Lets assume each PC has a user who is paid at least $25000 per year. We can clearly see the savings on the cost of that employee and thier PC setup caused by this are negligable.
If you work for a company whose budget is a single line labeled "employees and stuff", you're probably right: nobody will notice
However, for a small company with 100 workstations, implementing reasonable power savings can trim $7,500 a year off utility bills. That's nothing to sneeze at, especially if ThePowersWhoBe can be convinced to keep those funds in IT for other projects.
Last time I checked (and it has been a little while since I checked, so I could be wrong) there was no way to push out power settings with a GPO.
Almost true. Mostly true? Or used to be true. Or, in a perfect utopia, this isn't true anymore.
There's a tool from Energystar called EZ GPO which lets you install an power managment agent on the client, and manage it using an administrative template. In my experience, it works pretty well. It's a bit weird though: for some configurations, the tool doesn't use the win API, and has broken in the past with Windows Updates.
AFAIK, Windows 2008, or a Vista workstation on a 2k3 domain can be used to manage power savings on XP if the client-side extensions are installed.
Also, some expensive tools like LANDesk support power policies. Not ideal for most people ($$$$), but if you're already using "enterprise" management tools, worth checking out.
But suspending doesn't drop power demand as much as shutting down
This varies a lot PC to PC.
At work, I'm just now implementing power savings. The first strategy considered was to use a schedule and shut the computers off at night, and turn them on in the morning. I'm really glad we didn't go that way.
Real-life measurements are crucial. One of our standard workstations (Lenovo 8808 + 17" LCD) draws 120W. With the monitor and PC in standby, the draw is only 3W.
Instead I just use US Banks online Billpay option. Free, and cuts out the middle man.
If I'm not mistaken, US Bank uses Checkfree as the middle man!
Payment processing and aggregation isn't simple. (Who do you send the check to? How do you aggregate ACH transactions to save money versus mailing hundreds of paper checks? How do you get electronic versions of the bills from the creditor if requested by your customer?)
Many banks and bill pay providers use Checkfree because they take care of the details. You can code up a website that lets your account holder say "give $80 to Comcast", and it just does.
All that happens after peering is broken is that the routers are reconfigured to send traffic over their transit links instead of the peer links. Ultimately, customers are not hurt (except for downtime because of an unplanned link outage).
I'm not sure I understand your comment. If you read any of the articles on Sprint/Cogent's peering spat, you'll see that customers were indeed hurt: Cogent and Sprint had no available transit providers between the two of them.
The problem here is that the last mile has (and is using) more bandwidth than the upstream connections can handle.
For some ISPs, that is the case. However, for many ISPs/MSOs the last mile is literally the problem.
Take Comcast for example. Upstream bandwidth on the last mile is their biggest limiting factor. Implementing torrent throttling and getting their wrist slapped by the FCC wasn't fun for them.
You think they like getting criticized for over compressing their HD streams and are doing it for the pure joy of pissing off people who can tell the difference?
They aren't developing a $30 digital to analog cable converter to free up many MHz of bandwidth because massive capital outlay is exciting.
DOCSIS shares the literal bandwidth on the last mile. When you're talking about doing a nodesplit, upstream bandwidth seems very cheap in comparison.
I can't speak for the OP, but if I were using Mac minis or other "unreliable" hardware, I'd use CARP for redundancy.
It doesn't make sense for every application, but if you can adopt a clustering approach to your services, suddenly you have redundant RAM, redundant power, redundant CPUs... Go cheap and double up.
However I still think that a kilometer -- or anything more than a few feet, really -- is longer than they would move inside the cable. Maybe if you fired at an oblique angle into an empty water pipe or something, so that the pellet could ricochet along inside the tube, but a cable (where the outside is presumably made of some fairly soft material that would absorb energy with each impact)... it seems unlikely.
To wipe out a section of cable that long I think that someone would need to walk along and repeatedly shoot it.
Or, someone damaged the first hundred meters or so of the cable, necessitating the replacement of the whole thing. You can't blow a splice into a restricted conduit...
Further is the problem with using 2000 as the reference point. In fact, it is perfectly valid to use 2000 as a reference point; it's just as valid as using 1997 or any other time. There is no magical time in terms of statistical length or any point in time that is any more valid than any other. You can argue that the submitter is "cherry picking" his own data. It's laughable to say there is a "right" base year.
