Most of this comes from building biomedical research laboratories, but the principals still apply. I'll go from top to bottom.
1) Ceiling/Lighting: A light colored ceiling will help with indirect lighting. A couple of coats of paint will make a HUGE difference in how you see things - literally. Use long, narrow light fixtures - fluorescent, cool white. The fixture should be over the benchtop with the outside edge of the fixture lined up with the outside edge of the benchtop.
2) Shelving. Use unistrut/kindorf strut as shelving standards, mounted verticallt to the wall every +- 4 feet. Mount about 12" off the benchtop and run to within 1' of the ceiling. Mount these as securely as possible, as everything alse will hang off them. Now mount shelves or even cabinets using shelf brackets and spring-nuts. One neat trick is to have the depth of the shelves increase as they get closer to the ceiling. Top shelf for big, light, rarely used stuff, bottom shelf for every day small stuff.
3) Electrical/Communications: Across the bottom of the Unistrut standards, run surface mount electrical raceway aka Wiremold. Try getting the stuff that has 2 separate raceways - 1 for wire, one for communications.
4) Mechanical services: Compressed air is always good, both for blowing out cases and quickly cleaning your benchtop.
5) Benchtop: If it was a lab the only choices are epoxe or phenolic resin. For you, go with masonite, for all the reasons others have mentioned. I'd advise against rubber or metal. Rubber is irritating when trying to clean, and also hinders repositioning stuff on the benchtop - everything must be picked up, not slid. As for metal, it's too hard; if you drop something, you want to damage the benchtop, not the component.
6) Bench Components: Generally use standing height (36" +-) components. That way, you can alternate between standing and sitting on a high stool. If you use cabinets, leave a "kneehole" where you can sit and put your legs.
7) Floor: Smooth and cleanable is the key. We use a lot of vinyl tile in labs, wiht seamless sheet vinyl and engineered epoxy coatings where there are special requirements. Epoxy painted concrete is good. Stick with light colors with a light pattern: dropped components will show up well, but the patterning will hide the dirt.
8) FIRE EXTINGUISHER! Mount at waist level near the door you would use to exit in a hurry.
I knew a guy whose roomate did the same for him, except with a cassette deck on timer. The stereo was across the room on a shelf. He had to get out of his bunk, stumble across, and turn it off. He was pretty damned awake by then.
Selection #1: Pink Floyd, "Time" (Obviously). If the sound of all those alarm clocks going off - with the amp turned up to 11 - doesn't wake you up, call the hospital: you are dead.
Selection #2: AC/DC, "Hell's Bells". If you think you can make it through Big Ben striking, you'll never last through the guitar that follows.
The way licensing works in building design and construction basically boils down to the idea that some SINGLE PERSON holds responsibility. Building codes require that construction documents be stamped by a professional architect (or engineer), whose qualifications are also set down in state law. That person: - Is responsible for the design complying with codes (also set in law) - Bears legal responsibility for errors and omissions, for which insurance is carried. - Does NOT have to be the person drawing the drawings or writing the specs. But if they are screwed up, it's his ass on the line, not his flunkies. It's up to him to discipline his people. - Is NOT required to design every little thing. There are situations where local building codes do not apply, and therefor the drawings do not need to be stamped (some federal and military construction projects come to mind)
Why can't this work with software? Lets assume the Feds and State gov'ts require that ALL software purchased by them must be "stamped" by a licensed developer, said license to meet the requirements of etc, etc.
If some entity (individual, corporation) wants to sell their software to the gov't., there must be a "stamp" on it. That means that some INDIVIDUAL PERSON is saying "It complies with the codes (design practices?) under which it has been designed. That person carries the insurance, and can be held legally liable if something REALLY BAD (tm) happens.
Proprietary Source: Company M makes an operating system that they want to sell to the Gov't. Company M has a few individuals with PSD (Professional Software Developer) stamps who are the development team leaders. Company M pays their professional licensing fees and insurance. The PSD may not have read a single line of the code in question, but if he stamps it, it goes out the door. Company M pays out the ass for insurance, because the insurance company can't see the code, and therefor is taking a big risk. Cost of software is high. As for non-Gov't customers, Company M is in a quandary: either sell only the PSD stamped version with all the insurance load, or sell a "secure" version and a... well... "not so secure" version. They can't say that they are the same, because they can't prove it without opening the source.
