Oh, my god! How about completely owned by android + any source for mp3s? Who in their right mind cares? At this point, virtually anyone who cares knows better than to lock themselves in like this. What's really baffling is why they are even bothering with an obviously useless thing like this.
Going nuclear on windows is often the shortest route to fixing the problem. I had identical problems to the submitter which turned out to be driver issues. For some reason Nvidia drivers weren't working properly and only the EVGA supplied video drivers worked properly. Uninstalling the Nvidia drivers wasn't enough - I had to reinstall windows THEN used the EVGA drivers.
Drivers are not simple to get rid of in windows. Even after rolling back or uninstalling and deleting suspect drivers, often a wipe is the simplest, or only fix. If it doesn't work you have at least narrowed it down to hardware issues.
Music downloads are just a form of free advertising. Hell, people are falling all over themselves to write software to do it, set up websites to promote it and use them to get the music. The music industry doesn't have to do a thing. There's still a ton of money to be made on merchandising, touring, advertising, etc.. If only the music industry could just grasp this very basic point...
Since you apparently don't understand, I'll explain what's happening: The record companies are throwing the mother of all hissy-fits over the obsolescence of their business model. In the old days, there were no record companies and artists made their living by *performing*. Then along came radio and the phonograph. The music industry was born, which was based on selling overpriced pieces of plastic, along with radio revenue. The pieces of plastic evolved into CDs and eventually cost the consumer on average over $20 each. The consumer really never had any choice as prices were essentially being set by a cabal of large corporations. Sure, the consumer could hear music for free over ad-supported radio, but the record companies (and occasionally artists) got a cut from that, too. Existing IP law conveniently played nice with this model, since you had to buy a piece of plastic to choose when to play it for yourself or else listen to whatever the radio station decided to play - a process heavily and often illegally influenced by the corporations. (Perhaps you've never heard of payola?) The great thing was, plastic wore out fairly quickly so you would have to buy another. Magnetic tape media was even more unreliable but much more convenient - essentially a wash. When DAT reared it's ugly head, the music industry, not the market, had it killed in congress, since they were afraid people could make infinite perfect copies and kill the golden goose.
Then came the internet and this fear suddenly became reality: instant worldwide distribution with virtually zero production cost. They greedily tried to keep the juice flowing by blocking any effort to sell digital files over the net, but existing IP and copyright law did not play well with the new model. Naturally, piracy was rampant since the average consumer knew a better deal when they saw one and Napster was king. Then they managed to co-opt Napster but I-tunes finally set the standard by negotiating a price of a dollar a track. Please take note that this was a far worse deal for the consumer than a traditional CD, since they didn't even get their piece of plastic just a DRM-laden string of electronic bits kept on as tight a leash as possible. Pent up demand meant sales soared regardless, but so did piracy, which you correctly point out is a better deal for the consumer. However, the consumer finally gets to decide where and when to listen to music - sort of like self-programmed radio without the ads.
Copyright law says the record companies get exclusive rights to sell their pieces of plastic (or digital bits) for a hundred years - a number dreamed up by big corporations with no regard for the public interest. Compare this to patents for pharmaceuticals. Hundreds of millions of R&D dollars, rigorous government mandated and supervised testing and an end-product which often saves lives. For all this effort they get 20 years of exclusive rights, (provided the drug proves safe AND effective, both of which have to be scientifically proven prior to marketing) whereas any moron who pens a ditty basically gets automatic copyright (as per the Berne convention) for a century (no thanks to Sonny Bono). Clearly the interests of the general public got bypassed when it comes to modern copyright law.
It's not that whole concept if IP and copyright law is wrong, merely that it's far too heavily skewed against the consumer and was written without taking into account the realities of the digital age. Why should record companies continue to exist in their current form? Their core business of selling pieces of plastic is in serious trouble because the consumer sees no value in participating in that market. Those days are gone for good. Think: who still uses telegraph? If nobody wants records, why do we need a record industry? Recording and promotion; perhaps, but not so much for records or CD's. The new market is all digital, where consumers can get what they want instantly and on impulse. Nobody needs music to survive - it's a luxury. What will earn record
It's hard to believe someone is actually defending the actions of the RIAA, but I checked your posting history and no, you aren't joking. Although technically you are correct and under existing law you could use the term thieves, you conveniently ignore the fact that the RIAA has run the campaign more like a protection racket than as a legitimate campaign to prosecute (or educate, depending on which RIAA shill you believe) the supposed offenders. They've collected "evidence" illegally, ignored court orders, used questionable legal arguments and arguments based on legal principles that do not exist. Any time anyone actually chooses to fight them in court they walk away in order to prevent a precedent from being set. The large corporations backing the RIAA can't or won't adapt to the changing market and instead are attempting to use legislation to cling to a failing business model. The existing body of law was largely set before the internet came into being, and subsequent changes have been heavily influenced by the same large corporate copyright holders. Your average person doesn't understand IP and your average congressman knows who is buttering his bread. Their entire campaign is a sterling example of how a large moneyed interest can abuse the entire legal system both in the courts and in their efforts to influence the lawmaking process itself.
