Actually, it did both. You're right. I wasn't specific enough. Email to anything@hostname.tulsa.net forwarded to hostname@tulsa.net. Their 'invention' is just a subset of what we did.
When I worked for an ISP many years ago (Galaxy Star Systems), we did that very thing with the domain "tulsa.net". We put their webpages at hostname.tulsa.net. Any email to hostname.tulsa.net was forwarded to their single email account.
We're talking 1995 technology here, and it was obvious at the time.
Read their own words. "Ideal for companies with proprietary software images"
Remember the *double Microsoft Tax*? A large company pays to purchase a system (which has Windows), then they pay again for their special corporate image of windows? If they buy a system like this one, then they've got a single Microsoft tax. It makes sense.
And it makes sense for people who run alternative OSs, of want more of a kiosk, or perhaps have a MAME box they want to get going. For $320 with free shipping, that's one hell of a MAME box.
BTW: I found the URL given in the story a bad choice. I found this one instead.
I've read all of the replies to your message so far. The one thing I don't see mentioned is that outages are due in great part to the installation of the dish itself.
If the dish isn't aligned plumb with the satellite, is is much more susceptable to outages. Always go for the highest signal strength you can possible get in normal weather. (That means above "acceptable".) That will get you even better reception when the weather is bad.
People need to make sure their satellite dishes are secure. Maybe it isn't the rain so much as the rain combined with the wind that is shaking the dish around a bit? That'll really wreck a signal when you combine the two.
And of course, cable quality. If they use bad cables, they're going to hurt their signal quality.
My worst satellite reception experience? I lost DirectTV *THREE TIMES* when the cable company came by over and over and cut my satellite wire, somehow thinking it was stolen cable (COX). The last time, their fraud manager came out (boy was he a suspicious ass) and put some nice labels on the cables ("DSS - Do not cut") so they wouldn't touch it. And replaced my cables, too.
Somewhat related to what you said, the UltraSparc-II processor was 64 bits *and* the OS was still 32 bits (Solaris 2.5.1). It was only really starting in the world of Solaris 7 that people were given the option to compile 64bit code for a 64bit OS. And they ran into a very small performance hit on the application. (Well know, at least, among system administrators for Solaris boxes.)
Of course, this may be obvious to you, so I point this out for the benefits of others.
BTW... no significant speed loss has been seen on the 64bit Solaris versions vs the 32bit versions. (And they'll let you downselect a 32bit install if that's what you want, even on 64 bit hardware. So at the OS level, it doesn't seem to make much difference.)
The point was that the summary posting on Slashdot was inaccurate compared to the whole article. My gawd, does everyone have to analyze this in full geek mode?
Correct. What they're talking about is that they haven't been able to produce a fusion reaction that sustains more energy output from the fuel than what was put in to ignite it. No question!
What the parent comment (and mine) were pointing out was that it wasn't what the article summary said. We're pointing out the humor that it said that the REACTOR (not reaction) would take produce more energy than it takes in. He-3 being part of the energy that is taken in, of course.
Thanks for totally running this into the ground in the pursuit of scientific truth!;)
"The researchers still are working on building a helium-3 reactor that would produce more energy than it takes in."
That is not scientifically (or logically) equal to "The energy consumed in causing the reaction is less than the reaction releases", which is your approximate rewording of the press release in order to make sense.
It can't produce more energy that is put into it. Electrical energy, plus mechanical energy, plus heat energy, plus the energy in the helium-3. It will never produce more energy than is put into it. Otherwise, you have a problem with the laws of physics.
I'm actually at a place where it is perfectly acceptable to bring critical questions to senior management. If you can't do it informally, there is a system for formally doing it where reprisals are absolutely not tolerated. (Well, if you can prove it.)
Our VP just got through soliciting a round of employee questions (many quite critical and stinging) via a collaborate intranet site. But this is highly dependant on the corporate culture.
Unfortunately, I'm not all the convinced my VP is buying into it. The answers so far a very weak. Something you'd except from a CEO trying to dodge tough questions (by being very specific with words, not directly answering questions, etc etc).
In your case, though, if it is ultimately going to come back to your directors, maybe the questions should be saved for the directors themsevles. Generally, at the VP level, you get a boolean response. A fluff-off, or a hail storm. Neither one of those are what you want.
Of course, I'm not reading this in the full context, but here's an interesting tidbit:
2.1 Section J of Ammendment No 1 prohibits SCO from entering "into new SVRX Licneses" except "as may be incidentally involved through [SCO's] rights to sell and license UnixWare software or the Merged Product."
2.2 With this prohibition in mind, Novell has noted SCO's recent introduction of its "SCO Intellectual Propety License for Linux," in which SCO attempst to enter into new SVRX Licenses with Linux end users.
> If SCO published this UNIX source code, SCO itself > would be in violation of these contracts.
Of course, SCO has already published some offending UNIX source code (in its opinion). Has it violated its confidentiality clauses?