Open Source/GPL: Mr. L has an OS that the Gov't wants to use, but Mr. L isn't a PSD and doesn't want to be. So the Crimson Chapeaux Company says "Hey - OUR PSD will stamp it and we'll carry the insurance." Insurance is cheap because the code is right there for review. Also note that The CCC is not *selling* Mr. L's software; they are selling the service of providing a real live person for the Gov't to go after if something bad should happen. In the meantime, non Government types that want to use Mr. L's OS don't have to pay for the PSD stamp, but they get all of the benefits, because there is no difference between the PSD stamped software and non-PSD stamped.
As much as I'd like to claim credit, I cannot. There has been joke piping specification floating around the construction industry for years - the pipefitters version of the Pigeon RFC.
Actually, I just googled for it: http://www.eng-tips.com/gviewthread.cfm/lev2/ 16/le v3/58/pid/378/qid/58889 http://www.netfunny.com/r hf/jokes/87/14917.23.html
My wife has been doing this for 8 years, starting with pictures of my daughter. Now there are 5 grandkids, so my wife has a matrix of what photos go into whose calendars.
Oh yeah, and everyones birthdays.
This leads to multiple copies of different calendars, with the attendent mistakes, etc.
You forgot "And I want to do it as cheaply as possible, preferably only spending the breath it takes to say 'Waaahhhhh'".
Apparently people are building "server rooms" with 1. No cooling 2. No power 3. No effing sense and are then asking to be rescued. It's like asking Lucy VanPelt for therapy.
By "content", I was referring to all the "exclusive" AOL only features - chat rooms, etc. Yes, I know that all of that is available elsewhere and better, but it is still nominally AOL exclusive.
Today on NPR there was a story about a conference here in the PRM (People's Republic of Maryland) about e-voting. One salesman representing the company that makes all of Denmark's (I think) voting machines. They don't require a paper trail, and he thought the Americans were being silly. His machines are so accurate that if the entire population of the world voted, there would be one error on his machines. The population of Denmark is just fine trusting the machines.
The only "problem" with the current systems is that they rely on poll workers to DO something. If one reads between the lines about the claims made by the machine manufacturers and the voting officials, the future of voting is as follows:
People come to vote, verify their registration, and walk up to a machine. They enter their votes in the machine and walk away. The machine tallies the votes and transmits the totals to a server, that then spits out the election results.
In this process, there is no human intervention needed whatsoever. Aside from the people verifying registration, there is no one. Don't understand English? The machines have other languages. Blind? Choices are read to you by machine. Tallying votes? Done automatically. Transporting results? Already done. Judging questionable ballots? No need - there are no "ballots" to review.
100% voter anonymity, 100% accuracy, 0% human involvement. Security isn't as important as these goals to election officials - they're only requirement is to be saved from looking as bad as Katherine Harris (FL Sec. of State) on TV.
Keep in mind that the limit for individuals to contribute is $2000. Normally, that money gets raised by fund raisers that collect, lets say, 100 checks from different people, each for $2000. Then they present them to the candidate with a bow on them and say "Here's $200,000."
Dean has merely bypassed the "fund raiser" part, and is using the internet to be his go between.
Also, just because Dean is doing great at internet fund raising doesn't mean that he has a monopoly on it. Believe it or not, there are a LOT of middle income Republicans who can't give $2000, but might cough up $50-100 with the right approach. It may not happen this election cycle, but one thing the Republicans know how to do is raise money, and now that the potential of Internet fund raising has been shown, they are going to be all over it.
All I did was relate how military weapons and terrorist weapons are different in design, goals, and execution. I was taking issue with the parent post that suggested that this guy had the ability to provide military cruise missiles a rediculously less cost.
Do missiles fail in flight and go errant? Of course. Does poor intelligence put missiles on the wrong target? Happens all the time. Didn't mention either in my post. As for "call anything other than a military cruise missle automatically a Terrorist weapon is just rediculous", I didn't. Don't reply to what isn't there.
And for the record, I think the guy is getting a raw deal. Basically, he warned against the possibility of terrorists building "cruise missiles", and was ridiculed. So he put his money where his mouth was - quite literally. In retrospect, perhaps not the best idea, but not illegal. Just because an activity is legal does not mean it's a good idea.
Military cruise missile: a precision weapon to get a large explosive (500#, I think), onto a small target so as to maximize target damage and minimize collateral damage.
Terrorist cruise missile: a crude weapon to get an indeterminate payload (chemical, biological, radiological) to a target with minimal accuracy required. There is no distinction between target damage and collateral damage; in effect, the collateral IS the target.
Hardware testing is done because there are a number of Government regulations that require it (FCC, CPSC), product liability requires it, and the common law treats hardware just like any other property. After those minimums are met, the free market kicks in, driving toward better reliability/lower cost/pretty design - whatever the market wants at a given moment.