Isn't this the reason that the UN fixes 1990 as the base year? Otherwise, anyone could pick any year they wanted, just as you say. Granted, I'm trusting the article when it says that "Article 3 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change specifies that all greenhouse gas emissions analyses are to use 1990 as the base year". However, it seems to me that standardizing on a "right" base year is very reasonable.
In August, the Attorney General's Office quietly hired private attorney Brent Hatch, who had been defending Unspam Technologies and its money-making interests in Utah's Child Protection Registry. So far, Hatch has been paid $100,000 - half of what his contract allows, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said.
Does the name Brent Hatch ring a bell? It should, he's on the SCO legal team.
And remember CP80, the effort to use all those unused channels on the internets? None other than Ralph Yarro.
Cogent used to have a $1000/mo 100mbit service, but it was mostly offered via metro Ethernet. Wanting to share or host on the service would increase the price.
They can't offer you a QOS service to commit bandwidth to you because of all of the 'network neutrality' nonsense.
Keep thinking bandwidth is free and noone has to pay for it. Just don't be surprised when your 'best effort' service takes a minute to load a web page and your bandwidth sensitive services no longer function.
Huh? Sure they can. ISPs are in the business of committing bandwidth along with quality agreements. (Ever read an SLA?) The network neutrality debate isn't nonsense, it's about avoiding anti-competitive behavior. Throttling a competitor and offering varying SLAs are entirely different things.
Bandwidth isn't free, it obviously has a cost. (Nice straw-man argument there.) So tell me, if your ISP is so congested that they can't serve their "best effort" customers well, why would anyone pay them a ton more for service they already are paying for? It doesn't make any sense. (Ed Felton has some great thoughts along this line in his paper.) If the bandwidth isn't there, it doesn't matter how you rearrange the line to get at it.
If ISPs can't meet their expectations, its their problem. They oversubscribed their network, offering (eg) 6mbps, but only having the real bandwidth of a fraction of that per subscriber. This is part of their business model. If this breaks for them, tough. The market will handle this problem.
Huh? Wal*Mart is a reseller. Can you imagine the duplication of effort if every reseller had to recycle everything it sold? Every convenience mart in the country would be driven out of business.
It's not that big of a duplication of effort, it just makes the recycling more convenient and likely to happen. It's not like Wal-Mart needs to actually needs to recycle CFLs, they just need to box 'em, label 'em, and ship 'em. They already do this for disposable cameras, scavenged waste-silver (photo labs), motor oil, and car batteries (at least in Washington). For car batteries, there is a core charge that gets refunded when you bring your old battery back.
Retailers who profit from the sales of hazardous materials need to make an effort to ensure that consumers have easy recycling options. Cradle-to-grave responsibility is catching on, why do you think Apple and Dell both offer their own recycling programs?
We have a 30 KVA battery backup for the data center in case the generator doesn't kick on the right way.
Huh? Battery backups don't exist as a contingency. They exist as a necessity. Generators take at least a few seconds to powerup and come into phase. Normally servers are powered continually through a UPS, it isn't like there is a cut-over like there is with the cheaper consumer UPS models.
The only reason for no-net-neutrality being a threat in the US is the fact that there is no US public peering left.
The Westin Building in Seattle, for example, has clients with many smaller peering arrangements. True, it's not exactly public, but the spirit of small-time peering lives on.
I really hate having to respond to this but this bullet point is a bit off-base:
"(Natural sugars are not like refined ones.)" All plants produce the same sugar that is produced by sugar beets and sugar cane.
Almost. Although refined sugars are derived from plant sources, the composition of sugars in plants and fruits vary widely from plant to plant. Sucrose is common table sugar. Grapes for example have more glucose than other fruits and is chemically one of the reasons they're used in making wine. (This is why grape nuts are called grape nuts... they were originally sweetened with glucose.) The amount of Fructose and Sucrose also vary.
As any chemistry geek knows a fluorine ion (F-) can replace a hydroxyl ion (OH-). In teeth, fluoride causes formation of hydroxyfluoroapatite, where some of the OH's have been replaced with F's.
Any chemistry geek knows that the F- is the fluoride ion, not the fluorine ion. Similarly, there is no such thing as a hydroxyl ion. Hydroxide is the ion which carries a charge. Hydroxyl refers to an organic functional group.
I work for the resnet of a public university with ~4000 on-campus students. I'm been testing these rules for the past day, and they're appearing reliable enough to tes them in conjuction with Snort's ability to tear down TCP connections by sending TCP reset packets. Snort does this by way of the flexresp post-detection option.
