I think you make a very good point. To further elaborate on your point and to make an analogy, the constitution does not spell out that citizens have the right to breathe air. Does this mean we do *not* have the right to breathe air? Or does it mean those who drafted the constitution assumed future governments could grasp the idea of fundamental rights and didn't bother spelling out any and every possible right that may need to be protected?
Just because something isn't in the constitution, doesn't mean it isn't a right our forefathers intended to have protected.
So I whole heartedly agree with what you say and just wished to expand on it with that analogy that popped in my head.
For a better understanding of the DMCA's effects, what Princeton Computer Science Professor Edward W. Felten has expressed should be referred to.
Besides the link to a full copy of the DMCA, I feel it important to note all my other references are previous articles from slashdot. It is well established that due to the DMCA, you *cannot* do as you wish with your own hardware.
And yes, if you smashed your xbox and someone else heard, you could be arrested. It is disorderly conduct and I have been arrested for it in an even more ridiculous scenario.
If you smashed your xbox in a fit of rage, that would be considered an even more serious charge of domestic violence according to some states statuettes (seriously). Roll your eyes if you wish, but I have met a half dozen people who have had this ridiculous charge thrown at them.
My point is simply the DMCA is much worse than you think, and it is one of numerous ridiculous laws on the books, and saying you can do what this ridiculous laws specifically says you cannot is an irresponsible statement.
Right, we're completely free to do whatever we want in this country.
We can alter the hardware within an xbox to use it for other purposes than M$ intended.
Er wait, actually no we can't. Anyone offering hardware to "circumvent security" is in violation of the DMCA (mod chip anyone?). Not only are sellers of this equipment in breach of the law, but anyone describing how to "circumvent security" is in breach. Not to mention a person possessing the hardware or reference material on how to do it is in breach...
You never know if the DoJ may
come after you for selling Mods, and lets not forget the wholeDeCSS fiasco. (Can I even say "DeCSS" without getting sued/imprisoned?).
Well ok, maybe if you're a mod reseller you might get someone after you. But nobody is going to care if you write "circumventive" software right? Nope, no trouble with the law there.
Of course it's not like I could reference you back to a million different slashdot articles showing how the DCMA makes it illegal to modify your own hardware.
Oh well, at least it's not like I can't yell at my xbox for being useless unless I want to do what M$ wants me to do with it.
Yep, land of the free baby... er, wait a minute, I'm screwed.
I just skimmed the articles I used for references, I apologize if I accidentally used any not pertinent to what I was talking about.
It explains how a power supply works much better than I did. This is the result of my own research since my memories were foggy when I attempted to describe it to you. You may also want to refer to this website for additional questions you may ever want answered. It has a plethora of information on just about anything. Be cautious visiting, once you enter it may be hard to pull yourself back out.
Power supplies are supposed to provide a certain amount of voltage for different wires, some +/- 12v, +/- 5v, etc. depending on what the specific wire is for. Voltage may vary slightly within tolerable levels, but in theory they are all supposed to supply the same amount of voltage on each wire, making a power supply fit the "ATX", "AT", or whatever the form factor (standard) the suppy is supposed to be. It's been a while since I read up on power supplies and their wiring, voltage, connectors etc. so I apologize for any mistakes in my description. As far as the currently dominate ATX form factor goes, if a a power supply is sending voltage on a wire that is out of tolerable levels (for instance the voltage is +- 9, or +- 15 on a wire that's supposed to be +-12) the ATX form factor motherboard will not draw power from the supply, and your computer will not turn on when you push the "on" button, clap your clapper, plug it in, or whatever. (Having your box hooked up to a clapper would be hell on the filesystem eh? heh). The way the ATX form factor does this (someone more certain correct me if I'm wrong), is the *first* thing an ATX board does when it attempts to run through the POST (power on self test) is check to see if all the voltages on the wires from the power supply are within tolerable levels. If not, it won't draw current from them and your computer won't start. Think of it as a computers own self preservation instict / survival mechanism. It's a stretch of my memory but I'm pretty sure it's P13 (pin 13) on an ATX connector that's for the "power good" test. Or maybe that's the power on wire... hm... I'll have to look that up to refresh my memory...
Perhaps it's been said before but one shouldn't confuse voltage, amps, ohms, and watts for meaning the same thing. A explanation of what each means and how they are related is described at http://www.howstuffworks.com/question501.htm
If your interested I would highly recommend reading up on the ATX form factor. You may want to google for "ATX" "POST" "Power Good" "Pin Out" etc.
So to answer your question; No, power supplies of a specific form factor do not run different voltages (unless they are faulty and at which point the motherboard would refuse power from the offending supply).
Now, different power supplies do have varying amounts of Watts produced. Perhaps this what you were initially asking. To answer in a general manner (stretching my memory again), the higher the watts a power supply can produce, the more devices within the computer it can power. If you have a 400W power supply, and all your devices used 280W, your power supply would provide 280W of power. Think of the watts of a power supply as a maximum capability. A good analogy would be "A Ferrari *can* travel at 200 mph, but that does not mean it is *always* traveling at 200 mph". Same thing with power supplies (for the sake of simplicity and my own limited "expertise").
I know what you meant, just having a little fun. I think it would be pretty cool to see what Honeywell would do with the SPAM trademark.
I think Honeywell could probably defend the name better than Hormel. Maybe not in a court of law, but they do make weapon systems... they might have some inventive ways of literally "defending" their trademarks.