All this leads me to one question: Why are you so mindlessly insistent that the law is just?
Netstumbler is a great little program. I'm not sure how the author of the article could control how other people set up their routers (yes he could ask but would people actually cooperate?), so at least he could pick the channel with the least competition. A technically inclined person could also install this and increase the transmission power over the default. Swamp your neighbor's wifi signal! Impress your friends!
I have not actually installed or used this, since my wife would kill me if I accidentally bricked our router.
Life without real world experience is a bitch. In the near future Wal-mart jobs might be looking really great compared to starving and I'm not kidding. You may be surprised at the kinds of valuable experience you can gain from a shitty job.
Yeah, but it's an international problem. A guy from F-secure in Finland has been calling for the formation of an "internetpol" for exactly these reasons. I think he's right because otherwise international net crime will continue unabated, since nobody is in charge of combating it. An international body designed to coordinate.crime policing efforts is sorely needed.
ok, you what you're saying is there is never legal redress? What about defamation cases? Libel? Slander? Does that entire body of law not exist in your world? Idiot.
While I've not been to China, everything I've read leads me to believe that China can't control what's happening.
You're probably right, but is it can't or won't? Every report I've seen indicates they're completely focused on economic growth at the expense of everything else. They also tend to handle problems after the fact, which is understandable (and also how we usually do it). Every time there's some kind of incident, they set up rules and an enforcement agency (AND threaten to shoot people, as you said). What scares me is the financial markets. What will happen when their first big financial meltdown occurs?
The lack of a free press means nobody can make a stink when something bad is happening, or to expose the corrupt official allowing it to happen, or to demand creation of a regulatory body. I think this is going to cost them big time in the long run.
Did you think "free speech" meant one could only speak when it was free of consequences?
Quite the opposite. The internet seems to have given rise to the idea that all speech is consequence-free. Mind you I think the doctor in question is shooting himself in the foot with this lawsuit. If the doctor was clearly being accused of engaging in illegal practices, why should such claims be protected as free speech when they could materially damage his practice provided they were not in fact true?
How about this? Some asshole doctor rubs someone the wrong way, but does nothing illegal or wrong in any way. The abused person in question then launches a sock puppet campaign such that any online reference to the doctor includs large numbers of carefully parsed negative comments that could in no way be construed as libel, slander or defamation, but do in fact cause him harm by driving away potential patients. There is intent to harm the doctor on the part of the poster. Protected? Consequence-free?
All speech is not protected as free, nor should it be.
For any free speech issue on the Internet, there's someone to claim that it isn't one for some lame excuse or another.
Ok, I'll bite - are we talking about me or you?
So if someone commits a wrong against me, and I can't muster up enough objective evidence to prove it, I must remain silent about it upon penalty of law? Some free speech.
Stop trying to pretend that free speech means the right to say anything about anybody anytime and anywhere. Apply your statement to the doctor in question and see where it goes. There's two sides to the story. The whole legal concept of defamation of character exists because defamation can cause real damage, especially to a professional who's practice relies on his reputation. Except in this case the damage isn't penalty of law but loss of income because his practice tanks.
It's very possible that there is no legal basis for a libel claim. I really have no idea - the question of where to draw the line is truly muddy as you have effectively demonstrated. In this case the doctor has already lost because of the bad publicity for his practice, regardless of the truth of the claims. Some free speech.
Yup. Accusing someone of illegal activity (in this case insurance fraud) is serious business. If the guy is an asshole he deserves a poor reputation but that doesn't include being called a criminal. This isn't a free speech issue at all. Regardless of your opinion of chiropractors, free speech does not mean you can call someone a criminal unless you can prove it.
