I'm not saying you're lying, but you are effectively lying by omission. You either bought cars that originally came with an engine from the manufactuer (which is not the point of this whole thread), or you built a true custom car from scratch and are, for some reason, choosing to not mention that you did get it inspected by the state to get a VIN.
Reread the thread. A "car" manufactured and sold without an engine *does not have a VIN*. Period. It will have manufacturer's serial number and a certificate of origin. Without a VIN you can not register it. Without it being registered you can not legally drive it.
If your car was not manufactured without an engine, we're very proud of your two project cars but its *entirely* irrelevant to this thread.
And, for what its worth, I've had a half dozen project cars over the years (both street legal and race only) and at the moment I'm building a street-legal one *from scratch*, so I know *exactly* what the laws are about them around the country because I have to know what will need to be changed on it should I end up moving.
Nevada law is specific to operate it on a public road without registration:
* Must not produce more than 2 gross brake horsepower.
* Must not have an engine bigger than 50 cubic centimeters.
* Must not reach speeds greater than 30 mph on a flat surface.
That's not a car. This thread is about some imaginary belief that you can buy a car without an engine from an manufacturer and put any engine in it and legally drive that car on a public street.
Nowhere in the country is that the case. Operating ANY motorized vehicle on the road is only legal in some places in very limited circumstances that explicitly exclude motor vehicles.
Hoping, believing, wishing or making believe otherwise doesn't make it true... Its like the people who want so hard to believe that its legal to run untaxed biodiesel on the street. Much like this, wishing doesn't make it real.
In fact, your statement is so blatantly incorrect, it shocks me even for Slashdot...
There are literally hundreds of pages of regulations at the federal and state level (and in some places county or town) controlling the tiny minutia of getting a non-federalized vehicle on the roads. A custom car that is legal in one state is very likely unable to be registered in another without changes. Between safety and emissions you can legally do very little to a vehicle without running afoul of those laws, and very specifically ANY vehicle sold by a manufacturer without an engine is not a legal vehicle -- it has no VIN. You get a certificate of origin, and that combined with similar certificates of origin on drivetrain components is used to get a state issued VIN number after you have proven the vehicle meets all local, state and federal laws and regulations. Only then can the vehicle be registered for use on public roads.
And if you want an example of how detailed they get -- I'm in the midst of adding additional clips to one of my fuel lines because the state requires them closer than I have them.
Maybe Slashdotters understand that the company has a right to sell what they want for whatever they market will bear, just as you have the right to not buy from them.
You're not going to die if you don't have a Mac. You can upgrade it yourself or go buy a PC, an old Commodore 64 or *gasp* not buy a computer at all.
You can buy a car and engine separately but then the car has no VIN and has to go through your local state's custom-vehicle inspection and titling process.
Its not even remotely the same thing.
Re:Figure out your requirements...
on
What NAS To Buy?
·
· Score: 1
If my software shits the bed and corrupts a file, no amount of RAID is going to help me. If user error blows away ten years of family photos, RAID will not help me. If a trojan encrypts all my files and wants me to pay to decrypt them, RAID is not going to help me.
And even physical failures can lead to corruption -- depending on the RAID system, that can cause a write error, which can in turn lead to data corruption.
RAID is not, under ANY circumstances, a backup solution. Anyone who would suggest otherwise is talking out of their rear end and their advice should be discounted at that point.
Re:I understand why you`d want to go pre-built
on
What NAS To Buy?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
The price difference may disappear quickly with the difference in power usage.
According to my Kill-A-Watt, my old NAS box (old P4 desktop with two 750 gig SATA drives) costs me almost $20 a month in electricity more than those two drives in a USB enclosure hanging off my Airport Extreme.
When I was using a rack-mount HP server, it was costing me twice that!
Figure out your requirements...
on
What NAS To Buy?
·
· Score: 1
Storage and backup are mutually exclusive requirements. RAID is about providing high availability to a storage system or about providing high performance. It doesn't keep your data any safer, since corruption is replicated immediately anyway.
If you need storage, figure out how important speed is, and high availability. Hanging a USB drive off something like an Airport Extreme may be enough for you. If you need high availability, use mirrored drives unless speed REALLY isn't a factor (I've found that in virtually all NAS systems, RAID5 cuts throughput by 75% or more because virtually none of them do it in hardware!). If you need high speed, stripe them. If you need both, pony up and buy four drives and mirror them and stripe them (RAID 1+0)
However, none of that provides any backup capabilities. For that you need to have a copy of the data that is NOT updated immediately.