I think I just realized why you never hear of trademark lawsuits coming from weapons manufacturers. Nobody wants to mess with a company that has the latest greatest top secret weapon in their closet that they've been building for Uncle Sam. It adds a new level to FUD tactics. Fear of a company who can blow you to smitheriens, Uncertainty of the continuation of your mortal life if you mess with them, and Doubt your stock options are worth the risk of dying.
Honeywell will have the rights to the spam trademark after this?
I bet Hormel will be really pissed to lose it.
I wonder what Honeywell will use the trademark for? It's new line of communications satellite's? I mean, it makes sense since 90% of the traffic that goes through them will be spam anyways.
Since Honeywell will get the spam trademark, I wonder what Hormel will rename its Spam product to. Maybe they'll get honest (and wordy) in the name, and call it "A somewhat near meat product that tastes like a mix of Pork and shoe polish".
I never thought I'd be so interested at the outcome of a Spam trademark infringement dispute, but you pull the aerospace industry into it, and you've got my attention!
I think you had a very good point. The amount of "power" Ghandi had at his disposal was amazing, and none of it in bullets and bombs. It really makes no difference if the UK was at its zenith of power in world influence when the fruits of Ghandi's labor finally paid off in 1947. What is important is a militarily superior "foe" was defeated without hurling rocks, bombs, or planes into buildings. Ghandi (as far as I recall) didn't hate England, and infact considered them friends. He just (obviously) supported a self governed Indian sub continent. I am not an expert on Ghandi or world politics I was just having a little fun with the idea of secret British world domination. A little more fun, a (true? stretched truth?) joke involving Ghandi:
An Indian woman has a child who refuses to stop eating so many sweets. She simply cannot get the child to stop and is fearful for its health (finding a good dentist in India in the 1930's was a real bear ya know?). Ontop of her concerns, we all know how horrible a child on a constant sugar rush can be. Well, the woman heard Ghandi was staying in a fairly nearby town, so she grabs the sugar addict kid, and walks for three days to the nearby town where the political savior is staying.
She gets an audience with Ghandi, and asks him, "Ghandi, could you *please* tell my child to stop eating sweets! It's getting out of hand!" Ghandi thinks about it for a moment, then says "Could you please come back next week?". Confused but respectful, the woman takes the three day walk home. Cools her heals for a day. Then takes another three day walk back to visit Ghandi again as he had requested. She again gets an audience with Ghandi. Ghandi accepts them takes one look at the child and says "Now you listen to your mother and stop eating so many sweets!". Having the most important Indian of the age make such a strong statement rattles the child into realizing he should of course listen to his mother. The woman is gracious, but confused, and can't help asking "Ghandi, why didn't you just tell him that last week?". Ghandi replies, "Well, I must admit, I like sweets myself, so I needed a week to stop eating them myself before I could tell the child he should do the same."
Not very funny and the truth behind it is probably very stretched, *but* that little story captures a lot of what Ghandi was about. Ghandi didn't suggest whipping the child into submission, nor did he ask anything of the child he wouldn't do himself. As your post implies, the world could learn a lot from the lessons and examples from Ghandi.
On one more additional sidenote for my American brethren. A possibly more important and reveared icon in our culture, Martin Luther King Jr., based his civil disobedience off the lessons and examples taught by Ghandi. Many of the great people we look up to (Ghandi, King Jr., even Jesus taught civil disobedience instead of maiming and killing) would not agree with the methods our government uses in its "righteous" ways.
I'm not saying our government is right or wrong, but I am very concerned with how few people seem to question the governments move and actions, and scream "traitor!!" at anyone who does. As far as al queda, the taliban, and husseins regime goes, I highly doubt our beloved Ghandi would have shed a tear at their demise. I can imagine him saying in private "That Hussein, he's an *asshole*, I hope his head explodes". Yet I am sure Ghandi would be very distraught at the methods taken by our government to achieve these ends. I'm not saying *I* do or do not know of a better method, anything besides what happened can be debated. I do know that it would be nice if the fat cats and big dogs of the world (the rich and the powerful) could settle their fights without so many innocent catching a stray bullet, so to speak. If someone truly wishes to make an impression with their peaceful opposition views, gain a good understanding of your previous greats such as Ghandi, King, and even Jesus (if you can strip away the sun of god bit), the
"...Let's be serious. I mean, we've had to bet the company many times on big technological advances. We bet on the 16-bit PC..."
You mean Microsoft actually bet the farm on technology that doubled the amount of data throughput to the CPU? Whoa! What a risky and radical wager. Yet an even better example of Microsoft throwing caution to the wind would be:
...Microsoft is a big gambler, why even *we* have run IIS as a service, I mean, if that isn't betting the whole company on risky "technological advances" (using the term loosely here) I don't know what is...
Future "daring" M$ gamble to be braged about by Gates:
...back in 2006, we bet it all by assuming the majority of PC's would still be running off of electricity and not perpetual motion or cold fusion and now three years later, look! we were *right*. See I told you Microsoft is *always* right...
And lastly, his image alone screams "risk taker".. I give this guy some mad props, I mean god knows I don't have the balls to cut my own hair with a weed whacker. Just look at him! I fear him man, that superbad "I risk my own life and limb on a weekly basis cutting my own hair with a headge trimmer just to *tempt* the reaper, just for the rush" look. You just *know* he's living life on the edge, eating rusty nails for breakfast, and whooping some major kung fu @ss in biker bars every night.
Ok, you have some fair points, but I disagree with some of them.
