I have a 45 watt CPU. I'm going to assume for simplicity's sake that all other power drain is roughly equal and they only burning CPU time. We'll say, for the ease of the numbers, it burns 4 watts idle, so the ramp up to full cpu is 41 watts. That gives me 1 Kilowatt-hour per day. I pay about 8 cents a kilowatt-hour. So the way I figure it, for my two computers, I'm donating about $2.40 a month to cancer research with folding@home.
Boiling point is directly related to pressure. As pressure drops, so does the boiling point. That's why you have to be careful of cooking at higher altitudes. In general terms, the lack of air pressure makes things happen at lower temperatures, so things take longer to cook, because even though water is boiling, it's not as hot.
Or, to think of it another way, the state of matter is a function of how much it gets pushed together. H20 is liquid until it has enough energy for the molecules moving around in it to push against the molecules of atmosphere and escape from the mass. When it loses that energy, it gets forced back together. Less air pressure means less stuff pushing in means less energy is needed to escape. It's not an entirely perfect mental picture, but it'll get you close.
Without more details, you can't apply that label. Child porn is never legal, but not all naked pictures of children is child porn, even though I'd like to see Anne Geddes stopped as much as the next guy.
Body parts aren't allowed in the drain, ever. At the very best it's improper disposal of hazardous waste.
However, if a mechanic sees an extremely large pile of money in a briefcase, in your car, he shouldn't call the cops because it could be drug money.
It may be that the odds of it being illegal are very high, but he's got no business looking anywhere but under the hood, and there are legal reasons to have large sums of money.
The fine print on those adds blow my mind all the time. I believe it was an extra strength tylenol commercial that touted twice as much medicine as the leading brand, where the comparison was made against their own normal strength variety. To me, that's a bit like saying, Buy two BMWs because it's twice as much legroom as one BMW!
Starting backwards and working forwards. The words are only invalid because you don't agree with my premise. The premise being that because the reporter doesn't see the disconnect between being able to find information and it being perfectly acceptable to compile and disseminate the same information in a much more widely read forum. In other words, he's trying to blame a technology for a problem with journalistic ethics.
Reactionary: someone who seeks to restore conditions to those of a previous era. Does the journalist seem to believe that this new technology is harmful, and is he using this story to attempt to change it?
Luddite: One who is opposed to technological change Does the journalist appear to blame the technology as opposed to blaming the people misusing it?
The case is similiar with alarmist. Just because you don't agree that he overexaggerated the point doesn't mean that I didn't use the word correctly. My arguement is that he very deliberately published information for the purpose of disturbing the CEO, because he wanted to make a fuss that our information is widely available instead of making a rational peice that put the blame on the people actually distributing it.
There's also no disconnect between saying that even if it doesn't fall under the definition of cyber stalking, which varies from state to state, it was still a tactless and unethical thing to do, tantamount to the reporter saying it's alright that people distribute your information without your permission just so long as other people have trouble finding it.
He's blaming the technology, not the people, and in my mind that makes him a reactionary luddite, in so much as he seems to take the stance the technology is the problem and we should roll back our search engines to one that doesn't work properly. He also did it loudly in a public forum, attacking someone who isn't direcly involved with the release of the information, which puts the blame on the wrong person, and, in my mind, makes him an ass as well.
That's how MOST stories work, especially if the company doesn't believe it will get a fair reporting of their side.
The problem here is that CNet used absolutely no self restraint in order to write an alarmist peice that Google can't personally do much about. What did they expect Google to do, filter out all numbers?
Google decided that CNet was reactionary and alarmist and no longer feels giving CNet interviews is worth their employees time because they no longer trust CNet to be impartial.
I'd have personally found out if my lawyers could make a decent case for cyber stalking. Just because peices of information are available doesn't make it okay to painstaking persue them and publish them, unmasked, in a collection for the world to see, and especially doesn't mean there's anything Google can do about it.
This is exactly the same story as when people sue Google because you an use Google to find something proprietary to them. In those cases, the general oppinion seems to be that it's not Googles fault that information is available. What this reporter did, is say that because it's available he should be able to disclose anything he can dig up about Google's founder and publish it, knowing there's nothing Google's founder can do about it anyway.
The reporter was an ass, and handled it in the most biased, reactionary, luddite way possible. I wouldn't deal with them anymore either.
I'm not worried about serious hackers. I'm worried about the kids next door. I don't it to be completely secure, I need it secure enough that it's more convenient to bother someone else down the street.
