I deal with reliability on a daily basis, and mechanical parts are a pain in the butt. They need huge amounts of maintenance to be able to give any dependability. If you can design without fans, then your system will be more reliable.
It'd take more engineering, but utilising convection currents to move air instead of fans will mean fewer components, which will mean greater reliability.
I'd say an online UPS as a component to help prevent premature power supply failure. It rectifies the signal at all times and creates a new perfect sinewave at all times. That'll get rid of transients and make your power supply far more reliable after you get past infant mortality.
My full solution would be a fanless rig, with RAID 1 for full redundancy of disks so if a hard disk fails, it doesn't take your data with it, and weekly backups to DAT tape stored off-site. Then I'd use a pair of power supplies, using a diode to prevent power from one from getting into the other, and a zener diode or 78 series linear regulators to ensure a failing supply can't overpower any one line. Then, from my little power circuit, the two power supplies would feed the one motherboard, which would be underclocked at reduced voltage. It would have the highest possible amount of RAM in it, because that would reduce the writes to the hard drives.
I dated a nurse's aide for about a year, and what always shocked me was how little she knew about the treatments she was suggesting. Every time I got a cold, she demanded we rush to the ER to get some penicillin.
Now, I'm not one of those assholes who thinks he knows everything, but I know that colds are caused by a virus, and penicillin doesn't work on viruses.
Since then, I've gone on the philosophy that just because someone who works in a hospital says something, doesn't mean it's gospel. I won't take it as *wrong*, but I'll take it with a grain of salt, like I do medical advice on the Internet.
Generally speaking, I don't use the friends feature on Slashdot. In fact, I haven't used it legitimately once. For a very short time, I figured I could friend my freaks, but that's all the people who are on it.
But nobody knows a goddamn thing about beer on the Internet, so finding another person with half a brain is so rare, I've added you unironically.
I was going to read your post, but it required a codec, and when Windows media player went to the Internet to get a codec for it, it couldn't find one.
Both VLC and mplayer are so insanely good, so much better than any alternatives, that it's kind of like arguing about whether you should drink belgian beer or german beer compared to drinking raw sewage.
The historical context really puts contemporary weapons at the time at odds with the meaning today.
Pikemen were the premier military unit in England for quite a long time, and weren't replaced by musketeer units until around 1660. This means that pole-arms were 90 years out of date at the time the constitution was created. Grenades wouldn't be a practical weapon until the 1800s(They were used extensively during the American civil war, but not in the revolutionary war).
It seems to me that limiting arms to the arms available in 1776, during a time of transition slightly after manual arms were eliminated as practical weapons, but slightly before most modern arms were invented, seems like using a historical accident to support limiting rights.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like guns, nor bombs. I'm happy I don't see people walking down the street with swords. I've never held any of the aforementioned weapons, and I have no desire to do so. I don't think weapons are the cure-all people make them out to be.
Regardless, rights are rights. All branches of government should religiously follow the constitution, and if the constitution says certain rights are not to be infringed, then it is their job to follow those rules without exception. If it is found that there is a practical need to have exceptions to the rules, then the constitution should be amended, rather than made insanely and stupidly convoluted by exceptions the Supreme court had no business creating.
Have you turned on the TV lately? Both political parties in the US are running on a platform of "ZOMG we have to be completely different than before because nothing has ever been like this in the history of the world ever!".
Contrast to someone like Ron Paul, who is saying "We used to be like this, and that worked well. We should go back to doing that."
I'm sorry, when you're taking massive amounts of money from productive industries and giving it to people who sit doing nothing in Germany or Japan -- 3 million troops around the world, most of whom are in non-warzones doing busy-work, I find it very difficult to discern between that and welfare, or some other useless bureaucracy.
It's one of the conceited little perversions of common sense you see a lot of in pop economics -- just like "The tech bubble will never burst" and "Housing prices will always go up".
Russia is extremely left-wing for Russia. Their capitalist economy is far different than anything the country has had before, and it's experiencing rather massive reforms at a fairly rapid pace.
Left/Right is about "new ideas vs. old ideas". Conservatives want to keep things the way they are, or go back to the way they once were (that's pretty much the definition of conservative, a synonym being traditionalist), while the lefties want to do something different (that's pretty much the definition of a liberal, a synonym being progressive).
It's spent on government. At the end of the day, the number is a barometer for the size of government, and the US government is larger than the nearest contemporary.