I got the creeps when I ran across the section of the CRC regarding the composition of various fats. One was labeled 'Depot Fat', and gave the fractions of its various constituents. Depot Fat is people!!! Ewwww!
cue clip of charlton heston running and screaming...
Being what could be generously called 'Portly', I've always wondered how long I'd burn if you stuck a wick in my tummy and lit it.
Hell, you probably sequester a day's carbon emissions for a small town! (j/k!)
I read somewhere that cases of supposed human spontaneous combustion were essentially low temperature fires fed by the cadaver's fat. The bones ash this way, leaving very little but a greasy burnt patch and a lot of questions. They tested it with sheep or something and they smoldered for a couple of days.
Yes, exactly. They took advantage of a tax write-off to make a capital investment that's paying off. It has NOTHING to do with the reasoning behind the policy, however flawed that reasoning might be. Do you want a cookie?
In all probability, the real carbon cost of manufacturing, transporting and installing those panels may have been easily outpaced by far simpler methods like increased insulation or turning down the thermostat a degree.
Now THAT is how the real world works. Congratulations on making a sound investment. Carbon trading is so obviously a useless bullshit scam. The real damage done is in the fact that people think it actually works and hence ignore other actually beneficial measures.
I'd love to do a parody website about the environmental benefits of obesity. After all, human fat is a fairly dense hydrocarbon. The fatter you become, the more carbon is sequestered. Imagine the environmental benefits if everyone in the US gained 30 lbs! A billion pounds of carbon sequestered! Woo-hoo!
...he market is going to win out Ahem. Have you read a newspaper recently?
Yes, and wintel boxes still rule the market by an overwhelming margin. I get my news online- where do you?
Anyway, you're correct that a cheap linux box would fill the bill nicely.
Not the 3rd world countries who might be too proud to purchase hand-me-downs. Too bad for them.
Careful, your cultural elitism is showing. Why are you so sure it's pride and not a well reasoned desire to buy something better than used machines of dubious parentage? There's plenty of charities shipping used boxes. A high profile effort like OLPC ought to aim higher. The problem is they aimed too high & thought they knew better than the rest of the world. Wintel boxes still rule for a reason - standardization isn't always a bad thing.
Should I refer to your "Dirty Conservative Christian Ass?"
You could, but you would be both wrong and also expose your lack of a sense of humor - something that often seems lacking in elitist liberal do-gooders who "know" they're right because they have good intentions.
Everything about Negroponte and the OLPC is elitist. The project was doomed to failure from the beginning and the only positive was the creation of the netbook market. They assumed (like do-gooders everywhere) that their good intentions would pave the way to success; now they blame evil bad everyone else when their pipe-dreams turn to shit in the face of reality.
A Thought Experiment: you are the Secretary of Education of a poor, small, rural and backward 3rd world nation with an even smaller budget. Do you: a) buy quirky, beta-quality hardware running quirky, beta-quality software that is only being peddled to other poor, small, rural and backward third world nations. OR b) go with mainstream hardware and mainstream software that does the same things the rest of the world is doing?
You're just as elitist as they are for assuming you know what's best for the aforementioned countries. Pull your head out of your dirty hippie ass - the market is going to win out and a successful OLPC project would seek to harness existing manufacturers rather than bypass them. Did you really think Intel and Microsoft would stand by and watch their paradigm be destroyed? Please note that I am neither defending nor condoning their actions but merely noting their inevitability.
The first thing you need to do is define your needs. If blackouts are only occasional, your planning is similar to planning a camping trip in your house.
My father has a professionally installed generator with all the bells and whistles - he lives south of Sarasota and has fairly frequent power outages due to the hurricanes. This was needed since the well water pump is electric. I first thought it was overkill, but he's in his 80's and can no longer deal with blackouts himself.
Unless you're need is both frequent and extreme, I'd suggest a decent sized kerosene heater and a 2000 watt gasoline generator. Both can be had fairly cheap. Kerosene keeps pretty well and two five gallon cans should be sufficient for your average blackout - and you can put a pot on top to heat food and water if you don't have a natural gas stove or gas service goes down. You can siphon gasoline from your car to keep the generator going - 2000 watts should be enough to run a refrigerator, some lights and maybe a computer. Water pipe heaters are fairly cheap and don't draw that many watts, but if you shut off the water at the main just as it comes into your house, you can drain the water from most of the pipes by opening all the taps.
