Satellite broadband, assuming a geostationary orbit, has, by definition, high latency (more than a half second round trip even if both you and your ISP were directly under the satellite at the equator and if there were zero additional delay from routers, etc.). For web browsing, you might not notice this too much if you have a good local caching DNS server in the satellite router. For most other uses, though, it will seem very, very slow, and VoIP is right out.
Never been on a satellite connection, have you? Else you've been on a crappy one. Greater than half second latencies are a bear, no argument, but they don't make the net worthless and they CERTAINLY don't preculde VOIP (or video teleconference for that matter). See some of the links from http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=VOIP+satellit e&btnG=Search for more information on VOIP and satellite.
Believe me, I know:
[me@stable ~]$ ping -c4 google.com PING google.com (64.233.187.99) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from jc-in-f99.google.com (64.233.187.99): icmp_seq=0 ttl=232 time=663 ms 64 bytes from jc-in-f99.google.com (64.233.187.99): icmp_seq=1 ttl=232 time=657 ms 64 bytes from jc-in-f99.google.com (64.233.187.99): icmp_seq=2 ttl=232 time=654 ms 64 bytes from jc-in-f99.google.com (64.233.187.99): icmp_seq=3 ttl=232 time=658 ms
Excuse me for asking a weird question, but how long does it take to change channels? Digital cable for me takes around 1.5 seconds - it's long enough to be noticeable and annoying. That could very well be a function of the box you are using. The Motorola DCT6412 is a dual tuner HD PVR, that is rather slow. Their single tuner HD PVR (DCT6802) is quite quick.
You might be best served (if you are happy enough with the cable service) to see if they have a different brand or model of cable box to offer.
You make good points, but I don't think they are limited to ACH transactions. Most of the same issues would be possible with a credit card (hit your credit limit due to fraud, payments get denied). In addition, many cards charge "over limit" fees.
My original point was that there ARE protections against fraudulent transactions over the ACH network, in spite of the subject of the comment I responded to. *shrug*
That act didn't seem clear about transfers that occur when the card and/or other access devices were never stolen. A card doesn't need to be stolen to be used - especially with the lousy security associated with how these cards are currently implemented. Quite the contrary. From http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/credit/atmcard .shtm,/a>
However, for unauthorized transfers involving only your debit card number (not the loss of the card), you are liable only for transfers that occur after 60 days following the mailing of your bank statement containing the unauthorized use and before you report the loss. And from http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-31 00.html#6500205.6 205.6 Liability of consumer for unauthorized transfers. ...
(3) Periodic statement; timely notice not given. A consumer must report an unauthorized electronic fund transfer that appears on a periodic statement within 60 days of the financial institution's transmittal of the statement to avoid liability for subsequent transfers. If the consumer fails to do so, the consumer's liability shall not exceed the amount of the unauthorized transfers that occur after the close of the 60 days and before notice to the institution, and that the institution establishes would not have occurred had the consumer notified the institution within the 60-day period. When an access device is involved in the unauthorized transfer, the consumer may be liable for other amounts set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, as applicable. ... Paragraph (b)(3), quoted here, lays out the liability irrespective of loss of the access device (card). Paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), which I have not quoted, add additional liabilities that may be incurred if the access device is lost.
In short, you are in a better position if it's just your number that gets swiped versus your card. IANAL etc.
(Some context: I founded a company that made credit card processing software for Linux (among others) more than ten years ago. My knowledge on the matter might be stale (as of about 2002), but as far as I know nothing about this has changed much.) Sorry to say it, but your knowledge is stale.
This is very bad.
When you use a credit card, you get fantastic levels of consumer protection. By law, you're liable for at most $50 of bad transactions on your credit card, and most of the major payment backbones (Visa, Mastercard, etc) have reduced that to $0 liability over the Internet. There's no burden to reporting the charges as bad - you report the charges and go on with your life and you get a bright shiny new card in the mail in a few days.