I solved that problem personally using an older NAS box that is far too slow even without using RAID for real-time use and it essentially rsyncs nightly from my "fast" server.
Just remember the mantra: RAID is not a backup solution.
Even worse... that's above the average level of intelligence of, and was likely confusing to, the majority of Americans.
The problem is getting steadily worse, as there is an inverse relationship between being educated and breeding.
Half of America gets the idea its okay to be ignorant because they see people like that in front of them day in and day out. They see their leaders barely able to keep from drooling on themselves. And now we're in a downward spiral of a culture that focuses on trying to under-think the next guy. For some reason we, as a formerly educated society, continue to allow these people to participate in society as full citizens, and allow them though social welfare and tax programs to continue to breed with the financial support of the responsible, educated, intelligent America.
Half the "projects" are imaginary, the other half are explained poorly or just plain wrong.
Trans-atlantic tunnel? Space elevator? We might as well say the establishment of psychohistory and a Foundation to guide the development of humanity is an equally large science project.
And whats with the passing jab at cold fusion in the ITER blurb? Poor attempt at a joke? Author who doesn't understand the difference? Or perhaps someone not aware about how much research actually is happening in that space?
I'd say they should be embarassed, but they're probably off watching "Ghost Hunters", I think the new season started on the Discovery Channel recently...
You must be new here, of course thats whats going to happen.
Some of us will get witty replies in, we'll probably get a couple "In Soviet America" jokes, a few flamers talking about privacy invasions and at least one sad, months-late attempt at a Rick Roll.
Perhaps I should sue them for selling a product that did what the Perl script I wrote to import ten years' worth of archives into GMail did several months before the beta was even open to anyone but friends and family of people at Google.
Your mistake is assuming that land is yours or ever was yours. Its not, you don't pay taxes on it.
In most jurisdictions there's a 10' zone along the street (although the size of it varies by town/city) that does *not* belong to the homeowner. They may think it does, they may landscape it and make it look nice, but that land is not theirs. They pay no taxes on it, they need town permission to cross it (thats why you need a permit to move a driveway), the city can dig it up when they need to, or cut trees on it, etc.
If the power company had to CROSS your property to get to a neighbor, you would be paid for that. When communication lines bisect a property, they typically are leased.
I, of course, don't support public obscenities and indecencies- it's just plainly wrong to do some things in public. I disagree. What you think is wrong is an opinion and you should explicitly have no right to influence the behavior of others, where that behavior isn't causing *demonstrable* harm to others, on the basis of your opinion.
My parents spoon fed me loads of crap, how am I supposed to seperate the truth (shouldn't run around naked in public) from all the lies (go to church or you'll go to hell)? And there's the problem. You're assuming that there's some inherent truth to a claim that people shouldn't be running around naked in public -- when there's pretty substantial evidence from cultures going back to pre-history that there's not a bit of problem with it at all.
This is why your opinion (or anyone's -- I'm not picking on you) should be explicitly disallowed when defining what behavior is acceptable. Prove its causing harm to others in a way that others can't choose to avoid it, or learn to deal with it. You may personally believe you don't want to see others walking around naked (and based on the current obesity epidemic in the US, you're probably right), but if it really bothers you then you can avoid going into those public places. You have no inherent right to be comfortable outside of your home.
1) We're talking about DSL competition not long-haul, and virtually none of the country has local telcos using infrastructure that was given to them -- its leased from the power company, from the town in some cases, but it is *paid* for. 2) If we're talking long-haul, in all of the examples you gave they ALSO are leasing from the parties that actually own the infrastructure.
Telcos (unlike power companies) do NOT get a free ride. Its also worth pointing out, since we're on the subject, that the data infrastructure (including upgrades that provide for DSL at the CO's) are not federally subsidized.
Sorry, thats incorrect. Telcos almost universally lease that space from power companies, and they pay for it. There are some rare cases where the telco owns the poles or right of way, but they are very rare. Long haul runs are often, if not almost always, done using leased space from owners of train lines.
If you, as an ISP owner, wanted to lease space on those poles and run lines, you could've. There's some big companies like, say, Comcast that did it.
Slashdot Mirror
Because God made it drop in pitch, just as He evolved^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcreated you unable to hear it.
