And a clue to know how a battery backed up raid works. If you're handing out money for the other parts, at least know what the hell you are supplying. A battery on a raid card does *NOT* keep the disks spinning long enough to finish writes. The battery keeps the memory running so that when power is restored it can finish any writes that were in the queue.
I just copied data from a windows 95 machine at a ski resort that they use to keep an old editable version of the trail map on. They are finally getting around to getting data off it to see if there are updated versions of the software. Also worked recently on an old Dos 3.x machine with a power supply dated '87 that runs a voltage QA test machine for parts that are made for the F22 Raptor. A modern replacement for that test hardware is in the $15,000 range. While this isn't common, don't confuse it with dead. Another customer we have has a windows 95 computer that we periodically image to another system and test that runs a laser cutting machine. A replacement computer is available from the manufacturer, for $4500. Sometimes just doing preventative work on a machine that will cost that much to replace is worth it. Both customers have multiple of the systems, so if one were to go down they wouldn't be crippled while the replacement was shipped to them, so they have weighed the risk.
Yes, I kinda cringe anytime I get close to a machine like that and my official recommendation to both companies is to replace the machine (Or at least start putting some money into a fund to replace it ASAP). But really, do you expect that $15,000 replacement hardware to last 22 years like that Dos 3.x system has lasted? Or to last the 13 years that windows 95 machine has lasted? Once hardware gets that old you're certainly living on borrowed time, but I have seen way to many capacitor issues on newer hardware to even begin to assume a machine will last more than 5 years now =/.
AV is useless for the new generation of exploits, at least in it's current form.
I've had some luck with the Corporate edition of McAfee with some very locked down defaults. Set it up to not allow programs to be run from temp folders (The default is to log it but not deny it) and I've stopped these from getting in. Doesn't mean that the next version isn't going to set itself to run from a non-temp folder though. Want to be secure? Very easy recipe...
Binestar's Mostly Secure computer Recipe An up to date AV Program (I recommend Avast because it is free.) Flash Updated A PDF reader that is not Adobe Reader -- If it must be adobe reader disable javascript in the configuration and keep it up to date The latest Java (6v21 as of this post) Firefox with the following Addons: Flashblock, noscript. Whatever the latest version of VLC is AND SET WINDOWS UPDATES TO AUTOMATIC
Follow that recipe and you can browse as much porn as you want, just don't install anything from those sites. If they insist on you using their plugin, you should insist on going to another site. Trust me, their porn isn't any better with their custom plugin.
The only virus's I've seen infect machines recently are what I call "0-day" viruses. Ones that were released that day. I've also found that they come in 2 pieces. the "obvious" virus portion (AV 2010 and the like) and a rootkit that gets attached to a random driver file in %windir%\system32\drivers. They completely hide themselves from a scan run with the local machine, and you either have to boot a livecd or yank the drive and scan in another PC. Waiting 24 hours or more for the definition to be updated before you can even detect the file. It's a race. Malware writers get about 24 hours of use out of a specific variant they write and they know it. I wish I had the link, but I remember a report saying that new variants of the AV2010 series has upto 2 releases a day to keep ahead of the antivirus programs ability to detect.
In this specific case, we're crossing the line from a good trade-off (outlawing driving with a 0.10% BAC) to a questionable one (multi-year punishment for driving with a 0.08% BAC) and seemingly headed for a very bad one (lifetime punishment for driving with a BAC so low that false positives will be a real problem).
I call BULLSHIT on this line of thinking. These devices are not being installed on every car that is made, it is being installed on cars where the people have already broken the law by drinking and driving with a 0.08% BAC. This isn't a slippery slope thing. This is a close door with a special knock that you entered by making a series of choices that resulted in this penalty. Can you honestly say that someone who is drinking doesn't yet know it is bad to drink and drive? IT INFORMS YOU ON THE VERY BEER YOU ARE DRINKING.
I am all for liberty, but your rights to swing your arms in wildly flailing directions end at the tip of my nose. Your rights to having a drink and participating in motor vehicle operation end on any road that is not your own. If you insist on using your libery to abridge my own I am all for harsh punishment.