If not, they're playing with words, most likely. "this UNIX source code" could just be a reference to the whole body of UNIX source code it got (has on loan) from Novell. If they published *the* UNIX source code, yes, they'd be in hot water.
Sorry if any of the above was vauge. SCO constant squirming and repositioning makes concrete statements as easy as nailing jelly to a tree.
Its even worse. The Mc prefix means "son of". Now what does the name Bride, from gaelic, mean? "From Brighid, a hostage, pledge, or security." Fits Darl's reign at SCO pretty well.
This Yahoo! message post does a good job of breaking down the SCO press release. There is a simple rule when it comes to reading SCO press releases and public statements. They're communicating on two levels at the same time.
First is the perception level. This is what you're supposed to get the feel of when you read the statements. The second is the literal/factual level, which is far less impressive, and what keeps the SEC and other agencies off of their butt. But most people don't read at this level. It is *fun* when you do!
In short, the art of lying while telling the truth. You'll see it in the Yahoo! posting.
And there's nothing better than receiving your critical OS patches via snailmail. Even worse, it isn't like Microsoft is going to ship an extra CD for each bug they find. They'll wait to publish on a regular cycle unless something is so horribly critical it brings outrage and condemnation from everyone.
Providing online support is probably cheaper than CD support, anyhow. The only benefit going to CD does is to kill off the product.
And speaking of killing off the product, it would have brough nothing but bad PR, unsatisfied users, and more reasons to migrate to TheOther Operating Systems. Obviously, they're looking at their licensing revenue and looking for a flood of activations. It didn't happen. They're going to have to feed the baby until it gets old enough.
It doesn't matter that I can't see them, they should be faithfully rendered to me as they are. Can someone please point me to a monitor which will properly render R,G,B,UV,IR,X? I really hate being limited by three dimensions of color.:)
Slashdot Mirror
No apology needed. Security sucked. A lot of things sucked. But other things just roxored about Galaxy. It was a great experience.
Actually, it did both. You're right. I wasn't specific enough. Email to anything@hostname.tulsa.net forwarded to hostname@tulsa.net. Their 'invention' is just a subset of what we did.
When I worked for an ISP many years ago (Galaxy Star Systems), we did that very thing with the domain "tulsa.net". We put their webpages at hostname.tulsa.net. Any email to hostname.tulsa.net was forwarded to their single email account.
We're talking 1995 technology here, and it was obvious at the time.
Read their own words. "Ideal for companies with proprietary software images"
Remember the *double Microsoft Tax*? A large company pays to purchase a system (which has Windows), then they pay again for their special corporate image of windows? If they buy a system like this one, then they've got a single Microsoft tax. It makes sense.
And it makes sense for people who run alternative OSs, of want more of a kiosk, or perhaps have a MAME box they want to get going. For $320 with free shipping, that's one hell of a MAME box.
BTW: I found the URL given in the story a bad choice. I found this one instead.
I've read all of the replies to your message so far. The one thing I don't see mentioned is that outages are due in great part to the installation of the dish itself.
If the dish isn't aligned plumb with the satellite, is is much more susceptable to outages. Always go for the highest signal strength you can possible get in normal weather. (That means above "acceptable".) That will get you even better reception when the weather is bad.
People need to make sure their satellite dishes are secure. Maybe it isn't the rain so much as the rain combined with the wind that is shaking the dish around a bit? That'll really wreck a signal when you combine the two.
And of course, cable quality. If they use bad cables, they're going to hurt their signal quality.
My worst satellite reception experience? I lost DirectTV *THREE TIMES* when the cable company came by over and over and cut my satellite wire, somehow thinking it was stolen cable (COX). The last time, their fraud manager came out (boy was he a suspicious ass) and put some nice labels on the cables ("DSS - Do not cut") so they wouldn't touch it. And replaced my cables, too.
What *type* of applique do you need in order to get the nice reflection of colored lights?
White? Silver etched? (I'm looking at the shatteredweb.com site that they said they got the applique from.)
Somewhat related to what you said, the UltraSparc-II processor was 64 bits *and* the OS was still 32 bits (Solaris 2.5.1). It was only really starting in the world of Solaris 7 that people were given the option to compile 64bit code for a 64bit OS. And they ran into a very small performance hit on the application. (Well know, at least, among system administrators for Solaris boxes.)
Of course, this may be obvious to you, so I point this out for the benefits of others.
BTW... no significant speed loss has been seen on the 64bit Solaris versions vs the 32bit versions. (And they'll let you downselect a 32bit install if that's what you want, even on 64 bit hardware. So at the OS level, it doesn't seem to make much difference.)
Maybe you should stop being a pedantic asshole and realize that how the parent poster said it is how it is meant.
LOL. So. You're a South Park viewer?
The point was that the summary posting on Slashdot was inaccurate compared to the whole article. My gawd, does everyone have to analyze this in full geek mode?