Take a magnet, go outside, and rub it around in some loose dirt or sand then look at it. There, you have just discovered naturally occurring iron. True it is not 100% pure iron but it is most definitely ore rich in pure iron. It would have to be smelted to get impurities out, but I do not believe what's sticking to your magnet is iron oxide. Smelting the ore does not change it's chemical composition (right?), it simply separates the pure iron from all the other useless junk it's bonded with. I'm pretty sure the liquid iron deep in the bowels of the earth that create our lovely magnetic solar radiation shield (and powers nifty compasses) is not iron oxide. Maybe I'm wrong, if so I've had a misconception about iron my whole life.
Uranium *is* a metal, and yes it is denser than lead. The depleted uranium ammunition (most notably used by the A-10 "Warthog") is assumed to have health risk factors, and it has even been suggested that the depleted uranium ammunition is the culprit behind the "Gulf War Syndrome" that so many veterans seem to be plagued with. I can't think of a better word, but I would assume it's due to the "ingestion" of Uranium particles thrown into the air when a round flies into the ground / armor plated tank / whatever. Getting a radioactively decaying substance permanently in your body is a bad idea. (Going back to my mini reactor for a laptop rant, it'd be just as bad for you to grind up the Uranium/Lead brick and eat it / inhale it / try to make pot brownies out of it). Radioactive substances, if I recall correctly, chemically bond with your bodies skeleton, ensuring you with a (shortened) lifetime of setting off Geiger counters as a bar trick to pick up on chics. (With uranium in your body, pick up on all the girls you can, your earthly time is limited and your soldier will be firing blanks anyways).
Concentrating Uranium within a small localized area such as a landfill probably would be bad, you have a very good point on the run off comment, but I still (wrongly?) stand by my stance that additional radioactive material would not be introduced to our planet as a whole, but it may definitely be dangerous to localize so much within a small space.
If my thoughts are wrong please correct me and thank you for the response and insight.
Those crafty Brits!! And for all this time I thought the US and USSR were firing up the cold war so to speak in 1947 while Europe was still mending itself from WWII. Sneaky Brits, hid the truth of their world domination! Watch out, they'll resurrect King George III and sneak him into the Oval Office right under our noses, just you watch!
Anyway, just a little friendly ribbing, your point of Ghandi gaining Indian independence without an army is well taken and insightful.
Yet now I'm feeling *very* paranoid of the Brits, if they could keep their world domination a secret then, how do we know they're not doing it right now?!? Tony Blair could 0wnz all of us and we don't even know it! I thought that smirk on the Queen showed more than just the happy satisfaction of being the Monarch of an empire, she's really laughing internally at all of us who are unaware that she has the top seat in the NWO!
I'm going to go throw some tea into a harbor now.. it worked last time. Don't worry, I got this one covered.
First of all, (obviously) I am not a scientist nor do I have any nuclear power background knowledge (aka I'm an idiot talking about something he knows nothing about). The comment I originally replied to had made the sarcastic statement of "why not power laptops using U-235". Ideas that think out of the box can be intriging even if they are unreasonable and I found that sarcastic statement intriging. It made me think, what if some NEC lab monkey really wanted to try to find a way to use U-235?
My understanding of nuclear power may be way off (I have never read into it much nor had much of a great desire for an indepth understanding until now). If I recall correctly (that's a big *if*) nuclear power works by using a radioactive material to heat water, causing it to expand and force its way through a conduit moving a turbine that's hooked up to generator (or something along those lines, this is a very old memory I could be way off). Lets say we make a mini reactor that works under the same principle, but on a much smaller scale with much lower core temperatures. If I recall, a meltdown at a nuclear power plant would entail the loss of coolant to the core, allowing the radioactive material to get so hot as to melt it's way out of it's protective containment, releasing a spew of radioactive steam on anyone unlucky enough to be within a few hundred miles.
If we made a mini reactor, it would be very small with a core much cooler than its big brother power plants. Only enough to heat to force a small amount of water through a small generator, down a cooling line, and through to the core again would be necessary. If a minimal amount of U -235 was used, and lets say it was mixed together with lead into a tiny brick, you'd just get a small, perpetually warm brick of lead with a little bit of Uranium mixed in. The item would not be warm enough to make a mini melt down, and even if taken outside of shielding, it would only be harmful because of the rays given off (gamma?), but the U - 235 or U - 235 contanimated materials would not disperse, boil off, blow up, or whatever as in a China Syndrome scenerio.
Now that raises the question in my mind, how much shielding really would be needed for a minimal amount of Uranium already mixed into a tiny lead brick? If I recall correctly, isn't the most harmful radiation given off by Uranium gamma rays? and they can travel through a significant amount of lead correct? So a lot of shielding is required to stop all harmful radiation. My question now is, if we only use a tiny bit of Uranium, how much harmful radiation is it giving off? A large enough amount to give me cancer after two hours of laptop use? Or a minimal amount like the cell phone in my pocket. Could minimal shielding be used to keep harmful rays within safety tolerance? I sure don't know the answers, and I don't necessarily expect you to either, I'm just thinking about "what if's".
As far as "do I know how much an ounce of U - 235 would cost?" I have no clue. Even though it is safe to assume it is a very expensive material, our best case scenerio model is saying we'll only need a minimal amount. Yes our supply of power would require this expensive compenent, but the Methanol batties of the original story also require a very expensive compenent as a catalyst, platinum. Maybe the amount of Uranium would be minimal like the amount of platinum in the methonal, and would not make the cost of the device unaffordable. (Wishful thinking k?)
So lets say we get to the point of having a mini reactor, too cool for meltdown, warm enough to create enough power for a device such as a laptop, with a safe and tolerable amount of harmful radiation escaping, small and light enough for convenient use, at a price worth paying for a lifetime of power from our device. The last concern (I believe?) was having U - 235 in land fills is worse than batteries.
