You cannot host a site off your own internet connection as cheaply...
That kind of depends... If you've already got ADSL, with static IP, then the added cost of hosting is very small. If you want to host several hundred MB of MP3s or JPGs you're not going to find a cheaper commercial solution.
...or robustly as a dedicated provider.
I've had some pretty poor experience of dedicated service providers. They go offline for a week, every day promising it will be up in 2 hours. They lose backups. They arbitrarily change hosting software and interfaces. Expensive ones may be robust, but "cheaply" and "robustly" don't seem to go together. If I host it, I control it. If my server goes up in smoke, if I care that much about reliability I'll go out & buy another one today (or swap over another old PC).
I don't recommend hosting your own site unless you already need "fancy" service (multiple static IPs, fast upstream) for other reasons.
Depends where you're coming from. I host my own web and email. I've learned a huge amount doing so. I have far better access to the server than I'm used to with commercial services. It means that MB stored data cost nothing (so all my music & all my photos are there, available from home or office, but pw protected). I can play with different languages. I can learn about virtual hosting. And yes, it opens up the possibility of home-based webcams, home automation etc.
Hosting your own can be great fun. Start with a limited-functionality webserver such as tinyweb - less to learn, less to go wrong, fewer security holes. Don't host an email server until you're certain you understand about open relays, and then test it at http://www.abuse.net/relay.html
Back to the original topic. I'm in the UK, so can't help with US providers. But I use Zen ADSL. GBP23.82 per month, single static IP. No blocked ports.
I've been registered with the Telephone Preference Service (the UK's do-not-call registry) since it started in 1995. It started as a voluntary service, and my number of spam calls dropped. When it became law in 1997, my number of calls dropped to zero.
That's right. I never get any direct sales calls. Ever.
The Annapolis Tidal Power station at the mouth of the Annapolis river in Nova Scotia's Bay of Fundy has been running (and providing power to Nova Scotia Power's grid) since the mid '80s
Impressive though the Annapolis station is, it's not a "sub-sea tidal power station". It's a good old-fashioned tidal barrage. They're a little out of fashion at the moment, because of their effect on salt marshes etc. Ideally, of course, the story would have described it as "the first sub-sea tidal power station of its type to be connected to the grid" - that gets round all objections!
Incidentally, there are other sub-sea turbines being built. This 300 KW system in Devon, UK, is being tested (but ain't connected to the grid). It was discussed in slashdot back in June.
Hopefully, if this works, we could have the Severn Barrage back on the agenda
No.
The Severn Barrage is not a very environmentally friendly way of generating power, and would destroy hundreds of square miles of coastal and estuarine ecosystem.
The whole point of the underwater turbines is that there is very little impact on the ecosystem, or the atmosphere, or on "visual amenity". The only adverse effects I can think of are disturbance at the time of construction, and possible underwater noise (disturbing any cetaceans).
Looks like a truly great development - I really hope it proves successful.
Craters are only visible for a short period, and for relatively small impacts. They erode.
For older and larger impacts, you're looking for very different evidence: heavily brecciated rocks, shock quartz crystals, changes to crust/mantle interface, evidence of high pressure rocks. Further afield, evidence of global dust layers (esp contaminated with terrestrially unusual minerals such as iridium), evidence of "tidal wave" eg poorly structured jumbled marine deposits over a large area.
Sceptical - or blinkered?
on
Is SARS From Mars?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I see a lot of scepticism about Prof. Wickramasinghe's theory! Scepticism is good, where it's informed. But some of the scepticism borders on blinkered.
To put a couple of things straight first. Professor Wickramasinghe hasn't said that SARS comes from space. In the Lancet letter (free reg required), he says "With respect to the SARS outbreak, a prima facie case for a possible space incidence can already be made". Note the word "possible". Note the words "prima facie" (roughly="sufficient to warrant further investigation").
This isn't some crackpot who's just heard of SARS, can't understand epidemiology and therefore thinks it must have come from outer space without thinking things through. Along with Fred Hoyle, he's long been a proponent of panspermia - the theory that life originated in space, rather than on Earth.
There is plentiful evidence of complex organic molecules in cometary and interstellar material. The environment on periodically warmed comets is every bit as suitable for the generation of life as the alternative theory of the primordial soup. Organic compounds, quite tightly concentrated, intermittent energy, water. The theory is that life on Earth originated Out There, so it would be no surprise that DNA/RNA from space would fit earthly organisms - they share the same origins.