On the ACH network, it's very different - it's like you're writing checks (the ACH network is used to settle checks). In other words, you're limited to the laws protecting you from bad checks, which puts the burden on you to prove that the charges did not come from you. Recovery of the money can be a nightmare, which can only be mitigated by the policies of your bank. The law offers you very little protection. Some banks are very good about this, others won't lift a finger to help you unless it's required by law.
Debit cards are bad, but at least their widespread use have made banks familiar with the issues. This is much, much worse. Since this is using ACH it is considered by law an Electronic Fund Transfer and your protections under federal law are not much less than those of a credit card. And I quote:
ATM or Debit Card Loss or Fraudulent Transfers (EFTA). Your liability under federal law for unauthorized use of your ATM or debit card depends on how quickly you report the loss. If you report an ATM or debit card missing before it's used without your permission, the EFTA says the card issuer cannot hold you responsible for any unauthorized transfers. If unauthorized use occurs before you report it, your liability under federal law depends on how quickly you report the loss.
For example, if you report the loss within two business days after you realize your card is missing, you will not be responsible for more than $50 for unauthorized use. However, if you don't report the loss within two business days after you discover the loss, you could lose up to $500 because of an unauthorized transfer. You also risk unlimited loss if you fail to report an unauthorized transfer within 60 days after your bank statement containing unauthorized use is mailed to you. That means you could lose all the money in your bank account and the unused portion of your line of credit established for overdrafts. However, for unauthorized transfers involving only your debit card number (not the loss of the card), you are liable only for transfers that occur after 60 days following the mailing of your bank statement containing the unauthorized use and before you report the loss.
If unauthorized transfers show up on your bank statement, report them to the card issuer as quickly as possible. Once you've reported the loss of your ATM or debit card, you cannot be held liable for additional unauthorized transfers that occur after that time.
New scientist publishes an article "debunking" global warming scepticism in which they say it's a "myth" that polar bear numbers are not declining. They claim polar bear numbers really are declining.
A sceptic points to another article about reliable research that found polar bear numbers are rising in at least one specific (and very large) area.
True believer claims "we can't know for certain either way", it's still possible numbers are declining in other areas.
What a convincing argument - if that's really the best you can do give up now. Remember the old burden of proof (hint: it's why we don't believe in unicorns). How about this... From the same article that the "skeptic" cites:
But Derocher still maintains the polar bear is threatened, even if its numbers aren't down all across the circumpolar region where the giant bears live and hunt (). Of the 13 polar bear populations in Canada, at least two are in decline, Derocher says. The number of polar bears along the western edge of Hudson Bay, for example, has fallen by 22 percent over the last decade. "They are declining due to global warming and changes in when the ice freezes and melts in Hudson Bay," says Derocher. The port of Churchill on Hudson Bay has seen its shipping season lengthen because of disappearing ice. Derocher and other scientists in his group are concerned that the retreating ice in the Arctic may pose a danger to future generations of polar bears because of habitat loss. "The critical problem is, the sea ice is changing. We're looking ahead three generations, 30 to 50 years. To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant," says Derocher. Furthermore...
Animal rights activists can take some credit for the growth of polar bear numbers in the eastern Arctic. The battle to ban the hunting of harp seal pups has meant that the harp seal population has jumped from 2 million to 5 million. It also means sealers, especially those from Norway, are no longer hunting the polar bears, which they used to do when the seal hunt was larger. Does that better meet your criteria for a "convincing argument"?
Perhaps the data on polar bear population change is inconclusive at this time.
Not that I condone or excuse the GPP. Just that he might have been less scorn-worthy than first thought.
Think water reclamation, ultra-efficient farming and food production techniques (solves hunger problems too!), clean, efficient sources of energy... For what it's worth, famine is (for the most part) not caused by low food production, but by other human-controlled forces.
I don't disagree with anything else you said, but I had to address this common misrepresentation.