Software is a new animal, and neither the government nor the common law has caught up with it. (Hollerith cards @ 100 y/o vs. the Code of Hammurabi @ 1000's y/o.) As a result, software makers have had free reign in the market, because there is no mechanism that sets minimum standards. Seemingly absurd licensing practices are not challenged because there are few on-point cases in the common law and our legislators simply don't have the mental prowess to see software as a different class of stuff - part real property, part intellectual property, part printed word, part device. Nor do they have any incentive to work the problem out.
One of 2 things must happen to get software on the same footing as hardware:
1) Legislative action addressing the fundamental nature of software and how the law will treat it (I personally favor killing both software copyright AND patents and coming up with a 3rd classification)
2) Bold precedents in the common law to extend existing legal concepts to the current situation - unconscionable clauses applied to EULA's, detrimental reliance, or recongizing tort claims by users against software makers.
Either one will take someone, either judge or legislator, with some real balls. Other than that, don't hold your breath.
How about if those controlling the root servers shut down the machines simultaneously for 1 day, and lets see what happens. I think then we will have the truest picture of who "governs" the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of this comes from building biomedical research laboratories, but the principals still apply. I'll go from top to bottom.
1) Ceiling/Lighting: A light colored ceiling will help with indirect lighting. A couple of coats of paint will make a HUGE difference in how you see things - literally. Use long, narrow light fixtures - fluorescent, cool white. The fixture should be over the benchtop with the outside edge of the fixture lined up with the outside edge of the benchtop.
2) Shelving. Use unistrut/kindorf strut as shelving standards, mounted verticallt to the wall every +- 4 feet. Mount about 12" off the benchtop and run to within 1' of the ceiling. Mount these as securely as possible, as everything alse will hang off them. Now mount shelves or even cabinets using shelf brackets and spring-nuts. One neat trick is to have the depth of the shelves increase as they get closer to the ceiling. Top shelf for big, light, rarely used stuff, bottom shelf for every day small stuff.
3) Electrical/Communications: Across the bottom of the Unistrut standards, run surface mount electrical raceway aka Wiremold. Try getting the stuff that has 2 separate raceways - 1 for wire, one for communications.
4) Mechanical services: Compressed air is always good, both for blowing out cases and quickly cleaning your benchtop.
5) Benchtop: If it was a lab the only choices are epoxe or phenolic resin. For you, go with masonite, for all the reasons others have mentioned. I'd advise against rubber or metal. Rubber is irritating when trying to clean, and also hinders repositioning stuff on the benchtop - everything must be picked up, not slid. As for metal, it's too hard; if you drop something, you want to damage the benchtop, not the component.
6) Bench Components: Generally use standing height (36" +-) components. That way, you can alternate between standing and sitting on a high stool. If you use cabinets, leave a "kneehole" where you can sit and put your legs.
7) Floor: Smooth and cleanable is the key. We use a lot of vinyl tile in labs, wiht seamless sheet vinyl and engineered epoxy coatings where there are special requirements. Epoxy painted concrete is good. Stick with light colors with a light pattern: dropped components will show up well, but the patterning will hide the dirt.
8) FIRE EXTINGUISHER! Mount at waist level near the door you would use to exit in a hurry.
9) Misc: Task lighting, vise, etc.
I knew a guy whose roomate did the same for him, except with a cassette deck on timer. The stereo was across the room on a shelf. He had to get out of his bunk, stumble across, and turn it off. He was pretty damned awake by then.
Selection #1: Pink Floyd, "Time" (Obviously). If the sound of all those alarm clocks going off - with the amp turned up to 11 - doesn't wake you up, call the hospital: you are dead.
Selection #2: AC/DC, "Hell's Bells". If you think you can make it through Big Ben striking, you'll never last through the guitar that follows.
Hmmm - MP3, & a cron job?
The way licensing works in building design and construction basically boils down to the idea that some SINGLE PERSON holds responsibility. Building codes require that construction documents be stamped by a professional architect (or engineer), whose qualifications are also set down in state law. That person:
... well ... "not so secure" version. They can't say that they are the same, because they can't prove it without opening the source.
- Is responsible for the design complying with codes (also set in law)
- Bears legal responsibility for errors and omissions, for which insurance is carried.
- Does NOT have to be the person drawing the drawings or writing the specs. But if they are screwed up, it's his ass on the line, not his flunkies. It's up to him to discipline his people.
- Is NOT required to design every little thing. There are situations where local building codes do not apply, and therefor the drawings do not need to be stamped (some federal and military construction projects come to mind)
Why can't this work with software? Lets assume the Feds and State gov'ts require that ALL software purchased by them must be "stamped" by a licensed developer, said license to meet the requirements of etc, etc.
