> As some have said, if a machine on the network can crash the router(short of violating > physical specs for things like ethernet voltage and polarity), then the router has Issues.
Unless you are applying 10KV or something miswiring should not crash a router.
Interfaces that comply with the Ethernet standard are transformer isolated (except for the brain-damaged idea of POE, but only the most idiotic router designers would implement that (and even POE should be fused)).
I have had almost exactly the same experience on Linux. My machine is always on. The fact is that Firefox grows with use until has to be killed and restarted or it runs me out of memory. It has always done this and the developers have always denied it.
> So when lightning strikes your home, and hits the power line as it enters the house, > or on the pole if it happens to be behind your back yard, nothing bad will happen?
If you want to spend enough money (as you would were you, for example, operating a 7500 server datacenter that claimed "redundant power") I could design such a system for you.
> Under the DMCA, YouTube is not required to verify the entity making a request is actually > the copyright holder and this seems to be just another example of DMCA abuse.
Under the DMCA the person who put the material up can file a counter-notice asserting that they have the legal right to distribute the item. YouTube can then put it back up with complete impunity and the only way Prince can get it taken back down is to file a copyright infringement suit (within 30 days) against the person who put it up and convince a Federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction. There are criminal penalties for filing a false DMCA takedown notice, and the target could also claim damages.
> Here's a little knowledge bomb I'm going to drop your way... They weren't there until you > invaded. At least they weren't insurgents then.
Sure they were. Only they were fighting against the Ba'ath government, often using weapons supplied by the US. Neither those insurgents nor the government they fought against were any danger to the US whatsoever.
Since this is Slashdot, I'll try to be very clear. The invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US is immoral, unjustified, unnecessary, and asinine. The right thing for the US to do now would be to send in another 250,000 troops and keep them there for about five years to give the Iraqis a chance to straighten out the mess. That won't happen, though, so the next best thing to do is leave immediately. That won't happen either.
> Any useful reactor is going to produce prodigious amounts of radiation, neutron and gamma. > That means lots of heavy and bulky shielding. This is not going to appear in a home or car > near you.
Shielding requirements for nuclear reactions are greatly exaggerated. Everything is not a gigawatt low-enrichment pressurized-water power plant. While it might not turn out to be possible to get the power density of these reactors high enough for automobiles they may very well be feasible for ships, locomotives, neighborhoods, or even homes [1].
> If the hot side of the reactor is 100C and the cold side is - say - 40C, then your > *maximum* efficiency is about 15%.
This was a laboratory demonstration of the principle, not a prototype power plant. What temperature do you think Fermi's fission reactor in Chicago reached? I see no reason why reactors based on this principle should not be able to operate up to near the melting point of palladium.
> If you want to make the thing efficient you have to raise the temperature of the hot > side to - say - 800C, with a cold side of about 100C. That's much more practical, but > has a maximum efficiency of only 50%...
That equals or exceeds the efficiency of many power plants in operation today.
>...and requires a strange definition of cold.
"Conventional" fusion reactors [2] operate at about 120 million C. By that standard 800C is cold.
[1] If they work at all which is, unfortunately, unlikely.
Because "nanometric matrix of palladium and zyrcon" actually means something. The result is probably bogus (though I hope not) but there is nothing particularly fishy about that bit of jargon.
> May your body rot next to that of the designer of the Titanic.
Unfair. If the ship had been built with the rivets specified by the engineers it would not have sunk. The shipyard couldn't get rivets that met specs so management went with what they had. After all, they had a delivery date...
In the meantime, though, they lock up some carbon, and before they rot another gets buried. Thus the way to "fight global warming" is to get fat, die early, and be buried in an airtight coffin.
Or just build a pond and throw your garbage in it.
Slashdot Mirror
> As some have said, if a machine on the network can crash the router(short of violating
> physical specs for things like ethernet voltage and polarity), then the router has Issues.
Unless you are applying 10KV or something miswiring should not crash a router.
> ...such as dumping 110 V AC down all 8 pins
Interfaces that comply with the Ethernet standard are transformer isolated (except for the brain-damaged idea of POE, but only the most idiotic router designers would implement that (and even POE should be fused)).
The problem is much more likely to be in code added by the manufacturer, either in their custom device drivers or their application code.
> It is the manufactures fault that thier crashing, but this bug wouldnt be seen if xp was
> behaving correctly.
Nonsense. Any router that can be crashed by anything that a computer connected to it does has a critical bug and should be recalled immediately.