So at what point did it become the state's business? Why are they allowed to force the children to either go to a course (and before we forget, Some of these "programs" are naziesque and inhuman travesties of basic human decency), or have their lives destroyed by being placed on a sexual offender registry FOR TAKING PICTURES OF THEMSELVES?
The ALCU isn't evil, it's nanny state loving retards like you, who see no problem with giving someone the choice of "death or unconstitutional 'settlement' punishment", who are evil. People like you allow for the horrible programs referenced in my link, where an underage boy is sent to such a program, and is forced to wear a small mercury sensor on his penis, is forced to watch deviant pornography, and is electrocuted when he begins to get an erection.
Nowhere in the constitution does the word "gun" show up. The word used in the second amendment is "arms", which is a synonym for "weapons", not a particular kind of weapon. It could just as easily mean a pole-arm(a spear or halberd) or a nuclear arm(the bomb).
I'd have to disagree in one respect. Even though the Republicans have had plenty of power over the past 30 years, the federal government will spend over 25% of GDP in 2010. By contrast, the federal government of "Socialist" Canada will only spend 15% of GDP.
Americans are liberals who pretend to be conservatives; Socialists who pretend to be libertarians. 90% of their problem is with their unreal economy and unreal politics finally being usurped by reality.
I've said this for the better part of a decade, there's nothing conservative about Bush.
Real conservatism hasn't existed for 30 years, at least. Ford and Reagan showed that fiscal irresponsibility and massive liberal governments were vote getters.
The only real conservative is considered a whack-job. Ron Paul went and said "We should go back to the way we used to do things", and the left-wing republicans and the left-wing democrats both said "No way! This is completely unprecedented! Nothing like this has happened in the history of the world ever! We have to do something that's never been done before in the history of the world to compensate!"
When I was like 5, I stole a little tree kit from the store. I thought it was free because it said "FREE" on the display, but I guess it was "FREE (with purchase). So I walked out of the store.
I should have been drawn and quartered, literally. The screams of pain and horror in the town square as the executioner slowly cooked my intestines inch by inch with a blowtorch, before dragging my body behind a horse until I died would let the entire town know: Don't steal, kids. We'll fuck you up completely disproportionately do your crime.
This site documents the horrific things done in the name of "protecting the children" against "children who molest".
After being caught playing doctor, a pre-teen boy will be sentenced to a nightmarish "treatment", where they're forced in one part to repeat things like "I'm nothing but a disgusting filthy paedophile, I can never be trusted, because I'm a liar and I'll lie again", an in another part forced to strap a mercury sensor to his penis and forced to watch deviant pornography. If he begins to get an erection, he'll recieve an electric shock, or be forced to sniff ammonia.
We hate our children. Raping is too good for our children, so we've got to come up with the most mind-numbingly Nazi-esque methods to hurt them we possibly can, and we've got to treat them as non-humans in the courts so these horrible things remain legal while they'd be illegal in the case of an adult sexual predator.
Talk to someone from previous generations, and ask them about putting kids in jail for taking pictures of themselves, or for playing doctor, or for doing anything other than the worst crimes. We've NEVER treated kids this way before. This is a completely new ideology, a completely new attitude. You're a left-wing nutjob pretending to be upholding the values of the nation, while simultaneously latching onto the left-wing idea that the government has to protect you from cradle to grave from ever making a poor decision.
If you think your kid should be put on the sex offender list and barred from many occupations for the rest of their lives because they took a naughty picture of themselves, you're just as bad as the paedophiles, in my opinion -- You're still fucking children.
I was watching that supposed bastion of liberal strongholdedness, The Daily Show, and half the show was dedicated to bashing the Obama administration's handling of the various problems the country is facing.
Besides that, the Peter Schiffs and Ron Pauls of the world have been consistently criticising the methods used to get the economy back on track, ever since the exact same policies were tried under the mantle of Bush.
Slashdot Mirror
Ew, no fans.
I deal with reliability on a daily basis, and mechanical parts are a pain in the butt. They need huge amounts of maintenance to be able to give any dependability. If you can design without fans, then your system will be more reliable.
It'd take more engineering, but utilising convection currents to move air instead of fans will mean fewer components, which will mean greater reliability.
I'd say an online UPS as a component to help prevent premature power supply failure. It rectifies the signal at all times and creates a new perfect sinewave at all times. That'll get rid of transients and make your power supply far more reliable after you get past infant mortality.
