All of this is in the article: Vista doesn't have Expose either, hell knows why. There are reasons why implementing it in Vista is far more easy than in XP. It's technically possible to do it in XP -- there are in fact 3rd party tools which try to do so, but it's really slow and looks like crap. I know because I tried them, since I would really, really like to have Expose on Windows. It's, like, the only thing about compositing windowing managers which actually improves usability as opposed to just improving the looks.
FOr what it's worth, the deletion log message "CSD A7" refers to Criteria for Speedy Deletion: Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. Warrented in this case, in my opinion, but I think an AfD discussion would have been more sensible.
At that, throwing 8 more screws into the mix, and one more wire to plug-in isn't a big deal.
I know a whole lot of people who build their own computers, I only know a handful, myself included, who are willing to mod anything, and touching PSUs isn't my favorite pastime, either. If you think modding hardware is not a big deal to most people, you're a bit out of touch. A long time ago, when I built my first two computers, I was scared shitless - having saved up for the hardware and all; I wouldn't have dared opening up the PSU. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying it's a hassle, and I'd rather buy a PSU that's quiet from stock; especially since these days I can afford the 10 extra bucks for a nice PSU if it saves me an hour of work.
I'm not sure what gives you that idea. They very clearly rate notebook hard drives as having much, much higher vibrations than any desktop hard drives.
Not at all. Just replace the stock 80mm fan with a better (thermally controlled) one.
Yes. That's hard. At least compared to just buying cheap, off the shelf quiet components.
As for the rest: the doctrine at Silent PC Review, probably the definitive resource on this kind of stuff, is that 2.5" disks overall are more quiet than 3.5" disks and that current 120mm PSUs are more quiet than 80mm or 2x 80mm PSUs. The current Seasonics (sorry about the price, I'm in Europe and didn't want to underestimage the US prices) are really great, and they're 120mm. The 80mm PSUs had the advantage of usually having a straight airflow, which is more efficient and which also lends itself for easy PSU tunnel solutions giving the PSU its own airflow.
I've mounted my HD on elastic cord - you can't get more vibration isolation than that - and the noise management set to silent, it's still pretty much the only audible component. And it's a fairly silent HD to start with, 3.5" though.
No, I made a choice between silent and overclocking. You won't cool that hardware passively, but that's not necessary, you can cool it with a very low number of very slow fans. It's not silent - nothing is! even passive PSUs buzz - but it's as good as silent at 2 feet. I've got a mid-end system running that way, and my cooling hardware is just vastly inferior to what's out there: a Scythe Ninja was designed to cool dual Prescotts quietly, a Quad Xeon just isn't that big of a problem.
That said, once you start jacking up the voltage for overclocking, getting a linear increase in speed at a quadratic increase in heat output - well, yeah, then all bets are off.
Quietly cooling a computer is really, really easy these days. Two or three years ago, it was a pain, because CPUs actually generated more heat back then, but more importantly because silent computing is just mainstream these days.
The power supply is probably the hardest thing to get quiet, unless you're going with a passive one. But you can also get an efficient one with a good fan controller, like a Seasonic, for 75 bucks or so. Silent CPU coolers can be had for 25, and while most graphics cards these days are obnoxious by default, you can regulate the fan speed down to sane levels when you're not actually gaming. (I actually have an aftermarket VGA cooler lying around, no point in using it since the stock fan is essentially turned off 90% of the time.) Another component which is difficult to get silent is the hard disk - elastic mounting works wonders, but it's still just quiet, not silent. You need to go for a more expensive 2.5" drive and possibly sound insulation for that.
So um, the point is, from a silent computing point of view, water cooling is pretty much a waste of time. It might still be interesting for the overclockers who (still) need extreme cooling power, in combination with peltiers or something; I wouldn't know, that stuff was never my thing.
You haven't heard of water cooling RAM because it's a waste of resources, even more so than water cooling other components. RAM doesn't use a whole lot of power and consequently doesn't generate a lot of heat, a quick Google says about 10W. That's comparable to hard drives - the difference being that RAM doesn't really mind running at 50 to 80C, while HDDs do. DDR2 SDRAM doesn't need special active cooling, a somewhat ventilated case is easily enough.
Please, please don't form your opinion of the US from what you read here on Slashdot.
Oh heck, no. And I didn't actually mean to equate or even compare the US media to (what's left of) the Russian, although I might have given that impression. I was in fact referring to the big media outlets, particularly the TV stations. I am given the distinct impression that dissent isn't given a very large voice in the US. It's way different from the Russian situation in that dissent is voluntarily kept down, without actual government force. Rallying around the flag and all. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe one of the other American Slashdotters wants to chip in.
Also I should add that I am also told that it's slowly getting better the past 12 months.