BTW... I like your nick.
[bangs head against keyboard] ...heat ... is ... energy ... ;)
[bangs head against keyboard]
[bangs head against keyboard]
Net energy gain at the *reactor* view vs. net energy gain at the *reaction* view.
Run. RUN!!! Run to your local lawmaker and have them change the rules. A play right out of Darl's CEO 101 Handbook.
Its too late, Darl. You can't preserve your house of cards by hoping someone will change the laws of physics for you.
Correct. What they're talking about is that they haven't been able to produce a fusion reaction that sustains more energy output from the fuel than what was put in to ignite it. No question!
;)
What the parent comment (and mine) were pointing out was that it wasn't what the article summary said. We're pointing out the humor that it said that the REACTOR (not reaction) would take produce more energy than it takes in. He-3 being part of the energy that is taken in, of course.
Thanks for totally running this into the ground in the pursuit of scientific truth!
"The researchers still are working on building a helium-3 reactor that would produce more energy than it takes in."
That is not scientifically (or logically) equal to "The energy consumed in causing the reaction is less than the reaction releases", which is your approximate rewording of the press release in order to make sense.
It can't produce more energy that is put into it. Electrical energy, plus mechanical energy, plus heat energy, plus the energy in the helium-3. It will never produce more energy than is put into it. Otherwise, you have a problem with the laws of physics.
Help, I think I've fallen into a parallel universe.
HELP!? Take me WITH YOU!
I'm actually at a place where it is perfectly acceptable to bring critical questions to senior management. If you can't do it informally, there is a system for formally doing it where reprisals are absolutely not tolerated. (Well, if you can prove it.)
Our VP just got through soliciting a round of employee questions (many quite critical and stinging) via a collaborate intranet site. But this is highly dependant on the corporate culture.
Unfortunately, I'm not all the convinced my VP is buying into it. The answers so far a very weak. Something you'd except from a CEO trying to dodge tough questions (by being very specific with words, not directly answering questions, etc etc).
In your case, though, if it is ultimately going to come back to your directors, maybe the questions should be saved for the directors themsevles. Generally, at the VP level, you get a boolean response. A fluff-off, or a hail storm. Neither one of those are what you want.
Of course, I'm not reading this in the full context, but here's an interesting tidbit:
2.1 Section J of Ammendment No 1 prohibits SCO from entering "into new SVRX Licneses" except "as may be incidentally involved through [SCO's] rights to sell and license UnixWare software or the Merged Product."
2.2 With this prohibition in mind, Novell has noted SCO's recent introduction of its "SCO Intellectual Propety License for Linux," in which SCO attempst to enter into new SVRX Licenses with Linux end users.
> If SCO published this UNIX source code, SCO itself
> would be in violation of these contracts.
Of course, SCO has already published some offending UNIX source code (in its opinion). Has it violated its confidentiality clauses?
If not, they're playing with words, most likely. "this UNIX source code" could just be a reference to the whole body of UNIX source code it got (has on loan) from Novell. If they published *the* UNIX source code, yes, they'd be in hot water.
Sorry if any of the above was vauge. SCO constant squirming and repositioning makes concrete statements as easy as nailing jelly to a tree.
Its even worse. The Mc prefix means "son of". Now what does the name Bride, from gaelic, mean? "From Brighid, a hostage, pledge, or security." Fits Darl's reign at SCO pretty well.
This Yahoo! message post does a good job of breaking down the SCO press release. There is a simple rule when it comes to reading SCO press releases and public statements. They're communicating on two levels at the same time.
First is the perception level. This is what you're supposed to get the feel of when you read the statements. The second is the literal/factual level, which is far less impressive, and what keeps the SEC and other agencies off of their butt. But most people don't read at this level. It is *fun* when you do!
In short, the art of lying while telling the truth. You'll see it in the Yahoo! posting.
And there's nothing better than receiving your critical OS patches via snailmail. Even worse, it isn't like Microsoft is going to ship an extra CD for each bug they find. They'll wait to publish on a regular cycle unless something is so horribly critical it brings outrage and condemnation from everyone.
Providing online support is probably cheaper than CD support, anyhow. The only benefit going to CD does is to kill off the product.
And speaking of killing off the product, it would have brough nothing but bad PR, unsatisfied users, and more reasons to migrate to TheOther Operating Systems. Obviously, they're looking at their licensing revenue and looking for a flood of activations. It didn't happen. They're going to have to feed the baby until it gets old enough.
Unless your camera is digital and has white-balance correction built in. (ooops)
It doesn't matter that I can't see them, they should be faithfully rendered to me as they are. Can someone please point me to a monitor which will properly render R,G,B,UV,IR,X? I really hate being limited by three dimensions of color. :)
Go ahead, blame Saint Andreas. Its all his fault!
(I've had that one stored up for years, waiting to use on Slashdot.)