There's a saying among scuba divers, how do you fend off a hungry shark with a 2 inch knife? You stab your buddy and swim away.
You don't have to care, but you there's a very small chance you'll have to explain that position to the FBI or Police in connection with whatever activities they are indulging with over your wifi.
If you have a firewall between your AP and your computer, you're a step ahead of most people anyway.
The router/firewall I bought for my parents isn't capable of changing the admin's name; it's always "admin". It also has a nasty habit of rebooting to factory defaults if I try and set the password on it. It's got a defect in it, clearly, but I'm still not going out and spending thirty bucks on another one when this one mostly works.
Fortunately, MAC filtering and turning off the SSID makes it LESS likely that someone is going to set up outside their house and use their connection, but I still have the hassle of them calling me every time someone comes to visit them for me to connect to their router over the internet and add a MAC address to their whitelist.
The phone company uses lines paid for by tax dollars.
The cable company, in most areas, contracts out independent contractors to run their lines or runs the lines themselves in other areas, which they then charge the customer for as an added fee or they comp as part of a "package deal".
Sounds like one is a utility, and the other is a paid service.
In the article, it mentions one of the archive's technicians signing an affidavit saying they think it's a true archive. No one would ever lie about that for a big corporate payout.
I always feel a little bad for Mike when a topic like this hits/., but then I figure it's his fault for being basically the best at what he does. I just hope the add revenue makes up for the server pain!
Think about it. How much violence do you really think there'd be without sex?
Causes of all male violence 1) Man wants sex, doesn't get it 2) Man has sex, is disturbed by it 3) Man wants (land/money/power) to get sex 4) Man has sex, feels need to protect (land/money/power) in order to get more sex 5) Man has sex, wants to get rid of woman to have sex with someone else 6) Man has sex with man, other men find out (who secretly want to have sex with men too -- the men who want sex with women are glad there's less competition)
On the other hand, women are violent because there's friggin nuts. My anniversery is in two weeks... four years...
Last time I had to do that was a while back on a much slower machine, but I found then the vast bulk of the compile time is there demos. Compiling without the demos was fast and relatively painless.
Besides, IP Address isn't safe anyway. Everyone already knows your machine is just broadcasting that IP Address all the time! It's like giving away personal data constantly!
I actually found it to be a decent lesson in why spam filters are only a temporary solution to a problem. If you cut out the "mumbo jumbo" portions of it, it could be used to explain why reactionary methods are only barely sufficient.
The basic premise, once you get to the very end, is one that anyone SHOULD know based on the nature of a spam filter, but some people seem to have difficulty understanding; spam filters can react, often quite well, but they can never predict. As he puts it, there is previous history but no strategy. When you are only trying to protect yourself from a limited number of bad results that are similar to other bad results, that's sufficient. However, it does not (and can not) address the problem at it's root. As long as there are thinking humnans trying to beat the filter, some will get through.
Chalking it up to price is a very limited view of the problem. I know, my wife has this exact problem, to the point where I've had to threaten to block certain websites at the firewall. It has nothing to do with price. The problem that I see is the "warnings" on the internet are all vaguely worded enough to apply to almost any symptoms you have.
Her problem is she has a couple of very real health problems that require her to take some serious drugs with some nasty side effects. However, she has a nasty habit of thinking every new side effect is a new problem and looking up what it could be on the internet and thinking that's her problem.
It's entirely different to claim to believe in Jedi and to claim to BE a Jedi. According to the books I've read and the movies, a Jedi is capable of performing these actions. They all have their "talents" but to be a Jedi you have to be able to manipulate the force in some tangible and demonstrable way.
The water to wine thing doesn't hold. It's not a commonly held dogma (leaving backwoods ministers from crazyville out) that Christians are given controllable powers. If they were claiming to be Jesus, on the other hand, by all means, ask for proof. Thomas did, and got to stick his fingers through the nail wounds.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a 45 watt CPU. I'm going to assume for simplicity's sake that all other power drain is roughly equal and they only burning CPU time. We'll say, for the ease of the numbers, it burns 4 watts idle, so the ramp up to full cpu is 41 watts. That gives me 1 Kilowatt-hour per day. I pay about 8 cents a kilowatt-hour. So the way I figure it, for my two computers, I'm donating about $2.40 a month to cancer research with folding@home.
Duh, they can GOOGLE for them.