I saw a memory test somewhere the revealed the memory can run hot, and you get a number of correctable ECC errors. But if your RAM has the larger Apple-recommended heatsinks on them, the ECC errors drop to zero. This is a test I would love to see, as I have long been under the impression that RAM heatsinks (as opposed to the heat spreaders on RDRAM RIMMS) are effectively*useless. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see the source.
That the current sitting president and his staff feel comfortable using terminology you quote... is telling of the strong current of isolationism which has defined the United States foreign policy for many decades. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
If anything, the flow is more towards imperialism.
If by 'on the horizon' they mean 'possibly in the next ten years', then sure. I can see that happening. Quad cores are already here. If they double the number of cores every 18 months that means in 7.5 years we'll have 128 cores. I'm just throwing that out as an example, but it's certainly possible even if all the cores are not on the same package. Take 8 physical CPU's with 16 cores each for example.
> date --date="Mar 10 15:00:00 UTC 2007" Sat Mar 10 10:00:00 EST 2007 > date --date="Mar 11 15:00:00 UTC 2007" Sun Mar 11 11:00:00 EDT 2007
This won't set your clock or anything, it just does the timezone conversion from UTC and displays the results according to the local timezone you have selected. Or just run zdump -v/etc/localtime | grep 2007" and make sure it says "Mar 11" instead of "Apr 1".
updated> zdump -v/etc/localtime | grep 2007 /etc/localtime Sun Mar 11 10:59:59 2007 UTC = Sun Mar 11 01:59:59 2007 AKST isdst=0 gmtoff=-32400 /etc/localtime Sun Mar 11 11:00:00 2007 UTC = Sun Mar 11 03:00:00 2007 AKDT isdst=1 gmtoff=-28800 /etc/localtime Sun Nov 4 09:59:59 2007 UTC = Sun Nov 4 01:59:59 2007 AKDT isdst=1 gmtoff=-28800 /etc/localtime Sun Nov 4 10:00:00 2007 UTC = Sun Nov 4 01:00:00 2007 AKST isdst=0 gmtoff=-32400
needswork> zdump -v/etc/localtime | grep 2007 /etc/localtime Sun Apr 1 10:59:59 2007 UTC = Sun Apr 1 01:59:59 2007 AKST isdst=0 gmtoff=-32400 /etc/localtime Sun Apr 1 11:00:00 2007 UTC = Sun Apr 1 03:00:00 2007 AKDT isdst=1 gmtoff=-28800 /etc/localtime Sun Oct 28 09:59:59 2007 UTC = Sun Oct 28 01:59:59 2007 AKDT isdst=1 gmtoff=-28800 /etc/localtime Sun Oct 28 10:00:00 2007 UTC = Sun Oct 28 01:00:00 2007 AKST isdst=0 gmtoff=-32400
I really wish I had a map of the game a year ago - there were 5-6 groups in the areas BoB is currently expanding into down south. Ask, and you may receive.
I beg to differ. Wikipedia lists the sound pressure level of a whisper at 20 dBs. To calculate the sound of a thousand people whispering, we need to do 20 times log10(ratio). The ratio is 1000 whispers to one. log10 of 1000 is 3, so the SPL level of a thousand people whispering is only 3 time 20, or 60 dBs.
While your post was amusing and well thought out, it would be analogous to using 1,000 of these turbines in sub-optimal conditions (hooking them up out of phase, using random wiring paths, etc.).
If you want the max SPL out of a thousand wispers, it would seem to me that you'd employ some technology and/or research to optimise your results. But that would kill a decent joke.
In order for the populace to defend them from a tyranny of the federal government, I believe the ACLU is right, you would have to give people access to tanks, missiles, etc AND provide them with a reasonable means of obtaining said weapons, otherwise one could make the argument that the government is not giving people the means to exercise their rights.