So far, this is proving very effective at blocking WMF exploit files in the wild. Even if they are renamed with.doc,.jpg, etc extensions, the transfer will be reset once the signature matches.
When I was working on developing a Snort rule to detect links to.pif attachments in MSN messages, I was surprised to learn that Microsoft would quietly discard any messages which contained a link to suspicious executables. It even blocked links to fake.pif files I hosted myself, so it wasn't a URL blacklist.
Why won't AOL do the same with AIM? This is a very effective measure to help stop this type of attack. I work at the resnet for my university, and these types of worms are very annoying to help students deal with. Using Snort last year, I was able to see that over 1/3 of all students who received a particular "OMG click this link!" email clicked it, became infected, and started to spew messages to the infected file.
Blocking the messages before they even arrive is by far the most effective way to stop this infection vector. I'm hard-pressed to think of a reason why this is a bad idea.
Slashdot Mirror
If you work for a company whose budget is a single line labeled "employees and stuff", you're probably right: nobody will notice
However, for a small company with 100 workstations, implementing reasonable power savings can trim $7,500 a year off utility bills. That's nothing to sneeze at, especially if ThePowersWhoBe can be convinced to keep those funds in IT for other projects.
Almost true. Mostly true? Or used to be true. Or, in a perfect utopia, this isn't true anymore.
There's a tool from Energystar called EZ GPO which lets you install an power managment agent on the client, and manage it using an administrative template. In my experience, it works pretty well. It's a bit weird though: for some configurations, the tool doesn't use the win API, and has broken in the past with Windows Updates.
AFAIK, Windows 2008, or a Vista workstation on a 2k3 domain can be used to manage power savings on XP if the client-side extensions are installed.
Also, some expensive tools like LANDesk support power policies. Not ideal for most people ($$$$), but if you're already using "enterprise" management tools, worth checking out.
This varies a lot PC to PC.
At work, I'm just now implementing power savings. The first strategy considered was to use a schedule and shut the computers off at night, and turn them on in the morning. I'm really glad we didn't go that way.
Real-life measurements are crucial. One of our standard workstations (Lenovo 8808 + 17" LCD) draws 120W. With the monitor and PC in standby, the draw is only 3W.
That's close enough for me.
If I'm not mistaken, US Bank uses Checkfree as the middle man!
Payment processing and aggregation isn't simple. (Who do you send the check to? How do you aggregate ACH transactions to save money versus mailing hundreds of paper checks? How do you get electronic versions of the bills from the creditor if requested by your customer?)
Many banks and bill pay providers use Checkfree because they take care of the details. You can code up a website that lets your account holder say "give $80 to Comcast", and it just does.
I'm not sure I understand your comment. If you read any of the articles on Sprint/Cogent's peering spat, you'll see that customers were indeed hurt: Cogent and Sprint had no available transit providers between the two of them.
For some ISPs, that is the case. However, for many ISPs/MSOs the last mile is literally the problem.
Take Comcast for example. Upstream bandwidth on the last mile is their biggest limiting factor. Implementing torrent throttling and getting their wrist slapped by the FCC wasn't fun for them.
You think they like getting criticized for over compressing their HD streams and are doing it for the pure joy of pissing off people who can tell the difference?
They aren't developing a $30 digital to analog cable converter to free up many MHz of bandwidth because massive capital outlay is exciting.
DOCSIS shares the literal bandwidth on the last mile. When you're talking about doing a nodesplit, upstream bandwidth seems very cheap in comparison.
Piping to grep works, or at least goosh is faking it.
Try:
search monkey | grep evil
I can't speak for the OP, but if I were using Mac minis or other "unreliable" hardware, I'd use CARP for redundancy.
It doesn't make sense for every application, but if you can adopt a clustering approach to your services, suddenly you have redundant RAM, redundant power, redundant CPUs... Go cheap and double up.
Personally, I think racking up minis is a silly marketing ploy that ends up looking a lot more like a total wiring and cooling clusterfuck.
Or, someone damaged the first hundred meters or so of the cable, necessitating the replacement of the whole thing. You can't blow a splice into a restricted conduit...
The speculation is that Level3 owns the physical fiber. Cogent and Telia both have circuits on the damaged section and were impacted by the cut.
Isn't this the reason that the UN fixes 1990 as the base year? Otherwise, anyone could pick any year they wanted, just as you say. Granted, I'm trusting the article when it says that "Article 3 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change specifies that all greenhouse gas emissions analyses are to use 1990 as the base year". However, it seems to me that standardizing on a "right" base year is very reasonable.