I'm not saying you're lying, but you are effectively lying by omission. You either bought cars that originally came with an engine from the manufactuer (which is not the point of this whole thread), or you built a true custom car from scratch and are, for some reason, choosing to not mention that you did get it inspected by the state to get a VIN.
Reread the thread. A "car" manufactured and sold without an engine *does not have a VIN*. Period. It will have manufacturer's serial number and a certificate of origin. Without a VIN you can not register it. Without it being registered you can not legally drive it.
If your car was not manufactured without an engine, we're very proud of your two project cars but its *entirely* irrelevant to this thread.
And, for what its worth, I've had a half dozen project cars over the years (both street legal and race only) and at the moment I'm building a street-legal one *from scratch*, so I know *exactly* what the laws are about them around the country because I have to know what will need to be changed on it should I end up moving.
Talk about "FAIL"! Thanks for your two cents.
Nevada law is specific to operate it on a public road without registration:
* Must not produce more than 2 gross brake horsepower.
* Must not have an engine bigger than 50 cubic centimeters.
* Must not reach speeds greater than 30 mph on a flat surface.
That's not a car. This thread is about some imaginary belief that you can buy a car without an engine from an manufacturer and put any engine in it and legally drive that car on a public street.
Nowhere in the country is that the case. Operating ANY motorized vehicle on the road is only legal in some places in very limited circumstances that explicitly exclude motor vehicles.
Hoping, believing, wishing or making believe otherwise doesn't make it true... Its like the people who want so hard to believe that its legal to run untaxed biodiesel on the street. Much like this, wishing doesn't make it real.
Um. No, operating an unregistered vehicle on a public road is illegal. Cops, cuffs, court, jail, illegal.
Its not a matter of opinion.
Nice try though.
No, you can't.
Done it before, in the process of doing it again.
In fact, your statement is so blatantly incorrect, it shocks me even for Slashdot...
There are literally hundreds of pages of regulations at the federal and state level (and in some places county or town) controlling the tiny minutia of getting a non-federalized vehicle on the roads. A custom car that is legal in one state is very likely unable to be registered in another without changes. Between safety and emissions you can legally do very little to a vehicle without running afoul of those laws, and very specifically ANY vehicle sold by a manufacturer without an engine is not a legal vehicle -- it has no VIN. You get a certificate of origin, and that combined with similar certificates of origin on drivetrain components is used to get a state issued VIN number after you have proven the vehicle meets all local, state and federal laws and regulations. Only then can the vehicle be registered for use on public roads.
And if you want an example of how detailed they get -- I'm in the midst of adding additional clips to one of my fuel lines because the state requires them closer than I have them.
Maybe Slashdotters understand that the company has a right to sell what they want for whatever they market will bear, just as you have the right to not buy from them.
You're not going to die if you don't have a Mac. You can upgrade it yourself or go buy a PC, an old Commodore 64 or *gasp* not buy a computer at all.
Not and operate it on a public road.
You can buy a car and engine separately but then the car has no VIN and has to go through your local state's custom-vehicle inspection and titling process.
Its not even remotely the same thing.
If my software shits the bed and corrupts a file, no amount of RAID is going to help me. If user error blows away ten years of family photos, RAID will not help me. If a trojan encrypts all my files and wants me to pay to decrypt them, RAID is not going to help me.
And even physical failures can lead to corruption -- depending on the RAID system, that can cause a write error, which can in turn lead to data corruption.
RAID is not, under ANY circumstances, a backup solution. Anyone who would suggest otherwise is talking out of their rear end and their advice should be discounted at that point.
The price difference may disappear quickly with the difference in power usage.
According to my Kill-A-Watt, my old NAS box (old P4 desktop with two 750 gig SATA drives) costs me almost $20 a month in electricity more than those two drives in a USB enclosure hanging off my Airport Extreme.
When I was using a rack-mount HP server, it was costing me twice that!
Storage and backup are mutually exclusive requirements. RAID is about providing high availability to a storage system or about providing high performance. It doesn't keep your data any safer, since corruption is replicated immediately anyway.
If you need storage, figure out how important speed is, and high availability. Hanging a USB drive off something like an Airport Extreme may be enough for you. If you need high availability, use mirrored drives unless speed REALLY isn't a factor (I've found that in virtually all NAS systems, RAID5 cuts throughput by 75% or more because virtually none of them do it in hardware!). If you need high speed, stripe them. If you need both, pony up and buy four drives and mirror them and stripe them (RAID 1+0)
However, none of that provides any backup capabilities. For that you need to have a copy of the data that is NOT updated immediately.