In his letter, Prof. Wickramasinghe estimates that "a tonne of bacterial material falls to Earth from space daily, which translates into some 10^19 bacteria, or 20 000 bacteria per square metre of the Earth's surface". It would be surprising if none of these found a viable host. On the rare occasion that there is a good match, a pandemic could result. We don't know if SARS started this way or not.
Note that meteors aren't involved. Nothing gets burned up on re-entry. The stuff just drifts in.
I don't know what the answer is, but I know that it's not as clear cut as some would like to think. It's just possible that data from Beagle2 this Christmas might help shed a little more light.
...it could be very likely that the major Hollywood studios would simply not distribute their films in theaters at all, since they don't make much money in the UK anyway (even non-fluff, non-action films make only a few million in the UK).
Box office sales in the US in 2002 came to $9,519m. Ticket sales in the UK in 2002 totalled £812m for the same period - about $1,300m. So the UK market is about 14% the size of the US market. No-one's going to give that up in a hurry.
Ultimately, I think that this will hurt everybody: the big Hollywood studios, the UK studios, and the independents, since 50% of a 33 cent ticket price is only 16.5 cents. At that rate, even if everyone in the United States (population is approx. 280 million) saw a film, it would only pull in 46.2 million.
I think you miss the point about demand pricing. Stelios isn't selling all his tickets at 20p. The price varies with demand. So if you book months ahead for an unpopular film on an unpopular date, you'll likely pay 20p. But if you decide last minute on a Friday evening to go see the latest blockbuster, you'll pay closer to £5. Twenty pence is the minimum; £5 is the maximum.
***** 750.335.amended THIS AMENDED SECTION IS EFFECTIVE MARCH 31, 2003 *****
750.335.amended Lewd and lascivious cohabitation and gross lewdness.
Sec. 335.
Any man or woman, not being married to each other, who lewdly and lasciviously associates and cohabits together, and any man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00. No prosecution shall be commenced under this section after 1 year from the time of committing the offense.
This is the amended version, newly revised, not some ancient statute they've never gotten round to changing. What did they change from last time? They doubled the fine.
Michigan doesn't seem to have made it to the 21st century yet.
"We reserve the right, at our discretion, to change, modify, add, or remove portions of these terms at any time. Please check these terms periodically for changes. Your continued use of the law.com Web site following the posting of changes to these terms will mean you accept those changes."
Use of any robot, spider, other automatic device, or manual process to monitor or copy our Web pages or the content contained herein is strictly forbidden.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean you're not allowed to read the site?
As for robots, not only is there no robots.txt, but the home page contains this meta tag:
<meta name="robots" content="index,follow">
When I saw that I laughed so loud it scared the neighbours!
read the post - "named after the heroes of dBase 3", but it's a bit stranger than that...
dBase was produced by the company Ashton-Tate. But there was never a Mr Ashton, ony a Mr Tate. But he reckoned that "Tate" didn't have enough gravitas, so he invented a partner, and called his company "Ashton-Tate". (Another version has it that he did have a partner, but the partner's name didn't sound corporate enough).
Similarly - their first product was dBaseII. There never was a dBaseI. They thought that the "II" made it sound like a mature product in its second major release. Who ever buys version 1.0 of anything?
Back (nearly) on topic - I have a dog called Grep!
This doesn't involve anything clever (like temperature sensing/control, like network communications), but it shows that you can bodge up a workable computer controlled controller quickly and easily. It's running on a laptop nailed to my wall, and has been going nine years now!
At risk of getting my site dash-slotted here it is.
I'm a university lecturer, and I use Plagiserve. Invaluable for detection of plagiarism from published Internet sources (v relevant for my course). But it doesn't catch students copying from each other - the only way to do that is to collect students scripts, as Turnitin are doing.
However, I'm pretty sure that something will come along (maybe Vivissimo [vivissimo.com] (check my spelling on that)) that will supplant's Yahoo's tried-and-true categories.
* getting the costs right (the example costs look good),
* getting the safety licked (I presume they have, but it still won't be risk-free), and
* overcoming spikes etc (which they claim to have done),
I'll be interested to see how they tackle data security.
Looking forward to reading my neighbours emails as they whizz through the power lines! Should be able to pick them with a good loop from driving around outside.