I have more than one person in my families group of friends who has been popped for DUI. My uncle is currently serving 2.5 years for his third offense. Friend of my father's was driving home while drunk and arrested. Spent a few days trying to collect up money to bail himself out and when he finally did he was arrested 2 days later for a second DUI, before he had even been back to court to plead on the first arrest. People who drink and drive are at a high likelihood to be a repeat offender, even if not caught.
I'm sorry if this means you can't drive after having a glass of wine while out for dinner. Note that this doesn't stop you from having said glass of wine, just that it stops you from DRIVING after having done so.
I will say that if you truly think your liberty to drink and drive is being infringed by this law I will counter that my liberty to torch your car with you in it when you drink and drive is being infringed as well.
Do you think your liberty is infringed by being told you can not target practice with your pistol on a public playground? You are presumably "playing" with your pistol are you not? Seems like a perfectly sound reasoning that anyone telling you that you can not do it on publicly owned land is a horrible abridgment of your liberty does it not? If a kid happens to go in front of where you are shooting clearly it is their fault for getting in your way.
Drinking is not a problem. Drinking and then participating in an action that drinking is known to impair and quite frequently results in damage to property or persons is a problem. In this instance the penalty is in place to prevent someone from REPEATING an offense they have been found guilty of. These devices are not inserted into your car without due process.
Doesn't change the fact of what I said. People who are obese are able to fix it with diet and exercise. A very large portion of them don't care or blame others for their condition. Yeah it sucks to be overweight at a young age and frankly it is the parents fault for allowing that to happen, but when those kids reach a point in their life where they are in control of what they eat they choose to continue to live that lifestyle while expecting others to pander to it.
Obeisity is 99.9999999% preventable and 99.9999999% reversable. It is lack of effort and laziness that prevents people from losing weight. Even if you are a parapalegic you can control your calorie intake and lose weight. Not even counting people who can walk, etc to lose weight. Can't walk because your knees are too bad? Go swimming! Your fat will make you float and you can burn calories with the exercise. Even people with glandular problems can control that with medication and portion control. Fat people should stop playing the victim and take some responsibility for themselves.
Fair tax raises taxes on the middle class (my current tax bracket is approximately 20%, the fair tax would put me into a 30% bracket. On the other hand, the top 1% of earners in the US would fall from approximately 55% to 45%, getting a nice big tax break. Now, I am all for people being able to make a lot of money, and frankly most of those in the top 1% have earned it, but the 10% additional tax hurts the middle class a lot more than it hurts the top 1%. The economy depends on the middle class having money. That 10% doesn't even come close to hurting the top 1%
I don't "Feel" that these performance issues exist. They did exist. We fixed then with a much less expensive $30/machine memory upgrade instead of a 2 hour downtime per machine windows reinstall after we upgraded to SP3. The poster I original responded too saw the same issues I saw, this isn't a isolated case, I've corrected it at more than one single company by upgrading memory after installing Windows XP SP3.
Yes, I'm sure it flies when you're playing solitaire. Now install an AV, run Outlook and Word and run a database app. Running on the edge of memory limits prior to SP3 install that little more it uses will very easily pump you over the limit. The fix is easy: Install more memory, but that is true for Windows, Linux, etc. The fact of the matter is that yes, you can run windows XP with limited memory, but my time is worth more than waiting for the screen to refresh when I switch from one document to another, and Windows XP SP3 demonstrably uses more memory than windows XP SP2.
As I clarified in another post, I know Windows XP SP3 will run on 64MB as MS says, but you're not going to be happy with it. If you were running fine on a certain amount of memory with SP2 I have found that SP3 will often put you over the limit. Memory usage has gone up between SP2 and SP3, I've installed SP3 on dozens of machines that had SP2 and have had to upgrade the memory afterwards on each and every one of them to prevent going into swap. Those machines did not routinely use the swap file before the upgrade, they were constantly in swap after the upgrade.
Let me adjust my statement to make you happy.
If you have a Windows XP SP2 machine with 512MB of ran that runs your software well and you install windows XP SP3 and your performance goes to hell, you'll want to install more memory because you have started swapping.
How the hell my statement is a troll I have no idea, but sheesh folks. Memory requirements are NEVER what is put on the OS install, specifically because you aren't running software that was written in 2002. You'll likely have an AV, a newer browser, etc, and all those things take memory. XP SP3 uses more memory than SP2. Period.