I solved that problem personally using an older NAS box that is far too slow even without using RAID for real-time use and it essentially rsyncs nightly from my "fast" server.
Just remember the mantra: RAID is not a backup solution.
That book was powerfully bitch-smacked it was so debunked after it came out.
I wouldn't take any details in it seriously... good book, interesting theory, but most of the evidence was fabricated or misinterpreted.
Even worse... that's above the average level of intelligence of, and was likely confusing to, the majority of Americans.
The problem is getting steadily worse, as there is an inverse relationship between being educated and breeding.
Half of America gets the idea its okay to be ignorant because they see people like that in front of them day in and day out. They see their leaders barely able to keep from drooling on themselves. And now we're in a downward spiral of a culture that focuses on trying to under-think the next guy. For some reason we, as a formerly educated society, continue to allow these people to participate in society as full citizens, and allow them though social welfare and tax programs to continue to breed with the financial support of the responsible, educated, intelligent America.
Half the "projects" are imaginary, the other half are explained poorly or just plain wrong.
Trans-atlantic tunnel? Space elevator? We might as well say the establishment of psychohistory and a Foundation to guide the development of humanity is an equally large science project.
And whats with the passing jab at cold fusion in the ITER blurb? Poor attempt at a joke? Author who doesn't understand the difference? Or perhaps someone not aware about how much research actually is happening in that space?
I'd say they should be embarassed, but they're probably off watching "Ghost Hunters", I think the new season started on the Discovery Channel recently ...
*slap*
You're welcome.
You do realize you didn't read an article either, right?
Its a press-release. By the lawyers. Who are filing the lawsuit. How much of that $1B do you think they'll keep?
You must be new here, of course thats whats going to happen.
Some of us will get witty replies in, we'll probably get a couple "In Soviet America" jokes, a few flamers talking about privacy invasions and at least one sad, months-late attempt at a Rick Roll.
Perhaps I should sue them for selling a product that did what the Perl script I wrote to import ten years' worth of archives into GMail did several months before the beta was even open to anyone but friends and family of people at Google.
You know, because its really a non-obvious idea.
Look who's talking...
trojan
I do not think that word means what you think it means.Your mistake is assuming that land is yours or ever was yours. Its not, you don't pay taxes on it.
In most jurisdictions there's a 10' zone along the street (although the size of it varies by town/city) that does *not* belong to the homeowner. They may think it does, they may landscape it and make it look nice, but that land is not theirs. They pay no taxes on it, they need town permission to cross it (thats why you need a permit to move a driveway), the city can dig it up when they need to, or cut trees on it, etc.
If the power company had to CROSS your property to get to a neighbor, you would be paid for that. When communication lines bisect a property, they typically are leased.
This is why your opinion (or anyone's -- I'm not picking on you) should be explicitly disallowed when defining what behavior is acceptable. Prove its causing harm to others in a way that others can't choose to avoid it, or learn to deal with it. You may personally believe you don't want to see others walking around naked (and based on the current obesity epidemic in the US, you're probably right), but if it really bothers you then you can avoid going into those public places. You have no inherent right to be comfortable outside of your home.
No, its entirely correct.
1) We're talking about DSL competition not long-haul, and virtually none of the country has local telcos using infrastructure that was given to them -- its leased from the power company, from the town in some cases, but it is *paid* for.
2) If we're talking long-haul, in all of the examples you gave they ALSO are leasing from the parties that actually own the infrastructure.
Telcos (unlike power companies) do NOT get a free ride. Its also worth pointing out, since we're on the subject, that the data infrastructure (including upgrades that provide for DSL at the CO's) are not federally subsidized.
GTA IV?
After getting suckered out of my $60, I think I'd rather the LHC create an earth-gobbling black hole then play that again!
You clearly are smarter than these scientists. Perhaps you should run the LHC and they can post on Slashdot?
Sorry, thats incorrect. Telcos almost universally lease that space from power companies, and they pay for it. There are some rare cases where the telco owns the poles or right of way, but they are very rare. Long haul runs are often, if not almost always, done using leased space from owners of train lines.
If you, as an ISP owner, wanted to lease space on those poles and run lines, you could've. There's some big companies like, say, Comcast that did it.