Any router that can be crashed by anything that any of the computers connected to it do is seriously buggy. This is not Microsoft's fault.
I have had almost exactly the same experience on Linux. My machine is always on. The fact is that Firefox grows with use until has to be killed and restarted or it runs me out of memory. It has always done this and the developers have always denied it.
But that would violate "network neutrality"! Evil, evil, EVIL!
> So when lightning strikes your home, and hits the power line as it enters the house,
> or on the pole if it happens to be behind your back yard, nothing bad will happen?
If you want to spend enough money (as you would were you, for example, operating a 7500 server datacenter that claimed "redundant power") I could design such a system for you.
Large oil-cooled transformers are quite capable of exploding.
Isn't that an oxymoron?
> ...they claim redundant power...
How the hell could they claim redundant power with only one power room?
> Under the DMCA, YouTube is not required to verify the entity making a request is actually
> the copyright holder and this seems to be just another example of DMCA abuse.
Under the DMCA the person who put the material up can file a counter-notice asserting that they have the legal right to distribute the item. YouTube can then put it back up with complete impunity and the only way Prince can get it taken back down is to file a copyright infringement suit (within 30 days) against the person who put it up and convince a Federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction. There are criminal penalties for filing a false DMCA takedown notice, and the target could also claim damages.
They are, I hope, filing criminal charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse act, as well as filing a civil suit demanding damages.
> Here's a little knowledge bomb I'm going to drop your way... They weren't there until you
> invaded. At least they weren't insurgents then.
Sure they were. Only they were fighting against the Ba'ath government, often using weapons supplied by the US. Neither those insurgents nor the government they fought against were any danger to the US whatsoever.
Since this is Slashdot, I'll try to be very clear. The invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US is immoral, unjustified, unnecessary, and asinine. The right thing for the US to do now would be to send in another 250,000 troops and keep them there for about five years to give the Iraqis a chance to straighten out the mess. That won't happen, though, so the next best thing to do is leave immediately. That won't happen either.
My time is just as good as anyone else's. Einstein says so.
> Any useful reactor is going to produce prodigious amounts of radiation, neutron and gamma.
...and requires a strange definition of cold.
> That means lots of heavy and bulky shielding. This is not going to appear in a home or car
> near you.
Shielding requirements for nuclear reactions are greatly exaggerated. Everything is not a gigawatt low-enrichment pressurized-water power plant. While it might not turn out to be possible to get the power density of these reactors high enough for automobiles they may very well be feasible for ships, locomotives, neighborhoods, or even homes [1].
> If the hot side of the reactor is 100C and the cold side is - say - 40C, then your
> *maximum* efficiency is about 15%.
This was a laboratory demonstration of the principle, not a prototype power plant. What temperature do you think Fermi's fission reactor in Chicago reached? I see no reason why reactors based on this principle should not be able to operate up to near the melting point of palladium.
> If you want to make the thing efficient you have to raise the temperature of the hot
> side to - say - 800C, with a cold side of about 100C. That's much more practical, but
> has a maximum efficiency of only 50%...
That equals or exceeds the efficiency of many power plants in operation today.
>
"Conventional" fusion reactors [2] operate at about 120 million C. By that standard 800C is cold.
[1] If they work at all which is, unfortunately, unlikely.
[2] No working ones exist yet, of course.
Because "nanometric matrix of palladium and zyrcon" actually means something. The result is probably bogus (though I hope not) but there is nothing particularly fishy about that bit of jargon.
Neutrons, on the other hand, are hard to detect precisely because they are neutral and therefor do not interact strongly.
I agree that detecting neutrons is what they need to do, though.
"Right to work" and "at-will employment" are two entirely different things.
> May your body rot next to that of the designer of the Titanic.
Unfair. If the ship had been built with the rivets specified by the engineers it would not have sunk. The shipyard couldn't get rivets that met specs so management went with what they had. After all, they had a delivery date...
> "Unfortunately, there isn't a magic bullet..."
Yes there is. It's called a write-disable switch.
> They'll still eventually rot...
In the meantime, though, they lock up some carbon, and before they rot another gets buried. Thus the way to "fight global warming" is to get fat, die early, and be buried in an airtight coffin.
Or just build a pond and throw your garbage in it.
...the twenty-somethings who insist that email is obsolete and used only by old people and businessmen?
Nope. I see nothing there that will be on my machine in the foreseeable future.