At the risk of going wildly off the story's topic, I have to disagree. Look at the situation in Iraq. The terrorists (resistance fighters, whatever you want to call them) don't have tanks. They don't have missiles (unless you call the RPG a missile). They don't have body armor. But they seem to be holding their own. One might say they have a good chance of "winning".
Given a strong will to not be over-run, and the support of the population at large (go ahead and try to tell me that these people are able to acquire and plant explosives without being noticed) you don't need fancy weapons to hold back a vastly superior armed force, as long as that armed force cares about image.
Even that condition is debatable. Witness the Chechens. Their Russian adversaries don't seem to be nearly as squeamish to civilian losses as the Americans are (see Wikipedia's entry on the Battle of Grozny for a taste), but still the Chechens resist (3 Soldiers Die in Chechen Rebel Ambush). Granted in that battle (click here for one account and some lessons that should have been carried into Iraq), both sides had heavy arms. But here are some good quotes that help make my point:
One experienced sniper is capable of doing what will prove to be beyond the capability of a tank, gun, or entire infantry subunit: disable a commander, destroy a gun or mortar crew, control one or two streets . . . and, most important, instill in the enemy a feeling of constant danger, nervousness, and expectation of a sudden shot. Everyone fears the Chechen snipers in Grozny. . . . There are many cases where a sniper wounds a serviceman, and then kills the wounded person and those who come to his aid.[20]
The sniper could also use an RPG in conjunction with a sniper rifle. A real problem for Russian troops was identifying snipers who shot at them and then donned a Red Cross armband and mingled with the local populace and the Russian soldiers he was killing. To counteract this, Russian checkpoints began forcing the Chechen men to take off their shirts. Soldiers would look for bruises on the shoulder from weapon recoil, for powder burns on forearms, or for a silver lining around cuffs (from mortar or artillery propellant bags). They also smelled clothing for gunpowder and looked for traces of it under fingernails or on arms or legs. Russian forces also employed snipers, but not with the same degree of success as the Chechens. A March 1995 article decrying the neglect of sniper training attests to this fact.[21]
The correct mix and employment of weapons in the city were also important. Grozny was a three-tiered fight (upper floors of buildings, street level, and subterranean or basement), and the weapons had to fit. Russian tanks could not lower their main gun tubes and coaxial machine guns low enough to shoot into basements harboring Chechen fighters. To correct this problem, the Russians put ZSU-23-4 self-propelled, multi-barreled, antiaircraft machine guns forward with columns to fire at heights and into basements.
The use of artillery and air power in the city was counterproductive in many instances. Indiscriminate bombing and shelling turned the local population against the Russians. The locals included some Russian citizens who were inhabitants of Grozny (and who found it incomprehensible that their
Right, that's the way real world auctions work. Ebay has different rules. I do believe back when ebay started and there was actually serious competition, there was another online auction house for which snipeing did not work. On that system, whenever a bid was placed, the auction was extended to last at least another 5 minutes. Thus, you couldn't snipe. Perhaps you are thinking of uBid?
On a different topic, now where will I shop for a level 70 blood elf paladin? My guess would be eBay.
Hypothetical situation:
You buy a piece of paper. That piece of paper is imprinted with the account and password (as a "free" bonus), the seller sends said paper through the mail and sends you a confirmation email containing the same information.
You bought a physical object, and got a virtual avatar as a bonus. If the seller "forgets" to physically mail the paper, who's going to complain?
you can legally possess up to 4 ounces in alaska, Close, but not quite. One ounce is the legal possession limit in Alaska, as long as you are not near near school propery (including school buses). While ownership of fewer than 25 plants is constitutinally protected, manufacture (cultivation, perhaps? I'm not particularly familiar with the process...) is not legal.
and 11 states have decriminalized possession of small amounts to nothing worse than a parking ticket while about the same use it medically I count 12 for each. AK, CA, CO, ME, MN, MS, NC, NE, NV, NY, OH, and OR have decriminalized it (though the fines can be rather steep). AK, CA, CO, HI, MD, ME, MT, NV, OR, RI, VT, and WA use it medically.