So long as you make sure you have adequate ventilation, you now have an excellent opportunity to use up the canned goods in the pantry.
Price/performance can be a slippery thing but is certainly the most relevant item for anyone on a budget, but performance in what regard? A quick comparison of the cpu charts on Tom's Hardware shows that the newer quad core AMD X4 9950 gives virtually the same FPS performance score on crysis as the dual core 6000+. If you go down the charts point by point, you can easily see where the extra cores come in handy and where they don't. I'm sure a lot of people are mainly interested in gaming performance and I was rather surprised to see the relative lack of FPS improvement in this area for Crysis and other titles.
I read an article a long time ago claiming that people don't really notice a difference until something works about twice as fast as what they're used to. This makes sense from a purely human perspective and gaming enjoyment is certainly human thing. I've found that there isn't really a "wow" unless you simultaneously upgrade the cpu, ram and video card to something rated at roughly twice the power as the old machine. The trick is to wait until the new machine costs the same to build as the old one.
If you want a desktop sized machine, get a desktop? Radical idea?
I had a laptop with a 15.4" & with use I had no real problem with the layout. The trouble with it was that actually transporting it required infrastructure - a dedicated bag which naturally accrued a load of other crap. It was heavy & ate up a carry-on slot when I flew. As far as actually using it - it was fine & I had no real complaints.
Now I have a netbook with and 8.9" screen that slips into my briefcase. This DOES in fact have atrocious ergonomics, but the portability trade off is well worth it. The keyboard is still big enough to fit my fingers on the home keys for typing and is very usable if not comfortable. Well worth the trade off for semi-casual use.
High-end anything is for suckers. You never get what you pay for, especially with computer components. It's fairly simple to find the price/performance sweet spot for cpu's and graphics cards. IIRC Tom's hardware auto calculates this in their charts.
I routinely cut down on the graphics settings mainly because I usually can't tell the difference. The fun is never in how it looks anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, my god! How about completely owned by android + any source for mp3s? Who in their right mind cares? At this point, virtually anyone who cares knows better than to lock themselves in like this. What's really baffling is why they are even bothering with an obviously useless thing like this.
Going nuclear on windows is often the shortest route to fixing the problem. I had identical problems to the submitter which turned out to be driver issues. For some reason Nvidia drivers weren't working properly and only the EVGA supplied video drivers worked properly. Uninstalling the Nvidia drivers wasn't enough - I had to reinstall windows THEN used the EVGA drivers.
Drivers are not simple to get rid of in windows. Even after rolling back or uninstalling and deleting suspect drivers, often a wipe is the simplest, or only fix. If it doesn't work you have at least narrowed it down to hardware issues.
Music downloads are just a form of free advertising. Hell, people are falling all over themselves to write software to do it, set up websites to promote it and use them to get the music. The music industry doesn't have to do a thing. There's still a ton of money to be made on merchandising, touring, advertising, etc.. If only the music industry could just grasp this very basic point...
Since you apparently don't understand, I'll explain what's happening: The record companies are throwing the mother of all hissy-fits over the obsolescence of their business model. In the old days, there were no record companies and artists made their living by *performing*. Then along came radio and the phonograph. The music industry was born, which was based on selling overpriced pieces of plastic, along with radio revenue. The pieces of plastic evolved into CDs and eventually cost the consumer on average over $20 each. The consumer really never had any choice as prices were essentially being set by a cabal of large corporations. Sure, the consumer could hear music for free over ad-supported radio, but the record companies (and occasionally artists) got a cut from that, too. Existing IP law conveniently played nice with this model, since you had to buy a piece of plastic to choose when to play it for yourself or else listen to whatever the radio station decided to play - a process heavily and often illegally influenced by the corporations. (Perhaps you've never heard of payola?) The great thing was, plastic wore out fairly quickly so you would have to buy another. Magnetic tape media was even more unreliable but much more convenient - essentially a wash. When DAT reared it's ugly head, the music industry, not the market, had it killed in congress, since they were afraid people could make infinite perfect copies and kill the golden goose.