If some entity (individual, corporation) wants to sell their software to the gov't., there must be a "stamp" on it. That means that some INDIVIDUAL PERSON is saying "It complies with the codes (design practices?) under which it has been designed. That person carries the insurance, and can be held legally liable if something REALLY BAD (tm) happens.
Proprietary Source: Company M makes an operating system that they want to sell to the Gov't. Company M has a few individuals with PSD (Professional Software Developer) stamps who are the development team leaders. Company M pays their professional licensing fees and insurance. The PSD may not have read a single line of the code in question, but if he stamps it, it goes out the door. Company M pays out the ass for insurance, because the insurance company can't see the code, and therefor is taking a big risk. Cost of software is high. As for non-Gov't customers, Company M is in a quandary: either sell only the PSD stamped version with all the insurance load, or sell a "secure" version and a
Open Source/GPL: Mr. L has an OS that the Gov't wants to use, but Mr. L isn't a PSD and doesn't want to be. So the Crimson Chapeaux Company says "Hey - OUR PSD will stamp it and we'll carry the insurance." Insurance is cheap because the code is right there for review. Also note that The CCC is not *selling* Mr. L's software; they are selling the service of providing a real live person for the Gov't to go after if something bad should happen. In the meantime, non Government types that want to use Mr. L's OS don't have to pay for the PSD stamp, but they get all of the benefits, because there is no difference between the PSD stamped software and non-PSD stamped.
This could work, folks.
Can I have your old Model M's?
As much as I'd like to claim credit, I cannot. There has been joke piping specification floating around the construction industry for years - the pipefitters version of the Pigeon RFC.
/ 16/le v3/58/pid/378/qid/58889r hf/jokes/87/14917.23.html
Actually, I just googled for it:
http://www.eng-tips.com/gviewthread.cfm/lev2
http://www.netfunny.com/
It can get far more involved than that.
My wife has been doing this for 8 years, starting with pictures of my daughter. Now there are 5 grandkids, so my wife has a matrix of what photos go into whose calendars.
Oh yeah, and everyones birthdays.
This leads to multiple copies of different calendars, with the attendent mistakes, etc.
Next year I think we give fruitcake.
"Piping" is a long hole surrounded by a solid material, often metal, to form a shape commonly referred to as "tubular", or "pipular."
You forgot "And I want to do it as cheaply as possible, preferably only spending the breath it takes to say 'Waaahhhhh'".
Apparently people are building "server rooms" with
1. No cooling
2. No power
3. No effing sense
and are then asking to be rescued. It's like asking Lucy VanPelt for therapy.
The Doctor is OUT.
By "content", I was referring to all the "exclusive" AOL only features - chat rooms, etc. Yes, I know that all of that is available elsewhere and better, but it is still nominally AOL exclusive.
Fact: Afer the disastrous merger, the TW people are re-gaining control of AOL/TW.
Fact: The AOL name is mud in the business world and approaching mud (slurry?) in the consumer world.
Fact: AOL has few friends among those regaining control of AOL/TW.
Predictions:
1. AOL/TW will drop the AOL part and revert to Time-Warner.
2. TW will start migrating AOL's content (such as it is) to TW branded properties.
3. AOL will start migrating its dial up subscribers to the Netscape branded service. "Just a name change."
4. Finally, AOL will cease to function as an ISP, and will channel everything through AOL.com, which will also eventually just whither away.
Good riddance.
And you can have your choice of keyboards:
IBM Model M
Omnikey 102
Ortek MCK-142
All nice & clicky...Oh.
Nevermind.
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/20/23 59209&mode=nested&tid=126&tid=137
/ 05 45253&mode=nested&tid=126&tid=134
/ 13 9215&mode=nested&tid=137
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/22
http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/14
Or search for "cooling" in Ask Slashdot.
I'll boil it down for you:
1: Get professional help (arch, engineer, contractor)
2: Repeat #1.
I was paraphrasing (my phonographic memory is on the fritz). He definitely meant a 1 vote error. 1 vote error in 6 billion cast - sure.
I wonder if the Danish leaders really were the election winners. I guess we'll never know.
Today on NPR there was a story about a conference here in the PRM (People's Republic of Maryland) about e-voting. One salesman representing the company that makes all of Denmark's (I think) voting machines. They don't require a paper trail, and he thought the Americans were being silly. His machines are so accurate that if the entire population of the world voted, there would be one error on his machines. The population of Denmark is just fine trusting the machines.
I almost spit my soda all over the dashboard.