Even better is to make an unattended install disk (using a tool like nlite, or following the directions from a site like http://unattended.msfn.org/unattended.xp/) which includes the proper service pack, drivers AND registry tweak.
Just out of curiosity, why are you running Fedora on your servers?
Use RHEL instead. If you don't have the budget, a clone (like CentOS or Whitebox) will perform just as well, but won't have the paid-for support. The version stability of code is there, and you won't have to re-learn how to manage the box. The version of Exim included with RHEL 4 is 4.43. Out of date, but likely still supported... *shrug* At the very least, it comes complete with an exim.conf.
If you want code stability AND fresh software there are Contrib repositories for use with CentOS (see http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-May/ 005618.html for more info), which may very well have the software you are looking for. If not, you are unlikely to break anything by downloading the source and compiling (I took this route with OpenLDAP, as the RH supplied packages were woefully out of date).
For what it's worth, I feel your pain. Under my care are two RedHat 9, one Gentoo, one (seriously out of date) Debian and a whole host of CentOS 4 boxes. Admining the Gentoo box is painfully different. Thankfully, the Debian one is pretty much hands off.
Second, many packages supplied by RH are patched so far that the original developers won't provide support on the mailing lists (Squid, OpenLDAP for concrete examples).
Hmmm. Extend. Embrace. woo, but it has a snappy red fedora on it...
In my to examples the packages are so patched and unsupported because they are out of date.
RHEL's Squid is at 2.5Stable6. The prject itself is up to 2.6Stable6. RHEL's OpenLDAP is at 2.2.13. The project is up to 2.3.31.
Slashdot Mirror
Satellite broadband, assuming a geostationary orbit, has, by definition, high latency (more than a half second round trip even if both you and your ISP were directly under the satellite at the equator and if there were zero additional delay from routers, etc.). For web browsing, you might not notice this too much if you have a good local caching DNS server in the satellite router. For most other uses, though, it will seem very, very slow, and VoIP is right out.
Never been on a satellite connection, have you? Else you've been on a crappy one. Greater than half second latencies are a bear, no argument, but they don't make the net worthless and they CERTAINLY don't preculde VOIP (or video teleconference for that matter). See some of the links from http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=VOIP+satelliBelieve me, I know:
[me@stable ~]$ ping -c4 google.com
PING google.com (64.233.187.99) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from jc-in-f99.google.com (64.233.187.99): icmp_seq=0 ttl=232 time=663 ms
64 bytes from jc-in-f99.google.com (64.233.187.99): icmp_seq=1 ttl=232 time=657 ms
64 bytes from jc-in-f99.google.com (64.233.187.99): icmp_seq=2 ttl=232 time=654 ms
64 bytes from jc-in-f99.google.com (64.233.187.99): icmp_seq=3 ttl=232 time=658 ms
--- google.com ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3221ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 654.217/658.321/663.445/3.354 ms, pipe 2
[me@stable ~]$
You might be best served (if you are happy enough with the cable service) to see if they have a different brand or model of cable box to offer.
You make good points, but I don't think they are limited to ACH transactions. Most of the same issues would be possible with a credit card (hit your credit limit due to fraud, payments get denied). In addition, many cards charge "over limit" fees.
My original point was that there ARE protections against fraudulent transactions over the ACH network, in spite of the subject of the comment I responded to. *shrug*
However, for unauthorized transfers involving only your debit card number (not the loss of the card), you are liable only for transfers that occur after 60 days following the mailing of your bank statement containing the unauthorized use and before you report the loss.