Well, if the U - 235 is so valuable, why wouldn't it just be recycled instead of thrown into a landfill? Who says it will ever be throw
"Laptop manufacturers might as well dream up a laptop powered by U-235"
I'm curious as to the real pro's and con's of that (sarcastic) suggestion. Radioactive materials are already present in many products, U-235 can already be aquired by any bad guy with half a brain or a deep enough wallet, so why not? I (honestly) would love to hear all the reaons why I'm stupid for asking "why not?". I'm not trolling I really mean it, someone enlighten me on something I don't know much about.
I think the whole Linux/Free Beer thing has gone a little too far. It's safe to say it's officially out of control when your laptop starts knocking back cold ones.
This is exactly what I've been waiting for! "I'm not an alcoholic! I don't drink alone. I only drink socially... my current drinking buddy is a P4 with a gig of ram...."
I did treat our creationist friend with respect, I just perceived a fallacy in their logic and expressed my perception by using an analogy. I like to have different perspectives given to me, and I feel free to share my views. I also thought it important although irrelevant to make sure our creationist friend know I neither consider myself an evolutionist or creationist, and merely pointed out what I thought was a mistake in reasoning. I hope our friend didn't think I was being disrespectful as do you, and if they do I apologize and will have to be more diligent in expressing my opinion in the future. With that said, thank you, drive thru.
I have had additional interest in this article beyond just OSS and my concerns of how abused the (un)justice system is. At one point I lived a few miles away from SCO's Lindon headquarters for a short period (when they were Caldera) while I worked a different software company. I even knew a few McBride's. Infact I'm sad to say there's a good likelyhood of a relation to that Darl jerk, a pity because the McBride clan I knew were good people. (Yes I said clan, it was a big mormon family grip of McBride's, with uhm, I think a thousand children or so). It has given me a bit of a personal interest in the situation. I care to make a few silver lining comments that seem to have been overlooked for the most part.
What SCO has done (and is doing) is not completely bad for OSS and IBM, and I wish to point out some of the benefits to come of this.
First and foremost, a horrible company is in its death throws and will succomb to them eventually. Even with M$ life support it is only a matter of time before the parasitic bug that is SCO keels over and dies.
Secondly, and more importantly, no publicity is bad publicity. Darl McBride and the SCO Groups manical ranting is drawing a lot of attention to Linux and OSS. Eventually the bad PR will be proven for what it is. It is also showing exactly how strongly IBM stands behind and supports OSS, adding even more credibility to the community and software. I expect to see nothing less than Big Blue going toe to toe with SCO and most efficiently wiping the floor with their faces (kind of gives me a warm feeling to think about). Beyond the pleasure it will be to see this, the very public statement it will make should be a (wet)dream come true for OSS advocates. You cannot buy that kind of publicity, you cannot get a message like that across with just words, the *action* of the largest computer and technology company in the world laying themselves on the line is priceless. You can't more easily have people become aware of what a true contender Linux and OSS is to have IBM "risk life and limb, their very existence" to support it. IBM isn't risking anything, you know that, I know that, but the average person who may hear about this does not. All they know is IBM is "risking" 3 billion dollars and every bit of IBM "IP" SCO claims to own. Having a few CEO's thinking IBM is willing to "die" defending Linux is a pretty good thing in my opinion, and this FUD smear campaign will eventually do nothing more than gain Linux additional credibility and support.
I lastly want to appeal to the comments I have come across hypothesizing (and sometimes fearing) a SCO victory. Yes, it is possible no matter how unlikely that SCO could win. Justice is blind and our justice system is very flawed and makes many mistakes. Yet a SCO victory is still a moot point. It would only be the victory of a battle, their war is hopeless. Whether through appeal, counter patent suits, or even a big rock to Darl McBride's forehead, IBM will use one of a million contingency plans available if the near impossible happens and the suit is lost to SCO.
For anyone still concerned about SCO legally proving they owns rights to uhm, just about everything on the planet, I promise I will personally deliver a rock to not only McBride's ugly cranium, but every single one of the members of that company, their umbrella company, and moron who bought their stock. The only problem is, I'm afraid I'd have to get in a very long to carry out the task. For libel I would've actually considered noting that was sarcasm, but since SCO owns the IP of everything it's their joke so they can't sue me. *whew*
You choose to believe creationism until proven wrong. The only problem with that is it is, and will always be, impossible to prove creationism wrong. I could say I choose to believe Japanese speaking kangaroo's with badass superpowers live in black holes and I will continue to believe this until proven wrong. It's a pretty safe statement considering it's impossible to prove wrong. I am not saying creationism *is* wrong or you and others should not believe it, but I think the statement "until proven wrong" is illogical. I am not an athiest like many evolutionists, and I am also not monotheistic like most creationists. I like to think of the universe and "god" in monistic terms, that is existence as a whole is "god", not some guy on a cloud. From this point of view, IMHO, evolution is a form of creation, and in my simple mind, makes the evolution and creation debate kind of silly. To come back on track though, belief in something that cannot be proven wrong because it hasn't been proven wrong yet is not a method of choosing beliefs I would recommend to you or anyone unfortunate enough to read what I have to say.
To further elaborate your true correction, Sikhism is the majority religion in the province of Punjab in India. The religion started in this buffer area between Muslim dominant and Hindu dominant areas. Sikhism encorporates aspects of both religions and started with the intent of curbing violence between Muslims and Hindus. Instead of curbing violence, the religion became a target of both Muslims and Hindus, resulting in Sikhs becoming excellent militants and fighters to defend their beliefs. I'm sure you're probably aware of this information, I just thought other readers may find it interesting although very off topic.