Then came the internet and this fear suddenly became reality: instant worldwide distribution with virtually zero production cost. They greedily tried to keep the juice flowing by blocking any effort to sell digital files over the net, but existing IP and copyright law did not play well with the new model. Naturally, piracy was rampant since the average consumer knew a better deal when they saw one and Napster was king. Then they managed to co-opt Napster but I-tunes finally set the standard by negotiating a price of a dollar a track. Please take note that this was a far worse deal for the consumer than a traditional CD, since they didn't even get their piece of plastic just a DRM-laden string of electronic bits kept on as tight a leash as possible. Pent up demand meant sales soared regardless, but so did piracy, which you correctly point out is a better deal for the consumer. However, the consumer finally gets to decide where and when to listen to music - sort of like self-programmed radio without the ads.
Copyright law says the record companies get exclusive rights to sell their pieces of plastic (or digital bits) for a hundred years - a number dreamed up by big corporations with no regard for the public interest. Compare this to patents for pharmaceuticals. Hundreds of millions of R&D dollars, rigorous government mandated and supervised testing and an end-product which often saves lives. For all this effort they get 20 years of exclusive rights, (provided the drug proves safe AND effective, both of which have to be scientifically proven prior to marketing) whereas any moron who pens a ditty basically gets automatic copyright (as per the Berne convention) for a century (no thanks to Sonny Bono). Clearly the interests of the general public got bypassed when it comes to modern copyright law.
It's not that whole concept if IP and copyright law is wrong, merely that it's far too heavily skewed against the consumer and was written without taking into account the realities of the digital age. Why should record companies continue to exist in their current form? Their core business of selling pieces of plastic is in serious trouble because the consumer sees no value in participating in that market. Those days are gone for good. Think: who still uses telegraph? If nobody wants records, why do we need a record industry? Recording and promotion; perhaps, but not so much for records or CD's. The new market is all digital, where consumers can get what they want instantly and on impulse. Nobody needs music to survive - it's a luxury. What will earn record
who says it's worth $0.99?
It's hard to believe someone is actually defending the actions of the RIAA, but I checked your posting history and no, you aren't joking. Although technically you are correct and under existing law you could use the term thieves, you conveniently ignore the fact that the RIAA has run the campaign more like a protection racket than as a legitimate campaign to prosecute (or educate, depending on which RIAA shill you believe) the supposed offenders. They've collected "evidence" illegally, ignored court orders, used questionable legal arguments and arguments based on legal principles that do not exist. Any time anyone actually chooses to fight them in court they walk away in order to prevent a precedent from being set. The large corporations backing the RIAA can't or won't adapt to the changing market and instead are attempting to use legislation to cling to a failing business model. The existing body of law was largely set before the internet came into being, and subsequent changes have been heavily influenced by the same large corporate copyright holders. Your average person doesn't understand IP and your average congressman knows who is buttering his bread. Their entire campaign is a sterling example of how a large moneyed interest can abuse the entire legal system both in the courts and in their efforts to influence the lawmaking process itself.
All this leads me to one question: Why are you so mindlessly insistent that the law is just?
Netstumbler is a great little program. I'm not sure how the author of the article could control how other people set up their routers (yes he could ask but would people actually cooperate?), so at least he could pick the channel with the least competition. A technically inclined person could also install this and increase the transmission power over the default. Swamp your neighbor's wifi signal! Impress your friends!
I have not actually installed or used this, since my wife would kill me if I accidentally bricked our router.
Life without real world experience is a bitch. In the near future Wal-mart jobs might be looking really great compared to starving and I'm not kidding. You may be surprised at the kinds of valuable experience you can gain from a shitty job.
Yeah, but it's an international problem. A guy from F-secure in Finland has been calling for the formation of an "internetpol" for exactly these reasons. I think he's right because otherwise international net crime will continue unabated, since nobody is in charge of combating it. An international body designed to coordinate .crime policing efforts is sorely needed.
ok, you what you're saying is there is never legal redress? What about defamation cases? Libel? Slander? Does that entire body of law not exist in your world? Idiot.
While I've not been to China, everything I've read leads me to believe that China can't control what's happening.
You're probably right, but is it can't or won't? Every report I've seen indicates they're completely focused on economic growth at the expense of everything else. They also tend to handle problems after the fact, which is understandable (and also how we usually do it). Every time there's some kind of incident, they set up rules and an enforcement agency (AND threaten to shoot people, as you said). What scares me is the financial markets. What will happen when their first big financial meltdown occurs?