65 feet horizontal and infinity above? Just take a helicopter out if cnn is all worried about this. They do it for traffic, they damn well can do it for the oil soaked birds.
Culture is an easy enough way to win, you just need to plan for it by using a cultural civ. Diplomacy is possible, but you're not going to get a Diplo victory unless you're willing to use military to get it. Which victory type are you thinking is an intimidation victory?
You're just fooling yourself. Think about this, tens of millions of people regard (association) football as the most exciting game of all. More people than for any other game in fact. This ought to tell you that the annoyance is not "of the game itself," but is your own personal failing. Imagine, the best game of all and you just don't get it. Now that must be annoying.
You're just fooling yourself. Think about this, tens of millions of people regard (Microsoft) Internet Explorer as the most usable browser of all. More people than any other browser in fact. This ought to tell you that the annoyance is not "Of the browser itself," but is your own personal failing. Imagine, the best browser of all and you just don't get it. Now that must be annoying.
Here is what I consider the only fair ways to handle tiered pricing:
#1: You hit your cap and no more service for the month *OR* #2: Lets say there are 5 tiers of caps: $5 for 100MB, $10 for 500MB, $25 for 2GB, $50 for 5GB and $100 for 15GB. If I use 17GB I would expect to pay $100 for 15GB and an additional $25 for 2GB for a total bill of $125. One month I go on vacation and don't use it much at all, I pay $5 for the 100MB. Another month I stream movies constantly, I pay $350 for 50GB of traffic.
IMO: There is no reason to have to choose a cap. Have a sliding scale and you're billed based on usage. None of this being on a smaller plan and being dinged very heavily for going over. Just up the plan to the next and be billed if that is your option, or have service stopped if you don't want to add cost to your plan.
Slashdot Mirror
And a clue to know how a battery backed up raid works. If you're handing out money for the other parts, at least know what the hell you are supplying. A battery on a raid card does *NOT* keep the disks spinning long enough to finish writes. The battery keeps the memory running so that when power is restored it can finish any writes that were in the queue.
I just copied data from a windows 95 machine at a ski resort that they use to keep an old editable version of the trail map on. They are finally getting around to getting data off it to see if there are updated versions of the software. Also worked recently on an old Dos 3.x machine with a power supply dated '87 that runs a voltage QA test machine for parts that are made for the F22 Raptor. A modern replacement for that test hardware is in the $15,000 range. While this isn't common, don't confuse it with dead. Another customer we have has a windows 95 computer that we periodically image to another system and test that runs a laser cutting machine. A replacement computer is available from the manufacturer, for $4500. Sometimes just doing preventative work on a machine that will cost that much to replace is worth it. Both customers have multiple of the systems, so if one were to go down they wouldn't be crippled while the replacement was shipped to them, so they have weighed the risk.
Yes, I kinda cringe anytime I get close to a machine like that and my official recommendation to both companies is to replace the machine (Or at least start putting some money into a fund to replace it ASAP). But really, do you expect that $15,000 replacement hardware to last 22 years like that Dos 3.x system has lasted? Or to last the 13 years that windows 95 machine has lasted? Once hardware gets that old you're certainly living on borrowed time, but I have seen way to many capacitor issues on newer hardware to even begin to assume a machine will last more than 5 years now =/.
AV is useless for the new generation of exploits, at least in it's current form.
I've had some luck with the Corporate edition of McAfee with some very locked down defaults. Set it up to not allow programs to be run from temp folders (The default is to log it but not deny it) and I've stopped these from getting in. Doesn't mean that the next version isn't going to set itself to run from a non-temp folder though. Want to be secure? Very easy recipe...
Binestar's Mostly Secure computer Recipe
An up to date AV Program (I recommend Avast because it is free.)
Flash Updated
A PDF reader that is not Adobe Reader -- If it must be adobe reader disable javascript in the configuration and keep it up to date
The latest Java (6v21 as of this post)
Firefox with the following Addons: Flashblock, noscript.
Whatever the latest version of VLC is
AND SET WINDOWS UPDATES TO AUTOMATIC
Follow that recipe and you can browse as much porn as you want, just don't install anything from those sites. If they insist on you using their plugin, you should insist on going to another site. Trust me, their porn isn't any better with their custom plugin.