I whole heartedly agree. I'm not a "yessir I'll destroy the company for you sir" person. I'm hired for my expertise, not to facilitate bad decisions. Anyone who works unethically is not a professional, they are a two bit hack and give the rest of us a bad name. Kudos on your professionalism.
I recall Netscape being free for personal and educational use only. If a business wanted to use Netscape they were supposed to pay for the software. How do you think Netscape made any money if they only offered a free product? With the bundling and IE being free for anyone including businesses well... we know what happened.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you make a very good point. To further elaborate on your point and to make an analogy, the constitution does not spell out that citizens have the right to breathe air. Does this mean we do *not* have the right to breathe air? Or does it mean those who drafted the constitution assumed future governments could grasp the idea of fundamental rights and didn't bother spelling out any and every possible right that may need to be protected?
Just because something isn't in the constitution, doesn't mean it isn't a right our forefathers intended to have protected.
So I whole heartedly agree with what you say and just wished to expand on it with that analogy that popped in my head.
if a packet of duct tape in my wallet is mistaken for a condom in insufficient lighting and the throe's of passion.
Oh wait, I never get any anyway, never mind, COOL! Emergency duct tape!
Bah, I scoff at your comment. Microsoft doesn't even get the most BASIC of grades in my book.
The DMCA makes many modifications to your own hardware illegal.
Any modification that may be used to circumvent copyright is illegal. Whether or not the modification is for that purpose.
Lexmark's current suit is a good example.
Mod chip resellers are being jailed and fined.
For a better understanding of the DMCA's effects, what Princeton Computer Science Professor Edward W. Felten has expressed should be referred to.
Besides the link to a full copy of the DMCA, I feel it important to note all my other references are previous articles from slashdot. It is well established that due to the DMCA, you *cannot* do as you wish with your own hardware.
And yes, if you smashed your xbox and someone else heard, you could be arrested. It is disorderly conduct and I have been arrested for it in an even more ridiculous scenario.
If you smashed your xbox in a fit of rage, that would be considered an even more serious charge of domestic violence according to some states statuettes (seriously). Roll your eyes if you wish, but I have met a half dozen people who have had this ridiculous charge thrown at them.
My point is simply the DMCA is much worse than you think, and it is one of numerous ridiculous laws on the books, and saying you can do what this ridiculous laws specifically says you cannot is an irresponsible statement.
We can alter the hardware within an xbox to use it for other purposes than M$ intended.
Er wait, actually no we can't. Anyone offering hardware to "circumvent security" is in violation of the DMCA (mod chip anyone?). Not only are sellers of this equipment in breach of the law, but anyone describing how to "circumvent security" is in breach. Not to mention a person possessing the hardware or reference material on how to do it is in breach...
You never know if the DoJ may come after you for selling Mods, and lets not forget the wholeDeCSS fiasco. (Can I even say "DeCSS" without getting sued/imprisoned?).
Well ok, maybe if you're a mod reseller you might get someone after you. But nobody is going to care if you write "circumventive" software right? Nope, no trouble with the law there.
Of course it's not like I could reference you back to a million different slashdot articles showing how the DCMA makes it illegal to modify your own hardware.
Oh well, at least it's not like I can't yell at my xbox for being useless unless I want to do what M$ wants me to do with it.
Yep, land of the free baby... er, wait a minute, I'm screwed.
I just skimmed the articles I used for references, I apologize if I accidentally used any not pertinent to what I was talking about.
http://computer.howstuffworks.com//power-supply.ht m
It explains how a power supply works much better than I did. This is the result of my own research since my memories were foggy when I attempted to describe it to you. You may also want to refer to this website for additional questions you may ever want answered. It has a plethora of information on just about anything. Be cautious visiting, once you enter it may be hard to pull yourself back out.
Enjoy!
Perhaps it's been said before but one shouldn't confuse voltage, amps, ohms, and watts for meaning the same thing. A explanation of what each means and how they are related is described at http://www.howstuffworks.com/question501.htm
If your interested I would highly recommend reading up on the ATX form factor. You may want to google for "ATX" "POST" "Power Good" "Pin Out" etc.
So to answer your question; No, power supplies of a specific form factor do not run different voltages (unless they are faulty and at which point the motherboard would refuse power from the offending supply).
Now, different power supplies do have varying amounts of Watts produced. Perhaps this what you were initially asking. To answer in a general manner (stretching my memory again), the higher the watts a power supply can produce, the more devices within the computer it can power. If you have a 400W power supply, and all your devices used 280W, your power supply would provide 280W of power. Think of the watts of a power supply as a maximum capability. A good analogy would be "A Ferrari *can* travel at 200 mph, but that does not mean it is *always* traveling at 200 mph". Same thing with power supplies (for the sake of simplicity and my own limited "expertise").
Hope that helps. When in doubt www.google.com
I know what you meant, just having a little fun. I think it would be pretty cool to see what Honeywell would do with the SPAM trademark.
I think Honeywell could probably defend the name better than Hormel. Maybe not in a court of law, but they do make weapon systems... they might have some inventive ways of literally "defending" their trademarks.
I think I just realized why you never hear of trademark lawsuits coming from weapons manufacturers. Nobody wants to mess with a company that has the latest greatest top secret weapon in their closet that they've been building for Uncle Sam. It adds a new level to FUD tactics. Fear of a company who can blow you to smitheriens, Uncertainty of the continuation of your mortal life if you mess with them, and Doubt your stock options are worth the risk of dying.