From the article:
Does the name Brent Hatch ring a bell? It should, he's on the SCO legal team.
And remember CP80, the effort to use all those unused channels on the internets? None other than Ralph Yarro.
So, I was tested, and I have a Y chromosome. You'd better give me cheaper car insurance at the XX rate, or I sue.
Cogent used to have a $1000/mo 100mbit service, but it was mostly offered via metro Ethernet. Wanting to share or host on the service would increase the price.
That's the "gotta be in the right place" part...
Huh? Sure they can. ISPs are in the business of committing bandwidth along with quality agreements. (Ever read an SLA?) The network neutrality debate isn't nonsense, it's about avoiding anti-competitive behavior. Throttling a competitor and offering varying SLAs are entirely different things.
Bandwidth isn't free, it obviously has a cost. (Nice straw-man argument there.) So tell me, if your ISP is so congested that they can't serve their "best effort" customers well, why would anyone pay them a ton more for service they already are paying for? It doesn't make any sense. (Ed Felton has some great thoughts along this line in his paper.) If the bandwidth isn't there, it doesn't matter how you rearrange the line to get at it.
If ISPs can't meet their expectations, its their problem. They oversubscribed their network, offering (eg) 6mbps, but only having the real bandwidth of a fraction of that per subscriber. This is part of their business model. If this breaks for them, tough. The market will handle this problem.
Huh? Wal*Mart is a reseller. Can you imagine the duplication of effort if every reseller had to recycle everything it sold? Every convenience mart in the country would be driven out of business.
It's not that big of a duplication of effort, it just makes the recycling more convenient and likely to happen. It's not like Wal-Mart needs to actually needs to recycle CFLs, they just need to box 'em, label 'em, and ship 'em. They already do this for disposable cameras, scavenged waste-silver (photo labs), motor oil, and car batteries (at least in Washington). For car batteries, there is a core charge that gets refunded when you bring your old battery back.
Retailers who profit from the sales of hazardous materials need to make an effort to ensure that consumers have easy recycling options. Cradle-to-grave responsibility is catching on, why do you think Apple and Dell both offer their own recycling programs?
The UK certainly has detector vans. They use other methods too, but I don't see how you could possibly declare the vans a myth.
Yeah, Hezbollah sure did a great job hiding bridges and electrical sub-stations and roads among civilians... *roll*
The Westin Building in Seattle, for example, has clients with many smaller peering arrangements. True, it's not exactly public, but the spirit of small-time peering lives on.
Almost. Although refined sugars are derived from plant sources, the composition of sugars in plants and fruits vary widely from plant to plant. Sucrose is common table sugar. Grapes for example have more glucose than other fruits and is chemically one of the reasons they're used in making wine. (This is why grape nuts are called grape nuts... they were originally sweetened with glucose.) The amount of Fructose and Sucrose also vary.
Any chemistry geek knows that the F- is the fluoride ion, not the fluorine ion. Similarly, there is no such thing as a hydroxyl ion. Hydroxide is the ion which carries a charge. Hydroxyl refers to an organic functional group.
I work for the resnet of a public university with ~4000 on-campus students. I'm been testing these rules for the past day, and they're appearing reliable enough to tes them in conjuction with Snort's ability to tear down TCP connections by sending TCP reset packets. Snort does this by way of the flexresp post-detection option.
.doc, .jpg, etc extensions, the transfer will be reset once the signature matches.
So far, this is proving very effective at blocking WMF exploit files in the wild. Even if they are renamed with
Barcodes (especially 2D barcodes) can carry information more information than a database key. For example, many drivers licenses carry a barcode which contains personal information about the driver.
But I'm sure most of the
When I was working on developing a Snort rule to detect links to .pif attachments in MSN messages, I was surprised to learn that Microsoft would quietly discard any messages which contained a link to suspicious executables. It even blocked links to fake .pif files I hosted myself, so it wasn't a URL blacklist.
Why won't AOL do the same with AIM? This is a very effective measure to help stop this type of attack. I work at the resnet for my university, and these types of worms are very annoying to help students deal with. Using Snort last year, I was able to see that over 1/3 of all students who received a particular "OMG click this link!" email clicked it, became infected, and started to spew messages to the infected file.
Blocking the messages before they even arrive is by far the most effective way to stop this infection vector. I'm hard-pressed to think of a reason why this is a bad idea.