines. Reasonable, thoughtful exchange of ideas is rare, in the Press it's alomst non-existant. If you want to beat m$, you must fight on both fronts. Beating them technically, and making them sound every bit as dirty as they are.
;)
In each of those states, it was a minimum of around 70 bucks, with 5-10 bucks additional for each 5mph increment you were over. One, VA, I think, was $1 per mph over, plus ~65 bucks. There is really little difference b/t getting busted going +2mph and +15.
And I'd like to know where the guy above that regularly goes 90+ and still gets passed drives. My brother is that dangerous, too, but he hardly gets passed on a regular basis. Hell, I do +5 to +10 everywhere and pass %75 of the cars out there.