I bet Hormel will be really pissed to lose it.
I wonder what Honeywell will use the trademark for? It's new line of communications satellite's? I mean, it makes sense since 90% of the traffic that goes through them will be spam anyways.
Since Honeywell will get the spam trademark, I wonder what Hormel will rename its Spam product to. Maybe they'll get honest (and wordy) in the name, and call it "A somewhat near meat product that tastes like a mix of Pork and shoe polish".
I never thought I'd be so interested at the outcome of a Spam trademark infringement dispute, but you pull the aerospace industry into it, and you've got my attention!
I think you had a very good point. The amount of "power" Ghandi had at his disposal was amazing, and none of it in bullets and bombs. It really makes no difference if the UK was at its zenith of power in world influence when the fruits of Ghandi's labor finally paid off in 1947. What is important is a militarily superior "foe" was defeated without hurling rocks, bombs, or planes into buildings. Ghandi (as far as I recall) didn't hate England, and infact considered them friends. He just (obviously) supported a self governed Indian sub continent. I am not an expert on Ghandi or world politics I was just having a little fun with the idea of secret British world domination. A little more fun, a (true? stretched truth?) joke involving Ghandi:
An Indian woman has a child who refuses to stop eating so many sweets. She simply cannot get the child to stop and is fearful for its health (finding a good dentist in India in the 1930's was a real bear ya know?). Ontop of her concerns, we all know how horrible a child on a constant sugar rush can be. Well, the woman heard Ghandi was staying in a fairly nearby town, so she grabs the sugar addict kid, and walks for three days to the nearby town where the political savior is staying.
She gets an audience with Ghandi, and asks him, "Ghandi, could you *please* tell my child to stop eating sweets! It's getting out of hand!" Ghandi thinks about it for a moment, then says "Could you please come back next week?". Confused but respectful, the woman takes the three day walk home. Cools her heals for a day. Then takes another three day walk back to visit Ghandi again as he had requested. She again gets an audience with Ghandi. Ghandi accepts them takes one look at the child and says "Now you listen to your mother and stop eating so many sweets!". Having the most important Indian of the age make such a strong statement rattles the child into realizing he should of course listen to his mother. The woman is gracious, but confused, and can't help asking "Ghandi, why didn't you just tell him that last week?". Ghandi replies, "Well, I must admit, I like sweets myself, so I needed a week to stop eating them myself before I could tell the child he should do the same."
Not very funny and the truth behind it is probably very stretched, *but* that little story captures a lot of what Ghandi was about. Ghandi didn't suggest whipping the child into submission, nor did he ask anything of the child he wouldn't do himself. As your post implies, the world could learn a lot from the lessons and examples from Ghandi.
On one more additional sidenote for my American brethren. A possibly more important and reveared icon in our culture, Martin Luther King Jr., based his civil disobedience off the lessons and examples taught by Ghandi. Many of the great people we look up to (Ghandi, King Jr., even Jesus taught civil disobedience instead of maiming and killing) would not agree with the methods our government uses in its "righteous" ways.
I'm not saying our government is right or wrong, but I am very concerned with how few people seem to question the governments move and actions, and scream "traitor!!" at anyone who does. As far as al queda, the taliban, and husseins regime goes, I highly doubt our beloved Ghandi would have shed a tear at their demise. I can imagine him saying in private "That Hussein, he's an *asshole*, I hope his head explodes". Yet I am sure Ghandi would be very distraught at the methods taken by our government to achieve these ends. I'm not saying *I* do or do not know of a better method, anything besides what happened can be debated. I do know that it would be nice if the fat cats and big dogs of the world (the rich and the powerful) could settle their fights without so many innocent catching a stray bullet, so to speak. If someone truly wishes to make an impression with their peaceful opposition views, gain a good understanding of your previous greats such as Ghandi, King, and even Jesus (if you can strip away the sun of god bit), the
Future "daring" M$ gamble to be braged about by Gates:
And lastly, his image alone screams "risk taker".. I give this guy some mad props, I mean god knows I don't have the balls to cut my own hair with a weed whacker. Just look at him! I fear him man, that superbad "I risk my own life and limb on a weekly basis cutting my own hair with a headge trimmer just to *tempt* the reaper, just for the rush" look. You just *know* he's living life on the edge, eating rusty nails for breakfast, and whooping some major kung fu @ss in biker bars every night.
Gates, you not just *a* man, you *DA* man.
Ok, you have some fair points, but I disagree with some of them.
Take a magnet, go outside, and rub it around in some loose dirt or sand then look at it. There, you have just discovered naturally occurring iron. True it is not 100% pure iron but it is most definitely ore rich in pure iron. It would have to be smelted to get impurities out, but I do not believe what's sticking to your magnet is iron oxide. Smelting the ore does not change it's chemical composition (right?), it simply separates the pure iron from all the other useless junk it's bonded with. I'm pretty sure the liquid iron deep in the bowels of the earth that create our lovely magnetic solar radiation shield (and powers nifty compasses) is not iron oxide. Maybe I'm wrong, if so I've had a misconception about iron my whole life.