And from http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-3
205.6 Liability of consumer for unauthorized transfers.
(3) Periodic statement; timely notice not given. A consumer must report an unauthorized electronic fund transfer that appears on a periodic statement within 60 days of the financial institution's transmittal of the statement to avoid liability for subsequent transfers. If the consumer fails to do so, the consumer's liability shall not exceed the amount of the unauthorized transfers that occur after the close of the 60 days and before notice to the institution, and that the institution establishes would not have occurred had the consumer notified the institution within the 60-day period. When an access device is involved in the unauthorized transfer, the consumer may be liable for other amounts set forth in paragraphs (b)(1) or (b)(2) of this section, as applicable.
Paragraph (b)(3), quoted here, lays out the liability irrespective of loss of the access device (card). Paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2), which I have not quoted, add additional liabilities that may be incurred if the access device is lost.
In short, you are in a better position if it's just your number that gets swiped versus your card. IANAL etc.
Yeah, look at how the Hi-Speed/Full-Speed USB debacle turned out. Big marketing nightmare there.
Calling it something else (hint: Full-Speed USB is slower) is far more likely. Allowing faster connections would cause recurring costs.
When you use a credit card, you get fantastic levels of consumer protection. By law, you're liable for at most $50 of bad transactions on your credit card, and most of the major payment backbones (Visa, Mastercard, etc) have reduced that to $0 liability over the Internet. There's no burden to reporting the charges as bad - you report the charges and go on with your life and you get a bright shiny new card in the mail in a few days.
On the ACH network, it's very different - it's like you're writing checks (the ACH network is used to settle checks). In other words, you're limited to the laws protecting you from bad checks, which puts the burden on you to prove that the charges did not come from you. Recovery of the money can be a nightmare, which can only be mitigated by the policies of your bank. The law offers you very little protection. Some banks are very good about this, others won't lift a finger to help you unless it's required by law.
Debit cards are bad, but at least their widespread use have made banks familiar with the issues. This is much, much worse. Since this is using ACH it is considered by law an Electronic Fund Transfer and your protections under federal law are not much less than those of a credit card. And I quote:
ATM or Debit Card Loss or Fraudulent Transfers (EFTA). Your liability under federal law for unauthorized use of your ATM or debit card depends on how quickly you report the loss. If you report an ATM or debit card missing before it's used without your permission, the EFTA says the card issuer cannot hold you responsible for any unauthorized transfers. If unauthorized use occurs before you report it, your liability under federal law depends on how quickly you report the loss.
For example, if you report the loss within two business days after you realize your card is missing, you will not be responsible for more than $50 for unauthorized use. However, if you don't report the loss within two business days after you discover the loss, you could lose up to $500 because of an unauthorized transfer. You also risk unlimited loss if you fail to report an unauthorized transfer within 60 days after your bank statement containing unauthorized use is mailed to you. That means you could lose all the money in your bank account and the unused portion of your line of credit established for overdrafts. However, for unauthorized transfers involving only your debit card number (not the loss of the card), you are liable only for transfers that occur after 60 days following the mailing of your bank statement containing the unauthorized use and before you report the loss.
If unauthorized transfers show up on your bank statement, report them to the card issuer as quickly as possible. Once you've reported the loss of your ATM or debit card, you cannot be held liable for additional unauthorized transfers that occur after that time.
Emphasis mine. For what it's worth (if you are having trouble going to sleep) this is all covered under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Part 205 Regulation E.
New scientist publishes an article "debunking" global warming scepticism in which they say it's a "myth" that polar bear numbers are not declining. They claim polar bear numbers really are declining.
A sceptic points to another article about reliable research that found polar bear numbers are rising in at least one specific (and very large) area.
True believer claims "we can't know for certain either way", it's still possible numbers are declining in other areas.
What a convincing argument - if that's really the best you can do give up now. Remember the old burden of proof (hint: it's why we don't believe in unicorns). How about this... From the same article that the "skeptic" cites: But Derocher still maintains the polar bear is threatened, even if its numbers aren't down all across the circumpolar region where the giant bears live and hunt (). Of the 13 polar bear populations in Canada, at least two are in decline, Derocher says. The number of polar bears along the western edge of Hudson Bay, for example, has fallen by 22 percent over the last decade.