The only virus's I've seen infect machines recently are what I call "0-day" viruses. Ones that were released that day. I've also found that they come in 2 pieces. the "obvious" virus portion (AV 2010 and the like) and a rootkit that gets attached to a random driver file in %windir%\system32\drivers. They completely hide themselves from a scan run with the local machine, and you either have to boot a livecd or yank the drive and scan in another PC. Waiting 24 hours or more for the definition to be updated before you can even detect the file. It's a race. Malware writers get about 24 hours of use out of a specific variant they write and they know it. I wish I had the link, but I remember a report saying that new variants of the AV2010 series has upto 2 releases a day to keep ahead of the antivirus programs ability to detect.
In this specific case, we're crossing the line from a good trade-off (outlawing driving with a 0.10% BAC) to a questionable one (multi-year punishment for driving with a 0.08% BAC) and seemingly headed for a very bad one (lifetime punishment for driving with a BAC so low that false positives will be a real problem).
I call BULLSHIT on this line of thinking. These devices are not being installed on every car that is made, it is being installed on cars where the people have already broken the law by drinking and driving with a 0.08% BAC. This isn't a slippery slope thing. This is a close door with a special knock that you entered by making a series of choices that resulted in this penalty. Can you honestly say that someone who is drinking doesn't yet know it is bad to drink and drive? IT INFORMS YOU ON THE VERY BEER YOU ARE DRINKING.
I am all for liberty, but your rights to swing your arms in wildly flailing directions end at the tip of my nose. Your rights to having a drink and participating in motor vehicle operation end on any road that is not your own. If you insist on using your libery to abridge my own I am all for harsh punishment.
I have more than one person in my families group of friends who has been popped for DUI. My uncle is currently serving 2.5 years for his third offense. Friend of my father's was driving home while drunk and arrested. Spent a few days trying to collect up money to bail himself out and when he finally did he was arrested 2 days later for a second DUI, before he had even been back to court to plead on the first arrest. People who drink and drive are at a high likelihood to be a repeat offender, even if not caught.
I'm sorry if this means you can't drive after having a glass of wine while out for dinner. Note that this doesn't stop you from having said glass of wine, just that it stops you from DRIVING after having done so.
I will say that if you truly think your liberty to drink and drive is being infringed by this law I will counter that my liberty to torch your car with you in it when you drink and drive is being infringed as well.
Grow up and live in the real world.
Do you think your liberty is infringed by being told you can not target practice with your pistol on a public playground? You are presumably "playing" with your pistol are you not? Seems like a perfectly sound reasoning that anyone telling you that you can not do it on publicly owned land is a horrible abridgment of your liberty does it not? If a kid happens to go in front of where you are shooting clearly it is their fault for getting in your way.
Drinking is not a problem. Drinking and then participating in an action that drinking is known to impair and quite frequently results in damage to property or persons is a problem. In this instance the penalty is in place to prevent someone from REPEATING an offense they have been found guilty of. These devices are not inserted into your car without due process.
Doesn't change the fact of what I said. People who are obese are able to fix it with diet and exercise. A very large portion of them don't care or blame others for their condition. Yeah it sucks to be overweight at a young age and frankly it is the parents fault for allowing that to happen, but when those kids reach a point in their life where they are in control of what they eat they choose to continue to live that lifestyle while expecting others to pander to it.
I would say that you were not overweight. Being muscular is a far cry from being obese.
Obeisity is 99.9999999% preventable and 99.9999999% reversable. It is lack of effort and laziness that prevents people from losing weight. Even if you are a parapalegic you can control your calorie intake and lose weight. Not even counting people who can walk, etc to lose weight. Can't walk because your knees are too bad? Go swimming! Your fat will make you float and you can burn calories with the exercise. Even people with glandular problems can control that with medication and portion control. Fat people should stop playing the victim and take some responsibility for themselves.
Fair tax raises taxes on the middle class (my current tax bracket is approximately 20%, the fair tax would put me into a 30% bracket. On the other hand, the top 1% of earners in the US would fall from approximately 55% to 45%, getting a nice big tax break. Now, I am all for people being able to make a lot of money, and frankly most of those in the top 1% have earned it, but the 10% additional tax hurts the middle class a lot more than it hurts the top 1%. The economy depends on the middle class having money. That 10% doesn't even come close to hurting the top 1%
What is the Roomba the first generation of?