Uranium *is* a metal, and yes it is denser than lead. The depleted uranium ammunition (most notably used by the A-10 "Warthog") is assumed to have health risk factors, and it has even been suggested that the depleted uranium ammunition is the culprit behind the "Gulf War Syndrome" that so many veterans seem to be plagued with. I can't think of a better word, but I would assume it's due to the "ingestion" of Uranium particles thrown into the air when a round flies into the ground / armor plated tank / whatever. Getting a radioactively decaying substance permanently in your body is a bad idea. (Going back to my mini reactor for a laptop rant, it'd be just as bad for you to grind up the Uranium/Lead brick and eat it / inhale it / try to make pot brownies out of it). Radioactive substances, if I recall correctly, chemically bond with your bodies skeleton, ensuring you with a (shortened) lifetime of setting off Geiger counters as a bar trick to pick up on chics. (With uranium in your body, pick up on all the girls you can, your earthly time is limited and your soldier will be firing blanks anyways).
Concentrating Uranium within a small localized area such as a landfill probably would be bad, you have a very good point on the run off comment, but I still (wrongly?) stand by my stance that additional radioactive material would not be introduced to our planet as a whole, but it may definitely be dangerous to localize so much within a small space.
If my thoughts are wrong please correct me and thank you for the response and insight.
GW Bush would have risked losing the 2004 election and attention would have been drawn to the woe's of the American economy.
The British were the strongest force on the planet in 1947?
a nd i.htm
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/mahatma_gh
Those crafty Brits!! And for all this time I thought the US and USSR were firing up the cold war so to speak in 1947 while Europe was still mending itself from WWII. Sneaky Brits, hid the truth of their world domination! Watch out, they'll resurrect King George III and sneak him into the Oval Office right under our noses, just you watch!
Anyway, just a little friendly ribbing, your point of Ghandi gaining Indian independence without an army is well taken and insightful.
Yet now I'm feeling *very* paranoid of the Brits, if they could keep their world domination a secret then, how do we know they're not doing it right now?!? Tony Blair could 0wnz all of us and we don't even know it! I thought that smirk on the Queen showed more than just the happy satisfaction of being the Monarch of an empire, she's really laughing internally at all of us who are unaware that she has the top seat in the NWO!
I'm going to go throw some tea into a harbor now.. it worked last time. Don't worry, I got this one covered.
That's the best laugh I've had all day.
First of all, (obviously) I am not a scientist nor do I have any nuclear power background knowledge (aka I'm an idiot talking about something he knows nothing about). The comment I originally replied to had made the sarcastic statement of "why not power laptops using U-235". Ideas that think out of the box can be intriging even if they are unreasonable and I found that sarcastic statement intriging. It made me think, what if some NEC lab monkey really wanted to try to find a way to use U-235?
My understanding of nuclear power may be way off (I have never read into it much nor had much of a great desire for an indepth understanding until now). If I recall correctly (that's a big *if*) nuclear power works by using a radioactive material to heat water, causing it to expand and force its way through a conduit moving a turbine that's hooked up to generator (or something along those lines, this is a very old memory I could be way off). Lets say we make a mini reactor that works under the same principle, but on a much smaller scale with much lower core temperatures. If I recall, a meltdown at a nuclear power plant would entail the loss of coolant to the core, allowing the radioactive material to get so hot as to melt it's way out of it's protective containment, releasing a spew of radioactive steam on anyone unlucky enough to be within a few hundred miles.
If we made a mini reactor, it would be very small with a core much cooler than its big brother power plants. Only enough to heat to force a small amount of water through a small generator, down a cooling line, and through to the core again would be necessary. If a minimal amount of U -235 was used, and lets say it was mixed together with lead into a tiny brick, you'd just get a small, perpetually warm brick of lead with a little bit of Uranium mixed in. The item would not be warm enough to make a mini melt down, and even if taken outside of shielding, it would only be harmful because of the rays given off (gamma?), but the U - 235 or U - 235 contanimated materials would not disperse, boil off, blow up, or whatever as in a China Syndrome scenerio.
Now that raises the question in my mind, how much shielding really would be needed for a minimal amount of Uranium already mixed into a tiny lead brick? If I recall correctly, isn't the most harmful radiation given off by Uranium gamma rays? and they can travel through a significant amount of lead correct? So a lot of shielding is required to stop all harmful radiation. My question now is, if we only use a tiny bit of Uranium, how much harmful radiation is it giving off? A large enough amount to give me cancer after two hours of laptop use? Or a minimal amount like the cell phone in my pocket. Could minimal shielding be used to keep harmful rays within safety tolerance? I sure don't know the answers, and I don't necessarily expect you to either, I'm just thinking about "what if's".
As far as "do I know how much an ounce of U - 235 would cost?" I have no clue. Even though it is safe to assume it is a very expensive material, our best case scenerio model is saying we'll only need a minimal amount. Yes our supply of power would require this expensive compenent, but the Methanol batties of the original story also require a very expensive compenent as a catalyst, platinum. Maybe the amount of Uranium would be minimal like the amount of platinum in the methonal, and would not make the cost of the device unaffordable. (Wishful thinking k?)
So lets say we get to the point of having a mini reactor, too cool for meltdown, warm enough to create enough power for a device such as a laptop, with a safe and tolerable amount of harmful radiation escaping, small and light enough for convenient use, at a price worth paying for a lifetime of power from our device. The last concern (I believe?) was having U - 235 in land fills is worse than batteries.
Well, if the U - 235 is so valuable, why wouldn't it just be recycled instead of thrown into a landfill? Who says it will ever be throw
I'm curious as to the real pro's and con's of that (sarcastic) suggestion. Radioactive materials are already present in many products, U-235 can already be aquired by any bad guy with half a brain or a deep enough wallet, so why not? I (honestly) would love to hear all the reaons why I'm stupid for asking "why not?". I'm not trolling I really mean it, someone enlighten me on something I don't know much about.