"They are declining due to global warming and changes in when the ice freezes and melts in Hudson Bay," says Derocher. The port of Churchill on Hudson Bay has seen its shipping season lengthen because of disappearing ice.
Derocher and other scientists in his group are concerned that the retreating ice in the Arctic may pose a danger to future generations of polar bears because of habitat loss.
"The critical problem is, the sea ice is changing. We're looking ahead three generations, 30 to 50 years. To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant," says Derocher. Furthermore... Animal rights activists can take some credit for the growth of polar bear numbers in the eastern Arctic. The battle to ban the hunting of harp seal pups has meant that the harp seal population has jumped from 2 million to 5 million. It also means sealers, especially those from Norway, are no longer hunting the polar bears, which they used to do when the seal hunt was larger. Does that better meet your criteria for a "convincing argument"?
Perhaps the data on polar bear population change is inconclusive at this time.
Not that I condone or excuse the GPP. Just that he might have been less scorn-worthy than first thought.
I don't disagree with anything else you said, but I had to address this common misrepresentation.
From what I can find, the power dissipation of a fully buffered DDR2 DIMM is similar to a plain 16 chip SDR DIMM (10.4W v 8.7W). That's for the whole stick. Unless the airflow is seriously hampered, even with 8 DIMMs packed side-by-side heat does not appear to be a significant source of errors.
*Search for the header "Blue Metal" in this article for the relevant bits. Anchor tags appear to be absent.
If anything, the flow is more towards imperialism.
Just rampant speculation, but it is certainly possible. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=intel+80+cor
> date --date="Mar 10 15:00:00 UTC 2007"
Sat Mar 10 10:00:00 EST 2007
> date --date="Mar 11 15:00:00 UTC 2007"
Sun Mar 11 11:00:00 EDT 2007
This won't set your clock or anything, it just does the timezone conversion from UTC and displays the results according to the local timezone you have selected. Or just run zdump -v
Even a thousand whispers can get pretty loud
I beg to differ. Wikipedia lists the sound pressure level of a whisper at 20 dBs. To calculate the sound of a thousand people whispering, we need to do 20 times log10(ratio). The ratio is 1000 whispers to one. log10 of 1000 is 3, so the SPL level of a thousand people whispering is only 3 time 20, or 60 dBs.
While your post was amusing and well thought out, it would be analogous to using 1,000 of these turbines in sub-optimal conditions (hooking them up out of phase, using random wiring paths, etc.).If you want the max SPL out of a thousand wispers, it would seem to me that you'd employ some technology and/or research to optimise your results. But that would kill a decent joke.
In order for the populace to defend them from a tyranny of the federal government, I believe the ACLU is right, you would have to give people access to tanks, missiles, etc AND provide them with a reasonable means of obtaining said weapons, otherwise one could make the argument that the government is not giving people the means to exercise their rights.
At the risk of going wildly off the story's topic, I have to disagree. Look at the situation in Iraq. The terrorists (resistance fighters, whatever you want to call them) don't have tanks. They don't have missiles (unless you call the RPG a missile). They don't have body armor. But they seem to be holding their own. One might say they have a good chance of "winning".
Given a strong will to not be over-run, and the support of the population at large (go ahead and try to tell me that these people are able to acquire and plant explosives without being noticed) you don't need fancy weapons to hold back a vastly superior armed force, as long as that armed force cares about image.