Boiling point is directly related to pressure. As pressure drops, so does the boiling point. That's why you have to be careful of cooking at higher altitudes. In general terms, the lack of air pressure makes things happen at lower temperatures, so things take longer to cook, because even though water is boiling, it's not as hot.
Or, to think of it another way, the state of matter is a function of how much it gets pushed together. H20 is liquid until it has enough energy for the molecules moving around in it to push against the molecules of atmosphere and escape from the mass. When it loses that energy, it gets forced back together. Less air pressure means less stuff pushing in means less energy is needed to escape. It's not an entirely perfect mental picture, but it'll get you close.
Without more details, you can't apply that label. Child porn is never legal, but not all naked pictures of children is child porn, even though I'd like to see Anne Geddes stopped as much as the next guy.
Body parts aren't allowed in the drain, ever. At the very best it's improper disposal of hazardous waste.
However, if a mechanic sees an extremely large pile of money in a briefcase, in your car, he shouldn't call the cops because it could be drug money.
It may be that the odds of it being illegal are very high, but he's got no business looking anywhere but under the hood, and there are legal reasons to have large sums of money.
The fine print on those adds blow my mind all the time. I believe it was an extra strength tylenol commercial that touted twice as much medicine as the leading brand, where the comparison was made against their own normal strength variety. To me, that's a bit like saying, Buy two BMWs because it's twice as much legroom as one BMW!
Starting backwards and working forwards. The words are only invalid because you don't agree with my premise. The premise being that because the reporter doesn't see the disconnect between being able to find information and it being perfectly acceptable to compile and disseminate the same information in a much more widely read forum. In other words, he's trying to blame a technology for a problem with journalistic ethics.
Reactionary: someone who seeks to restore conditions to those of a previous era.
Does the journalist seem to believe that this new technology is harmful, and is he using this story to attempt to change it?
Luddite: One who is opposed to technological change
Does the journalist appear to blame the technology as opposed to blaming the people misusing it?
The case is similiar with alarmist. Just because you don't agree that he overexaggerated the point doesn't mean that I didn't use the word correctly. My arguement is that he very deliberately published information for the purpose of disturbing the CEO, because he wanted to make a fuss that our information is widely available instead of making a rational peice that put the blame on the people actually distributing it.
There's also no disconnect between saying that even if it doesn't fall under the definition of cyber stalking, which varies from state to state, it was still a tactless and unethical thing to do, tantamount to the reporter saying it's alright that people distribute your information without your permission just so long as other people have trouble finding it.
He's blaming the technology, not the people, and in my mind that makes him a reactionary luddite, in so much as he seems to take the stance the technology is the problem and we should roll back our search engines to one that doesn't work properly. He also did it loudly in a public forum, attacking someone who isn't direcly involved with the release of the information, which puts the blame on the wrong person, and, in my mind, makes him an ass as well.
If slamming on your brakes is a good way to beat the system.
That's how MOST stories work, especially if the company doesn't believe it will get a fair reporting of their side.
The problem here is that CNet used absolutely no self restraint in order to write an alarmist peice that Google can't personally do much about. What did they expect Google to do, filter out all numbers?
Google decided that CNet was reactionary and alarmist and no longer feels giving CNet interviews is worth their employees time because they no longer trust CNet to be impartial.
I'd have personally found out if my lawyers could make a decent case for cyber stalking. Just because peices of information are available doesn't make it okay to painstaking persue them and publish them, unmasked, in a collection for the world to see, and especially doesn't mean there's anything Google can do about it.
This is exactly the same story as when people sue Google because you an use Google to find something proprietary to them. In those cases, the general oppinion seems to be that it's not Googles fault that information is available. What this reporter did, is say that because it's available he should be able to disclose anything he can dig up about Google's founder and publish it, knowing there's nothing Google's founder can do about it anyway.
The reporter was an ass, and handled it in the most biased, reactionary, luddite way possible. I wouldn't deal with them anymore either.
http://www.phenry.org/junkdrawer/haiku/
Consider NoMoreNicksLeft,
Of humor, he was bereft,
He tried a haiku
And failed, as will you
So go back to your job of dick theft
Now in the case of Amazon.com
and whether their product will bomb.
It may work, you see
For you and for me,
But will it appeal to your Mom?
I'm not worried about serious hackers. I'm worried about the kids next door. I don't it to be completely secure, I need it secure enough that it's more convenient to bother someone else down the street.