My full solution would be a fanless rig, with RAID 1 for full redundancy of disks so if a hard disk fails, it doesn't take your data with it, and weekly backups to DAT tape stored off-site. Then I'd use a pair of power supplies, using a diode to prevent power from one from getting into the other, and a zener diode or 78 series linear regulators to ensure a failing supply can't overpower any one line. Then, from my little power circuit, the two power supplies would feed the one motherboard, which would be underclocked at reduced voltage. It would have the highest possible amount of RAM in it, because that would reduce the writes to the hard drives.
That should be reasonably reliable.
As opposed to the MSN network client that mysteriously shipped with every copy of windows for years and years?
You're right, I hadn't thought about it, but all Windows would have to do is check to see if a disk is in the drive, and act accordingly.
There's only 4 possibilities:
Disk in drive, shows 0
Disk in drive, shows 1
No disk in drive, shows 0
No disk in drive, shows 1
So checking during installation means you never need the user to do anything.
I dated a nurse's aide for about a year, and what always shocked me was how little she knew about the treatments she was suggesting. Every time I got a cold, she demanded we rush to the ER to get some penicillin.
Now, I'm not one of those assholes who thinks he knows everything, but I know that colds are caused by a virus, and penicillin doesn't work on viruses.
Since then, I've gone on the philosophy that just because someone who works in a hospital says something, doesn't mean it's gospel. I won't take it as *wrong*, but I'll take it with a grain of salt, like I do medical advice on the Internet.
Generally speaking, I don't use the friends feature on Slashdot. In fact, I haven't used it legitimately once. For a very short time, I figured I could friend my freaks, but that's all the people who are on it.
But nobody knows a goddamn thing about beer on the Internet, so finding another person with half a brain is so rare, I've added you unironically.
I was going to read your post, but it required a codec, and when Windows media player went to the Internet to get a codec for it, it couldn't find one.
I'm sort of surprised at the arguments.
Both VLC and mplayer are so insanely good, so much better than any alternatives, that it's kind of like arguing about whether you should drink belgian beer or german beer compared to drinking raw sewage.
The historical context really puts contemporary weapons at the time at odds with the meaning today.
Pikemen were the premier military unit in England for quite a long time, and weren't replaced by musketeer units until around 1660. This means that pole-arms were 90 years out of date at the time the constitution was created. Grenades wouldn't be a practical weapon until the 1800s(They were used extensively during the American civil war, but not in the revolutionary war).
It seems to me that limiting arms to the arms available in 1776, during a time of transition slightly after manual arms were eliminated as practical weapons, but slightly before most modern arms were invented, seems like using a historical accident to support limiting rights.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like guns, nor bombs. I'm happy I don't see people walking down the street with swords. I've never held any of the aforementioned weapons, and I have no desire to do so. I don't think weapons are the cure-all people make them out to be.
Regardless, rights are rights. All branches of government should religiously follow the constitution, and if the constitution says certain rights are not to be infringed, then it is their job to follow those rules without exception. If it is found that there is a practical need to have exceptions to the rules, then the constitution should be amended, rather than made insanely and stupidly convoluted by exceptions the Supreme court had no business creating.
Have you turned on the TV lately? Both political parties in the US are running on a platform of "ZOMG we have to be completely different than before because nothing has ever been like this in the history of the world ever!".
Contrast to someone like Ron Paul, who is saying "We used to be like this, and that worked well. We should go back to doing that."
I'm sorry, when you're taking massive amounts of money from productive industries and giving it to people who sit doing nothing in Germany or Japan -- 3 million troops around the world, most of whom are in non-warzones doing busy-work, I find it very difficult to discern between that and welfare, or some other useless bureaucracy.
It's one of the conceited little perversions of common sense you see a lot of in pop economics -- just like "The tech bubble will never burst" and "Housing prices will always go up".
Russia is extremely left-wing for Russia. Their capitalist economy is far different than anything the country has had before, and it's experiencing rather massive reforms at a fairly rapid pace.
Left/Right is about "new ideas vs. old ideas". Conservatives want to keep things the way they are, or go back to the way they once were (that's pretty much the definition of conservative, a synonym being traditionalist), while the lefties want to do something different (that's pretty much the definition of a liberal, a synonym being progressive).
It's spent on government. At the end of the day, the number is a barometer for the size of government, and the US government is larger than the nearest contemporary.
Your stories suggest that healthy sexual relationships are to be advocated and pursued, because they'd help prevent addiction to pornography.