Terminator.
I don't "Feel" that these performance issues exist. They did exist. We fixed then with a much less expensive $30/machine memory upgrade instead of a 2 hour downtime per machine windows reinstall after we upgraded to SP3. The poster I original responded too saw the same issues I saw, this isn't a isolated case, I've corrected it at more than one single company by upgrading memory after installing Windows XP SP3.
Yes, I'm sure it flies when you're playing solitaire. Now install an AV, run Outlook and Word and run a database app. Running on the edge of memory limits prior to SP3 install that little more it uses will very easily pump you over the limit. The fix is easy: Install more memory, but that is true for Windows, Linux, etc. The fact of the matter is that yes, you can run windows XP with limited memory, but my time is worth more than waiting for the screen to refresh when I switch from one document to another, and Windows XP SP3 demonstrably uses more memory than windows XP SP2.
As I clarified in another post, I know Windows XP SP3 will run on 64MB as MS says, but you're not going to be happy with it. If you were running fine on a certain amount of memory with SP2 I have found that SP3 will often put you over the limit. Memory usage has gone up between SP2 and SP3, I've installed SP3 on dozens of machines that had SP2 and have had to upgrade the memory afterwards on each and every one of them to prevent going into swap. Those machines did not routinely use the swap file before the upgrade, they were constantly in swap after the upgrade.
Let me adjust my statement to make you happy. If you have a Windows XP SP2 machine with 512MB of ran that runs your software well and you install windows XP SP3 and your performance goes to hell, you'll want to install more memory because you have started swapping. How the hell my statement is a troll I have no idea, but sheesh folks. Memory requirements are NEVER what is put on the OS install, specifically because you aren't running software that was written in 2002. You'll likely have an AV, a newer browser, etc, and all those things take memory. XP SP3 uses more memory than SP2. Period.
Windows XP SP3 requires 1GB of memory in the system, SP2 required about 512MB. This is not mentioned anywhere in the SP3 notes that I could find.
You do that, they do that and you end up with Radical Vs Radical. how is that good in any way?
You ever been in an ocean? 65feet is a very small amount of space. A couple of waves and you've been pushed that 65 feet and you've hit the booms.
65 feet horizontal and infinity above? Just take a helicopter out if cnn is all worried about this. They do it for traffic, they damn well can do it for the oil soaked birds.
I still have my Civ:CTP linux disk, along with my Q3A Linux Metal box!
Culture is an easy enough way to win, you just need to plan for it by using a cultural civ. Diplomacy is possible, but you're not going to get a Diplo victory unless you're willing to use military to get it. Which victory type are you thinking is an intimidation victory?
You're just fooling yourself. Think about this, tens of millions of people regard (association) football as the most exciting game of all. More people than for any other game in fact. This ought to tell you that the annoyance is not "of the game itself," but is your own personal failing. Imagine, the best game of all and you just don't get it. Now that must be annoying.
You're just fooling yourself. Think about this, tens of millions of people regard (Microsoft) Internet Explorer as the most usable browser of all. More people than any other browser in fact. This ought to tell you that the annoyance is not "Of the browser itself," but is your own personal failing. Imagine, the best browser of all and you just don't get it. Now that must be annoying.
I agree, but the prices were just an example.
Here is what I consider the only fair ways to handle tiered pricing:
#1: You hit your cap and no more service for the month
*OR*
#2: Lets say there are 5 tiers of caps: $5 for 100MB, $10 for 500MB, $25 for 2GB, $50 for 5GB and $100 for 15GB. If I use 17GB I would expect to pay $100 for 15GB and an additional $25 for 2GB for a total bill of $125. One month I go on vacation and don't use it much at all, I pay $5 for the 100MB. Another month I stream movies constantly, I pay $350 for 50GB of traffic.
IMO: There is no reason to have to choose a cap. Have a sliding scale and you're billed based on usage. None of this being on a smaller plan and being dinged very heavily for going over. Just up the plan to the next and be billed if that is your option, or have service stopped if you don't want to add cost to your plan.
Carrying enough propellant to escape orbit again is much heavier than carrying enough to crash into something with gravity assist.