I think the whole Linux/Free Beer thing has gone a little too far. It's safe to say it's officially out of control when your laptop starts knocking back cold ones.
This is exactly what I've been waiting for! "I'm not an alcoholic! I don't drink alone. I only drink socially... my current drinking buddy is a P4 with a gig of ram...."
I did treat our creationist friend with respect, I just perceived a fallacy in their logic and expressed my perception by using an analogy. I like to have different perspectives given to me, and I feel free to share my views. I also thought it important although irrelevant to make sure our creationist friend know I neither consider myself an evolutionist or creationist, and merely pointed out what I thought was a mistake in reasoning. I hope our friend didn't think I was being disrespectful as do you, and if they do I apologize and will have to be more diligent in expressing my opinion in the future. With that said, thank you, drive thru.
I have had additional interest in this article beyond just OSS and my concerns of how abused the (un)justice system is. At one point I lived a few miles away from SCO's Lindon headquarters for a short period (when they were Caldera) while I worked a different software company. I even knew a few McBride's. Infact I'm sad to say there's a good likelyhood of a relation to that Darl jerk, a pity because the McBride clan I knew were good people. (Yes I said clan, it was a big mormon family grip of McBride's, with uhm, I think a thousand children or so). It has given me a bit of a personal interest in the situation. I care to make a few silver lining comments that seem to have been overlooked for the most part.
What SCO has done (and is doing) is not completely bad for OSS and IBM, and I wish to point out some of the benefits to come of this.
First and foremost, a horrible company is in its death throws and will succomb to them eventually. Even with M$ life support it is only a matter of time before the parasitic bug that is SCO keels over and dies.
Secondly, and more importantly, no publicity is bad publicity. Darl McBride and the SCO Groups manical ranting is drawing a lot of attention to Linux and OSS. Eventually the bad PR will be proven for what it is. It is also showing exactly how strongly IBM stands behind and supports OSS, adding even more credibility to the community and software. I expect to see nothing less than Big Blue going toe to toe with SCO and most efficiently wiping the floor with their faces (kind of gives me a warm feeling to think about). Beyond the pleasure it will be to see this, the very public statement it will make should be a (wet)dream come true for OSS advocates. You cannot buy that kind of publicity, you cannot get a message like that across with just words, the *action* of the largest computer and technology company in the world laying themselves on the line is priceless. You can't more easily have people become aware of what a true contender Linux and OSS is to have IBM "risk life and limb, their very existence" to support it. IBM isn't risking anything, you know that, I know that, but the average person who may hear about this does not. All they know is IBM is "risking" 3 billion dollars and every bit of IBM "IP" SCO claims to own. Having a few CEO's thinking IBM is willing to "die" defending Linux is a pretty good thing in my opinion, and this FUD smear campaign will eventually do nothing more than gain Linux additional credibility and support.
I lastly want to appeal to the comments I have come across hypothesizing (and sometimes fearing) a SCO victory. Yes, it is possible no matter how unlikely that SCO could win. Justice is blind and our justice system is very flawed and makes many mistakes. Yet a SCO victory is still a moot point. It would only be the victory of a battle, their war is hopeless. Whether through appeal, counter patent suits, or even a big rock to Darl McBride's forehead, IBM will use one of a million contingency plans available if the near impossible happens and the suit is lost to SCO.
For anyone still concerned about SCO legally proving they owns rights to uhm, just about everything on the planet, I promise I will personally deliver a rock to not only McBride's ugly cranium, but every single one of the members of that company, their umbrella company, and moron who bought their stock. The only problem is, I'm afraid I'd have to get in a very long to carry out the task. For libel I would've actually considered noting that was sarcasm, but since SCO owns the IP of everything it's their joke so they can't sue me. *whew*
You choose to believe creationism until proven wrong. The only problem with that is it is, and will always be, impossible to prove creationism wrong. I could say I choose to believe Japanese speaking kangaroo's with badass superpowers live in black holes and I will continue to believe this until proven wrong. It's a pretty safe statement considering it's impossible to prove wrong. I am not saying creationism *is* wrong or you and others should not believe it, but I think the statement "until proven wrong" is illogical. I am not an athiest like many evolutionists, and I am also not monotheistic like most creationists. I like to think of the universe and "god" in monistic terms, that is existence as a whole is "god", not some guy on a cloud. From this point of view, IMHO, evolution is a form of creation, and in my simple mind, makes the evolution and creation debate kind of silly. To come back on track though, belief in something that cannot be proven wrong because it hasn't been proven wrong yet is not a method of choosing beliefs I would recommend to you or anyone unfortunate enough to read what I have to say.
To further elaborate your true correction, Sikhism is the majority religion in the province of Punjab in India. The religion started in this buffer area between Muslim dominant and Hindu dominant areas. Sikhism encorporates aspects of both religions and started with the intent of curbing violence between Muslims and Hindus. Instead of curbing violence, the religion became a target of both Muslims and Hindus, resulting in Sikhs becoming excellent militants and fighters to defend their beliefs. I'm sure you're probably aware of this information, I just thought other readers may find it interesting although very off topic.
I whole heartedly agree. I'm not a "yessir I'll destroy the company for you sir" person. I'm hired for my expertise, not to facilitate bad decisions. Anyone who works unethically is not a professional, they are a two bit hack and give the rest of us a bad name. Kudos on your professionalism.
I recall Netscape being free for personal and educational use only. If a business wanted to use Netscape they were supposed to pay for the software. How do you think Netscape made any money if they only offered a free product? With the bundling and IE being free for anyone including businesses well... we know what happened.