So at what point did it become the state's business? Why are they allowed to force the children to either go to a course (and before we forget, Some of these "programs" are naziesque and inhuman travesties of basic human decency), or have their lives destroyed by being placed on a sexual offender registry FOR TAKING PICTURES OF THEMSELVES?
The ALCU isn't evil, it's nanny state loving retards like you, who see no problem with giving someone the choice of "death or unconstitutional 'settlement' punishment", who are evil. People like you allow for the horrible programs referenced in my link, where an underage boy is sent to such a program, and is forced to wear a small mercury sensor on his penis, is forced to watch deviant pornography, and is electrocuted when he begins to get an erection.
Nowhere in the constitution does the word "gun" show up. The word used in the second amendment is "arms", which is a synonym for "weapons", not a particular kind of weapon. It could just as easily mean a pole-arm(a spear or halberd) or a nuclear arm(the bomb).
I'd have to disagree in one respect. Even though the Republicans have had plenty of power over the past 30 years, the federal government will spend over 25% of GDP in 2010. By contrast, the federal government of "Socialist" Canada will only spend 15% of GDP.
Americans are liberals who pretend to be conservatives; Socialists who pretend to be libertarians. 90% of their problem is with their unreal economy and unreal politics finally being usurped by reality.
I've said this for the better part of a decade, there's nothing conservative about Bush.
Real conservatism hasn't existed for 30 years, at least. Ford and Reagan showed that fiscal irresponsibility and massive liberal governments were vote getters.
The only real conservative is considered a whack-job. Ron Paul went and said "We should go back to the way we used to do things", and the left-wing republicans and the left-wing democrats both said "No way! This is completely unprecedented! Nothing like this has happened in the history of the world ever! We have to do something that's never been done before in the history of the world to compensate!"
When I was like 5, I stole a little tree kit from the store. I thought it was free because it said "FREE" on the display, but I guess it was "FREE (with purchase). So I walked out of the store.
I should have been drawn and quartered, literally. The screams of pain and horror in the town square as the executioner slowly cooked my intestines inch by inch with a blowtorch, before dragging my body behind a horse until I died would let the entire town know: Don't steal, kids. We'll fuck you up completely disproportionately do your crime.
Actually, people have gotten into a lot of trouble for pictures like you describe.
This is fairly common.
This site documents the horrific things done in the name of "protecting the children" against "children who molest".
After being caught playing doctor, a pre-teen boy will be sentenced to a nightmarish "treatment", where they're forced in one part to repeat things like "I'm nothing but a disgusting filthy paedophile, I can never be trusted, because I'm a liar and I'll lie again", an in another part forced to strap a mercury sensor to his penis and forced to watch deviant pornography. If he begins to get an erection, he'll recieve an electric shock, or be forced to sniff ammonia.
We hate our children. Raping is too good for our children, so we've got to come up with the most mind-numbingly Nazi-esque methods to hurt them we possibly can, and we've got to treat them as non-humans in the courts so these horrible things remain legal while they'd be illegal in the case of an adult sexual predator.
You're no conservative.
Talk to someone from previous generations, and ask them about putting kids in jail for taking pictures of themselves, or for playing doctor, or for doing anything other than the worst crimes. We've NEVER treated kids this way before. This is a completely new ideology, a completely new attitude. You're a left-wing nutjob pretending to be upholding the values of the nation, while simultaneously latching onto the left-wing idea that the government has to protect you from cradle to grave from ever making a poor decision.
If you think your kid should be put on the sex offender list and barred from many occupations for the rest of their lives because they took a naughty picture of themselves, you're just as bad as the paedophiles, in my opinion -- You're still fucking children.
Great idea!
Instead of a vaguely embarassing photo being distributed, let's send these kids to jail and put them on a sex offender list!
Why let a fairly small mistake stay fairly small, when we can rape children so hard they'll walk bowlegged until they die of old age?
"Try turning off Fox News."
I was watching that supposed bastion of liberal strongholdedness, The Daily Show, and half the show was dedicated to bashing the Obama administration's handling of the various problems the country is facing.
Besides that, the Peter Schiffs and Ron Pauls of the world have been consistently criticising the methods used to get the economy back on track, ever since the exact same policies were tried under the mantle of Bush.
"Don't say anything negative about our black president. The nation's delicate sensibilities can't handle it."
You must be seeing different media than I am.
I'm constantly seeing criticism of Obama and his administration and his policies.