Even that condition is debatable. Witness the Chechens. Their Russian adversaries don't seem to be nearly as squeamish to civilian losses as the Americans are (see Wikipedia's entry on the Battle of Grozny for a taste), but still the Chechens resist (3 Soldiers Die in Chechen Rebel Ambush). Granted in that battle (click here for one account and some lessons that should have been carried into Iraq), both sides had heavy arms. But here are some good quotes that help make my point:
One experienced sniper is capable of doing what will prove to be beyond the capability of a tank, gun, or entire infantry subunit: disable a commander, destroy a gun or mortar crew, control one or two streets . . . and, most important, instill in the enemy a feeling of constant danger, nervousness, and expectation of a sudden shot. Everyone fears the Chechen snipers in Grozny. . . . There are many cases where a sniper wounds a serviceman, and then kills the wounded person and those who come to his aid.[20]
The sniper could also use an RPG in conjunction with a sniper rifle. A real problem for Russian troops was identifying snipers who shot at them and then donned a Red Cross armband and mingled with the local populace and the Russian soldiers he was killing. To counteract this, Russian checkpoints began forcing the Chechen men to take off their shirts. Soldiers would look for bruises on the shoulder from weapon recoil, for powder burns on forearms, or for a silver lining around cuffs (from mortar or artillery propellant bags). They also smelled clothing for gunpowder and looked for traces of it under fingernails or on arms or legs. Russian forces also employed snipers, but not with the same degree of success as the Chechens. A March 1995 article decrying the neglect of sniper training attests to this fact.[21]
The correct mix and employment of weapons in the city were also important. Grozny was a three-tiered fight (upper floors of buildings, street level, and subterranean or basement), and the weapons had to fit. Russian tanks could not lower their main gun tubes and coaxial machine guns low enough to shoot into basements harboring Chechen fighters. To correct this problem, the Russians put ZSU-23-4 self-propelled, multi-barreled, antiaircraft machine guns forward with columns to fire at heights and into basements.
The use of artillery and air power in the city was counterproductive in many instances. Indiscriminate bombing and shelling turned the local population against the Russians. The locals included some Russian citizens who were inhabitants of Grozny (and who found it incomprehensible that their
Apparently, sex is hard to find (compared to Yahoo) in India and Turkey, and Yahoo is hard to find in Columbia and Japan.
Perhaps you are thinking of another....
Hypothetical situation:
You buy a piece of paper. That piece of paper is imprinted with the account and password (as a "free" bonus), the seller sends said paper through the mail and sends you a confirmation email containing the same information.
You bought a physical object, and got a virtual avatar as a bonus. If the seller "forgets" to physically mail the paper, who's going to complain?
*shrug*
It's all satellite based. No matter how fast it is, the latency is killer (>500ms).
Want to know why it all satellite based? Check a map.
As for cheap... I wouldn't exactly call it cheap, but it sure beats dialup (which also goes over satellite).
Even better is to make an unattended install disk (using a tool like nlite, or following the directions from a site like http://unattended.msfn.org/unattended.xp/) which includes the proper service pack, drivers AND registry tweak.
Just out of curiosity, why are you running Fedora on your servers?
/ 005618.html for more info), which may very well have the software you are looking for. If not, you are unlikely to break anything by downloading the source and compiling (I took this route with OpenLDAP, as the RH supplied packages were woefully out of date).
Use RHEL instead. If you don't have the budget, a clone (like CentOS or Whitebox) will perform just as well, but won't have the paid-for support. The version stability of code is there, and you won't have to re-learn how to manage the box. The version of Exim included with RHEL 4 is 4.43. Out of date, but likely still supported... *shrug* At the very least, it comes complete with an exim.conf.
If you want code stability AND fresh software there are Contrib repositories for use with CentOS (see http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-May
For what it's worth, I feel your pain. Under my care are two RedHat 9, one Gentoo, one (seriously out of date) Debian and a whole host of CentOS 4 boxes. Admining the Gentoo box is painfully different. Thankfully, the Debian one is pretty much hands off.
Hmmm. Extend. Embrace. woo, but it has a snappy red fedora on it...
In my to examples the packages are so patched and unsupported because they are out of date.
RHEL's Squid is at 2.5Stable6. The prject itself is up to 2.6Stable6.
RHEL's OpenLDAP is at 2.2.13. The project is up to 2.3.31.
But nice way to put a bad spin on it...