The lack of a free press means nobody can make a stink when something bad is happening, or to expose the corrupt official allowing it to happen, or to demand creation of a regulatory body. I think this is going to cost them big time in the long run.
Did you think "free speech" meant one could only speak when it was free of consequences?
Quite the opposite. The internet seems to have given rise to the idea that all speech is consequence-free. Mind you I think the doctor in question is shooting himself in the foot with this lawsuit. If the doctor was clearly being accused of engaging in illegal practices, why should such claims be protected as free speech when they could materially damage his practice provided they were not in fact true?
How about this? Some asshole doctor rubs someone the wrong way, but does nothing illegal or wrong in any way. The abused person in question then launches a sock puppet campaign such that any online reference to the doctor includs large numbers of carefully parsed negative comments that could in no way be construed as libel, slander or defamation, but do in fact cause him harm by driving away potential patients. There is intent to harm the doctor on the part of the poster. Protected? Consequence-free?
All speech is not protected as free, nor should it be.
Amusingly, as long as you get a key (and assuming the pirate bay .iso you get isn't some virus-laden hack job) the torrent method will be faster.
For any free speech issue on the Internet, there's someone to claim that it isn't one for some lame excuse or another.
Ok, I'll bite - are we talking about me or you?
So if someone commits a wrong against me, and I can't muster up enough objective evidence to prove it, I must remain silent about it upon penalty of law? Some free speech.
Stop trying to pretend that free speech means the right to say anything about anybody anytime and anywhere. Apply your statement to the doctor in question and see where it goes. There's two sides to the story. The whole legal concept of defamation of character exists because defamation can cause real damage, especially to a professional who's practice relies on his reputation. Except in this case the damage isn't penalty of law but loss of income because his practice tanks.
It's very possible that there is no legal basis for a libel claim. I really have no idea - the question of where to draw the line is truly muddy as you have effectively demonstrated. In this case the doctor has already lost because of the bad publicity for his practice, regardless of the truth of the claims. Some free speech.
Yup. Accusing someone of illegal activity (in this case insurance fraud) is serious business. If the guy is an asshole he deserves a poor reputation but that doesn't include being called a criminal. This isn't a free speech issue at all. Regardless of your opinion of chiropractors, free speech does not mean you can call someone a criminal unless you can prove it.
I got the creeps when I ran across the section of the CRC regarding the composition of various fats. One was labeled 'Depot Fat', and gave the fractions of its various constituents. Depot Fat is people!!! Ewwww!
cue clip of charlton heston running and screaming...
Being what could be generously called 'Portly', I've always wondered how long I'd burn if you stuck a wick in my tummy and lit it.
Hell, you probably sequester a day's carbon emissions for a small town! (j/k!)
I read somewhere that cases of supposed human spontaneous combustion were essentially low temperature fires fed by the cadaver's fat. The bones ash this way, leaving very little but a greasy burnt patch and a lot of questions. They tested it with sheep or something and they smoldered for a couple of days.
Yes, exactly. They took advantage of a tax write-off to make a capital investment that's paying off. It has NOTHING to do with the reasoning behind the policy, however flawed that reasoning might be. Do you want a cookie?
In all probability, the real carbon cost of manufacturing, transporting and installing those panels may have been easily outpaced by far simpler methods like increased insulation or turning down the thermostat a degree.
Oatmeal or chocolate chip?
Now THAT is how the real world works. Congratulations on making a sound investment. Carbon trading is so obviously a useless bullshit scam. The real damage done is in the fact that people think it actually works and hence ignore other actually beneficial measures.
I'd love to do a parody website about the environmental benefits of obesity. After all, human fat is a fairly dense hydrocarbon. The fatter you become, the more carbon is sequestered. Imagine the environmental benefits if everyone in the US gained 30 lbs! A billion pounds of carbon sequestered! Woo-hoo!
...he market is going to win out Ahem. Have you read a newspaper recently?
Yes, and wintel boxes still rule the market by an overwhelming margin. I get my news online- where do you?
Anyway, you're correct that a cheap linux box would fill the bill nicely.
Not the 3rd world countries who might be too proud to purchase hand-me-downs. Too bad for them.
Careful, your cultural elitism is showing. Why are you so sure it's pride and not a well reasoned desire to buy something better than used machines of dubious parentage? There's plenty of charities shipping used boxes. A high profile effort like OLPC ought to aim higher. The problem is they aimed too high & thought they knew better than the rest of the world. Wintel boxes still rule for a reason - standardization isn't always a bad thing.