Fuller details from U of Tokyo. Huge amounts of technical detail, but a January 1995 article (ie before the sea trials). Should answer most of the calls for "but how does it work?".
This little robot cannot possibly be consuming as much fuel as your 2 ton car. Now if we can make your 2 ton car consume as much as the little robot, we're in business...
little robot? 8.2m long and 4 ton weight ain't little!
Though I grant you it does consume less than a car. This article describes the power output as 5kW. This compares to 56kW on my Rover 214 (weight approx 1 tonne)
So you say "I am recording this". They confiscate the recorder they can see. You have evidence of that violation recorded on the other recorder, that they didn't see!
Slashdot Mirror
That kind of depends... If you've already got ADSL, with static IP, then the added cost of hosting is very small. If you want to host several hundred MB of MP3s or JPGs you're not going to find a cheaper commercial solution.
I've had some pretty poor experience of dedicated service providers. They go offline for a week, every day promising it will be up in 2 hours. They lose backups. They arbitrarily change hosting software and interfaces. Expensive ones may be robust, but "cheaply" and "robustly" don't seem to go together. If I host it, I control it. If my server goes up in smoke, if I care that much about reliability I'll go out & buy another one today (or swap over another old PC).
I don't recommend hosting your own site unless you already need "fancy" service (multiple static IPs, fast upstream) for other reasons.
Depends where you're coming from. I host my own web and email. I've learned a huge amount doing so. I have far better access to the server than I'm used to with commercial services. It means that MB stored data cost nothing (so all my music & all my photos are there, available from home or office, but pw protected). I can play with different languages. I can learn about virtual hosting. And yes, it opens up the possibility of home-based webcams, home automation etc.
Hosting your own can be great fun. Start with a limited-functionality webserver such as tinyweb - less to learn, less to go wrong, fewer security holes. Don't host an email server until you're certain you understand about open relays, and then test it at http://www.abuse.net/relay.html
Back to the original topic. I'm in the UK, so can't help with US providers. But I use Zen ADSL. GBP23.82 per month, single static IP. No blocked ports.
That's right. I never get any direct sales calls. Ever.
It works for us - I hope it can work for you too.
Impressive though the Annapolis station is, it's not a "sub-sea tidal power station". It's a good old-fashioned tidal barrage. They're a little out of fashion at the moment, because of their effect on salt marshes etc. Ideally, of course, the story would have described it as "the first sub-sea tidal power station of its type to be connected to the grid" - that gets round all objections!
Incidentally, there are other sub-sea turbines being built. This 300 KW system in Devon, UK, is being tested (but ain't connected to the grid). It was discussed in slashdot back in June.
No.
The Severn Barrage is not a very environmentally friendly way of generating power, and would destroy hundreds of square miles of coastal and estuarine ecosystem.
The whole point of the underwater turbines is that there is very little impact on the ecosystem, or the atmosphere, or on "visual amenity". The only adverse effects I can think of are disturbance at the time of construction, and possible underwater noise (disturbing any cetaceans).
Looks like a truly great development - I really hope it proves successful.
Craters are only visible for a short period, and for relatively small impacts. They erode.
For older and larger impacts, you're looking for very different evidence: heavily brecciated rocks, shock quartz crystals, changes to crust/mantle interface, evidence of high pressure rocks. Further afield, evidence of global dust layers (esp contaminated with terrestrially unusual minerals such as iridium), evidence of "tidal wave" eg poorly structured jumbled marine deposits over a large area.
To put a couple of things straight first. Professor Wickramasinghe hasn't said that SARS comes from space. In the Lancet letter (free reg required), he says "With respect to the SARS outbreak, a prima facie case for a possible space incidence can already be made". Note the word "possible". Note the words "prima facie" (roughly="sufficient to warrant further investigation").
This isn't some crackpot who's just heard of SARS, can't understand epidemiology and therefore thinks it must have come from outer space without thinking things through. Along with Fred Hoyle, he's long been a proponent of panspermia - the theory that life originated in space, rather than on Earth.
There is plentiful evidence of complex organic molecules in cometary and interstellar material. The environment on periodically warmed comets is every bit as suitable for the generation of life as the alternative theory of the primordial soup. Organic compounds, quite tightly concentrated, intermittent energy, water. The theory is that life on Earth originated Out There, so it would be no surprise that DNA/RNA from space would fit earthly organisms - they share the same origins.