There's a saying among scuba divers, how do you fend off a hungry shark with a 2 inch knife? You stab your buddy and swim away.
You don't have to care, but you there's a very small chance you'll have to explain that position to the FBI or Police in connection with whatever activities they are indulging with over your wifi.
If you have a firewall between your AP and your computer, you're a step ahead of most people anyway.
The router/firewall I bought for my parents isn't capable of changing the admin's name; it's always "admin". It also has a nasty habit of rebooting to factory defaults if I try and set the password on it. It's got a defect in it, clearly, but I'm still not going out and spending thirty bucks on another one when this one mostly works.
Fortunately, MAC filtering and turning off the SSID makes it LESS likely that someone is going to set up outside their house and use their connection, but I still have the hassle of them calling me every time someone comes to visit them for me to connect to their router over the internet and add a MAC address to their whitelist.
Well, lets see about that.
The phone company uses lines paid for by tax dollars.
The cable company, in most areas, contracts out independent contractors to run their lines or runs the lines themselves in other areas, which they then charge the customer for as an added fee or they comp as part of a "package deal".
Sounds like one is a utility, and the other is a paid service.
In the article, it mentions one of the archive's technicians signing an affidavit saying they think it's a true archive. No one would ever lie about that for a big corporate payout.
Clearly, THAT is Pluto, and what we thought was Pluto wasn't. The new Pluto will know be known as Pluto, while the old Pluto will be forgotten.
There can be only one Pluto.
My appologies: added
Why would you put his name in quotation marks anyway? Regardless of what you think of his website, are you implying he doesn't actually exist?
Perhaps, it is "you" who is a "dick".
I always feel a little bad for Mike when a topic like this hits /., but then I figure it's his fault for being basically the best at what he does. I just hope the add revenue makes up for the server pain!
Direct Link to recommended PSU article
Think about it. How much violence do you really think there'd be without sex?
Causes of all male violence
1) Man wants sex, doesn't get it
2) Man has sex, is disturbed by it
3) Man wants (land/money/power) to get sex
4) Man has sex, feels need to protect (land/money/power) in order to get more sex
5) Man has sex, wants to get rid of woman to have sex with someone else
6) Man has sex with man, other men find out (who secretly want to have sex with men too -- the men who want sex with women are glad there's less competition)
On the other hand, women are violent because there's friggin nuts. My anniversery is in two weeks... four years...
Last time I had to do that was a while back on a much slower machine, but I found then the vast bulk of the compile time is there demos. Compiling without the demos was fast and relatively painless.
Besides, IP Address isn't safe anyway. Everyone already knows your machine is just broadcasting that IP Address all the time! It's like giving away personal data constantly!
I actually found it to be a decent lesson in why spam filters are only a temporary solution to a problem. If you cut out the "mumbo jumbo" portions of it, it could be used to explain why reactionary methods are only barely sufficient.
The basic premise, once you get to the very end, is one that anyone SHOULD know based on the nature of a spam filter, but some people seem to have difficulty understanding; spam filters can react, often quite well, but they can never predict. As he puts it, there is previous history but no strategy. When you are only trying to protect yourself from a limited number of bad results that are similar to other bad results, that's sufficient. However, it does not (and can not) address the problem at it's root. As long as there are thinking humnans trying to beat the filter, some will get through.
Chalking it up to price is a very limited view of the problem. I know, my wife has this exact problem, to the point where I've had to threaten to block certain websites at the firewall. It has nothing to do with price. The problem that I see is the "warnings" on the internet are all vaguely worded enough to apply to almost any symptoms you have.
Her problem is she has a couple of very real health problems that require her to take some serious drugs with some nasty side effects. However, she has a nasty habit of thinking every new side effect is a new problem and looking up what it could be on the internet and thinking that's her problem.
Not really.
It's entirely different to claim to believe in Jedi and to claim to BE a Jedi. According to the books I've read and the movies, a Jedi is capable of performing these actions. They all have their "talents" but to be a Jedi you have to be able to manipulate the force in some tangible and demonstrable way.
The water to wine thing doesn't hold. It's not a commonly held dogma (leaving backwoods ministers from crazyville out) that Christians are given controllable powers. If they were claiming to be Jesus, on the other hand, by all means, ask for proof. Thomas did, and got to stick his fingers through the nail wounds.
With the US there was that whole UN Charter thing.
I know you aren't seriously going to bring up UN resolutions as a reason against action in Iraq.