Should I refer to your "Dirty Conservative Christian Ass?"
You could, but you would be both wrong and also expose your lack of a sense of humor - something that often seems lacking in elitist liberal do-gooders who "know" they're right because they have good intentions.
Everything about Negroponte and the OLPC is elitist. The project was doomed to failure from the beginning and the only positive was the creation of the netbook market. They assumed (like do-gooders everywhere) that their good intentions would pave the way to success; now they blame evil bad everyone else when their pipe-dreams turn to shit in the face of reality.
A Thought Experiment: you are the Secretary of Education of a poor, small, rural and backward 3rd world nation with an even smaller budget. Do you:
a) buy quirky, beta-quality hardware running quirky, beta-quality software that is only being peddled to other poor, small, rural and backward third world nations.
OR
b) go with mainstream hardware and mainstream software that does the same things the rest of the world is doing?
You're just as elitist as they are for assuming you know what's best for the aforementioned countries. Pull your head out of your dirty hippie ass - the market is going to win out and a successful OLPC project would seek to harness existing manufacturers rather than bypass them. Did you really think Intel and Microsoft would stand by and watch their paradigm be destroyed? Please note that I am neither defending nor condoning their actions but merely noting their inevitability.
I did mention the pipe heaters - the point was you would only need to heat a few feet of pipe. 1+1=......
The first thing you need to do is define your needs. If blackouts are only occasional, your planning is similar to planning a camping trip in your house.
My father has a professionally installed generator with all the bells and whistles - he lives south of Sarasota and has fairly frequent power outages due to the hurricanes. This was needed since the well water pump is electric. I first thought it was overkill, but he's in his 80's and can no longer deal with blackouts himself.
Unless you're need is both frequent and extreme, I'd suggest a decent sized kerosene heater and a 2000 watt gasoline generator. Both can be had fairly cheap. Kerosene keeps pretty well and two five gallon cans should be sufficient for your average blackout - and you can put a pot on top to heat food and water if you don't have a natural gas stove or gas service goes down. You can siphon gasoline from your car to keep the generator going - 2000 watts should be enough to run a refrigerator, some lights and maybe a computer. Water pipe heaters are fairly cheap and don't draw that many watts, but if you shut off the water at the main just as it comes into your house, you can drain the water from most of the pipes by opening all the taps.
So long as you make sure you have adequate ventilation, you now have an excellent opportunity to use up the canned goods in the pantry.
Price/performance can be a slippery thing but is certainly the most relevant item for anyone on a budget, but performance in what regard? A quick comparison of the cpu charts on Tom's Hardware shows that the newer quad core AMD X4 9950 gives virtually the same FPS performance score on crysis as the dual core 6000+. If you go down the charts point by point, you can easily see where the extra cores come in handy and where they don't. I'm sure a lot of people are mainly interested in gaming performance and I was rather surprised to see the relative lack of FPS improvement in this area for Crysis and other titles.
I read an article a long time ago claiming that people don't really notice a difference until something works about twice as fast as what they're used to. This makes sense from a purely human perspective and gaming enjoyment is certainly human thing. I've found that there isn't really a "wow" unless you simultaneously upgrade the cpu, ram and video card to something rated at roughly twice the power as the old machine. The trick is to wait until the new machine costs the same to build as the old one.
If you want a desktop sized machine, get a desktop? Radical idea?
I had a laptop with a 15.4" & with use I had no real problem with the layout. The trouble with it was that actually transporting it required infrastructure - a dedicated bag which naturally accrued a load of other crap. It was heavy & ate up a carry-on slot when I flew. As far as actually using it - it was fine & I had no real complaints.
Now I have a netbook with and 8.9" screen that slips into my briefcase. This DOES in fact have atrocious ergonomics, but the portability trade off is well worth it. The keyboard is still big enough to fit my fingers on the home keys for typing and is very usable if not comfortable. Well worth the trade off for semi-casual use.
Nope, it just sounds like it.
High-end anything is for suckers. You never get what you pay for, especially with computer components. It's fairly simple to find the price/performance sweet spot for cpu's and graphics cards. IIRC Tom's hardware auto calculates this in their charts.
I routinely cut down on the graphics settings mainly because I usually can't tell the difference. The fun is never in how it looks anyway.