The only "problem" with the current systems is that they rely on poll workers to DO something. If one reads between the lines about the claims made by the machine manufacturers and the voting officials, the future of voting is as follows:
People come to vote, verify their registration, and walk up to a machine. They enter their votes in the machine and walk away. The machine tallies the votes and transmits the totals to a server, that then spits out the election results.
In this process, there is no human intervention needed whatsoever. Aside from the people verifying registration, there is no one. Don't understand English? The machines have other languages. Blind? Choices are read to you by machine. Tallying votes? Done automatically. Transporting results? Already done. Judging questionable ballots? No need - there are no "ballots" to review.
100% voter anonymity, 100% accuracy, 0% human involvement. Security isn't as important as these goals to election officials - they're only requirement is to be saved from looking as bad as Katherine Harris (FL Sec. of State) on TV.
Keep in mind that the limit for individuals to contribute is $2000. Normally, that money gets raised by fund raisers that collect, lets say, 100 checks from different people, each for $2000. Then they present them to the candidate with a bow on them and say "Here's $200,000."
Dean has merely bypassed the "fund raiser" part, and is using the internet to be his go between.
Also, just because Dean is doing great at internet fund raising doesn't mean that he has a monopoly on it. Believe it or not, there are a LOT of middle income Republicans who can't give $2000, but might cough up $50-100 with the right approach. It may not happen this election cycle, but one thing the Republicans know how to do is raise money, and now that the potential of Internet fund raising has been shown, they are going to be all over it.
And here:o n+mouse
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=3+butt
Yet again, Google is your friend.
"Sometimes when the meteorite hits the atmosphere,"
Last time I checked, the atmosphere was made of air.
The air is indeed creating the sound, just not in the usual manner.
Lighten up, Francis.
All I did was relate how military weapons and terrorist weapons are different in design, goals, and execution. I was taking issue with the parent post that suggested that this guy had the ability to provide military cruise missiles a rediculously less cost.
Do missiles fail in flight and go errant? Of course. Does poor intelligence put missiles on the wrong target? Happens all the time. Didn't mention either in my post. As for "call anything other than a military cruise missle automatically a Terrorist weapon is just rediculous", I didn't. Don't reply to what isn't there.
And for the record, I think the guy is getting a raw deal. Basically, he warned against the possibility of terrorists building "cruise missiles", and was ridiculed. So he put his money where his mouth was - quite literally. In retrospect, perhaps not the best idea, but not illegal. Just because an activity is legal does not mean it's a good idea.
Not really...
Military cruise missile: a precision weapon to get a large explosive (500#, I think), onto a small target so as to maximize target damage and minimize collateral damage.
Terrorist cruise missile: a crude weapon to get an indeterminate payload (chemical, biological, radiological) to a target with minimal accuracy required. There is no distinction between target damage and collateral damage; in effect, the collateral IS the target.
Hardware testing is done because there are a number of Government regulations that require it (FCC, CPSC), product liability requires it, and the common law treats hardware just like any other property. After those minimums are met, the free market kicks in, driving toward better reliability/lower cost/pretty design - whatever the market wants at a given moment.
Software is a new animal, and neither the government nor the common law has caught up with it. (Hollerith cards @ 100 y/o vs. the Code of Hammurabi @ 1000's y/o.) As a result, software makers have had free reign in the market, because there is no mechanism that sets minimum standards. Seemingly absurd licensing practices are not challenged because there are few on-point cases in the common law and our legislators simply don't have the mental prowess to see software as a different class of stuff - part real property, part intellectual property, part printed word, part device. Nor do they have any incentive to work the problem out.
One of 2 things must happen to get software on the same footing as hardware:
1) Legislative action addressing the fundamental nature of software and how the law will treat it (I personally favor killing both software copyright AND patents and coming up with a 3rd classification)
2) Bold precedents in the common law to extend existing legal concepts to the current situation - unconscionable clauses applied to EULA's, detrimental reliance, or recongizing tort claims by users against software makers.
Either one will take someone, either judge or legislator, with some real balls. Other than that, don't hold your breath.
Boss gets a new laptop, has Win2k on it. 1st question: "Where are the games?"
Like an idiot, I find them on his machine and drag them to his desktop.
Now it's either freestyle, porn, or travel reservations - I don't know that he's even opened any other applications, much less done any work.
http://www.dataq.com/products/startkit/di194rs.htm
$25 data logger, analog & digital inputs. Use an RTD for temp.
"Where oh where is freedom of expression in all this?"
Probably one of those "penumbra" things.
How about if those controlling the root servers shut down the machines simultaneously for 1 day, and lets see what happens. I think then we will have the truest picture of who "governs" the internet.