In his letter, Prof. Wickramasinghe estimates that "a tonne of bacterial material falls to Earth from space daily, which translates into some 10^19 bacteria, or 20 000 bacteria per square metre of the Earth's surface". It would be surprising if none of these found a viable host. On the rare occasion that there is a good match, a pandemic could result. We don't know if SARS started this way or not.
Note that meteors aren't involved. Nothing gets burned up on re-entry. The stuff just drifts in.
I don't know what the answer is, but I know that it's not as clear cut as some would like to think. It's just possible that data from Beagle2 this Christmas might help shed a little more light.
Box office sales in the US in 2002 came to $9,519m. Ticket sales in the UK in 2002 totalled £812m for the same period - about $1,300m. So the UK market is about 14% the size of the US market. No-one's going to give that up in a hurry.
Ultimately, I think that this will hurt everybody: the big Hollywood studios, the UK studios, and the independents, since 50% of a 33 cent ticket price is only 16.5 cents. At that rate, even if everyone in the United States (population is approx. 280 million) saw a film, it would only pull in 46.2 million.
I think you miss the point about demand pricing. Stelios isn't selling all his tickets at 20p. The price varies with demand. So if you book months ahead for an unpopular film on an unpopular date, you'll likely pay 20p. But if you decide last minute on a Friday evening to go see the latest blockbuster, you'll pay closer to £5. Twenty pence is the minimum; £5 is the maximum.
Michigan doesn't seem to have made it to the 21st century yet.
I'm glad the Royal Statistical Society has a decent seach engine at last!
I pointed out that the embedded systems journal uses the motto "Thinking inside the box".
Nine people looked at me blankly. One doubled up laughing. Spot the geek!
Right. So let's just hope they don't also say:
"We reserve the right, at our discretion, to change, modify, add, or remove portions of these terms at any time. Please check these terms periodically for changes. Your continued use of the law.com Web site following the posting of changes to these terms will mean you accept those changes."
You couln't make it up, you really couldn't.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean you're not allowed to read the site?
As for robots, not only is there no robots.txt, but the home page contains this meta tag:
<meta name="robots" content="index,follow">
When I saw that I laughed so loud it scared the neighbours!
You might find an SLR camera lense plus digital camera might do the trick - see my own bodge
read the post - "named after the heroes of dBase 3", but it's a bit stranger than that...
dBase was produced by the company Ashton-Tate. But there was never a Mr Ashton, ony a Mr Tate. But he reckoned that "Tate" didn't have enough gravitas, so he invented a partner, and called his company "Ashton-Tate". (Another version has it that he did have a partner, but the partner's name didn't sound corporate enough).
Similarly - their first product was dBaseII. There never was a dBaseI. They thought that the "II" made it sound like a mature product in its second major release. Who ever buys version 1.0 of anything?
Back (nearly) on topic - I have a dog called Grep!
At risk of getting my site dash-slotted here it is.
(try not to mock too hard - it works!)
Like here for example?
...which is why I use TinyWeb Does very little - but does it securely.
I'm a university lecturer, and I use Plagiserve. Invaluable for detection of plagiarism from published Internet sources (v relevant for my course). But it doesn't catch students copying from each other - the only way to do that is to collect students scripts, as Turnitin are doing.
Everything you want to now is here. Enjoy!
Try the Open Directory Project for a peer-edited open-content categorised directory.
* getting the costs right (the example costs look good),
* getting the safety licked (I presume they have, but it still won't be risk-free), and
* overcoming spikes etc (which they claim to have done),
I'll be interested to see how they tackle data security.
Looking forward to reading my neighbours emails as they whizz through the power lines! Should be able to pick them with a good loop from driving around outside.
Brief product spec page from Matsui
Fuller details from U of Tokyo. Huge amounts of technical detail, but a January 1995 article (ie before the sea trials). Should answer most of the calls for "but how does it work?".
Paper describing and appraising the sea trials. Less detail on the CCDE, but a better overview (and written after they've tested the thing for real!).
little robot? 8.2m long and 4 ton weight ain't little!
Though I grant you it does consume less than a car. This article describes the power output as 5kW. This compares to 56kW on my Rover 214 (weight approx 1 tonne)
Deliciously ironic for an article about false identity to be hidden behind a login screen. Does anyone ever use real details for these things?
So you say "I am recording this". They confiscate the recorder they can see. You have evidence of that violation recorded on the other recorder, that they didn't see!