Yeah, I was just teasing.;) Still, the difference seems to be quite profound. I mean, just to continue from my previous post, I don't personally know a single person who runs around town armed at night. Not a one. A select few of my acquaintances and in my (greatly extended) family own firearms for sports or hunting, but none of them owns a gun for, you know, attacking people. And it's not like I'm living in a peaceful village, I'm in one of the regions most densely populated in Europe.
So, where is that? Nicaragua? Haven't heard a single gunshot in my life outside of compulsory military training, and certainly never a gunshot fired in anger. Odd.
There is no common constitution, however, all EU member countries, and a number of countries outside of the EU have signed the European Convention on Human Rights, which has a provision on freedom of speech. It's not as wide ranging as the freedom of speech granted in the US (although that, too, is limited).
ARTICLE 10 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Of course the individual countries have their own constitutions and legal systems which can go beyond (but not against) this convention.
Not that it would have mattered in this case, it was to cement the whole EU becoming the government of all Europe thing.
Article II-71 Freedom of expression and information
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.
Yes, well. I'm German, and I tend to get into heated discussions with my peers about the need to have less restrictions on speech here in Europe, very much a minority position here. Their argument usually goes that speech can itself infringe on basic human rights of others, implying that hurting them - which some forms of speech certainly do - can also be extended to include psychological harm. Others argue that you can't deny historical facts - obviously this refers to holocaust denying, an extremely sensitive matter especially in my own country.
Personally, I don't buy either of those arguments, and I don't think giving even holocaust denying scum their free speech will cause much harm. But then again, this particular instance of banning speech doesn't cause a whole lot of harm either, the only reason I might be against is for the sake of principle, but I admit I can't muster a whole lot of energy for that.
And other instance, where I would muster more energy, well they are just not a problem. For one thing, we actually have large media outlets critical of local governments - unlike Russia, for one thing, or apparently the US. And you can still protest on issues you disapprove of, without being tasered five times or attacked with CS gas. Heck, you can even break the law doing so and be treated as a human being, typically getting away with a slap on the wrist because you were primarily excersising your right of free speech and of pointing out grievances.
So, in principle I agree with you and I do typically argue in line with you. In practice it's still all right. But I'm sure you think that's an impossible position to take.
Good point. But that needn't be due to those religions being deistic - there could be other explanations. Maybe they are just being propagated particularly aggressively? Of course, maybe deistic religions tend to have followers who do so... Not exactly my field of expertise. (Hey lets ask Essjay, the web's foremost expert on religion.)
I do not doubt what you say is true, but what is true for people in POW camps does not have to be true for people in general. Fortunately, those are extraordinary circumstances. I reserve judgement on the original question...
If you are purporting to *KNOW* what is causing this climate change...
I didn't say that, either. There are a few areas where I know my stuff, in some other areas I just know enough to know who to ask. If you really want to *KNOW* what is causing this climate change, more power to you! We need more people who are researching this issue. It will take a 5 to 10 year commitment, though, otherwise you won't be much farther than I am.
(I assume you haven't commited those years yet, though even if you had - and there's no way I can know for sure since you're just some internet guy - I still couldn't really know if I could trust your judgement.)
I am stating that if we were burning fossil fuels or not, the pattern of our orbit around the sun and the sun's output are greater drivers of our climate than anything we can do.
Yeah, we got that. Repeating it won't make it true.
In general, Wikipedia may be totally discredited by this scandal.
Oh rubbish. Hardly anybody will remember it in a month - although I'm sure Larry Sanger will. Hey Larry, you say this will determine how much you personally will support Wikipedia in the future, so in what ways do you support Wikipedia now? Apart from critising it, that is, a necessary job which you do fairly well, but not as well (or as fervently) as Andrew Orlowski, among others.
And I don't give a FRA about whether college profs accept Wikipedia as a valid source. If Wikipedia's main value was as a source for college papers, well, then it would be pretty worthless compared to what it really is.
Wikipedia, if nothing else, should teach people not to trust any source blindly. And Essjay, if nobody else, should teach people not to trust persons solely because they claim to be an authority.
Slashdot Mirror
According to TFA it's not a public API and MS doesn't have any intentions of opening it up. I'm sure it'll be hacked, though.
All of this is in the article: Vista doesn't have Expose either, hell knows why. There are reasons why implementing it in Vista is far more easy than in XP. It's technically possible to do it in XP -- there are in fact 3rd party tools which try to do so, but it's really slow and looks like crap. I know because I tried them, since I would really, really like to have Expose on Windows. It's, like, the only thing about compositing windowing managers which actually improves usability as opposed to just improving the looks.
Midsize. Riiiiiight.
FOr what it's worth, the deletion log message "CSD A7" refers to Criteria for Speedy Deletion: Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. Warrented in this case, in my opinion, but I think an AfD discussion would have been more sensible.
You're right, it doesn't seem like much.
But you're right, w/c might still have a place for people who are out for the latest extreme overclock.
At that, throwing 8 more screws into the mix, and one more wire to plug-in isn't a big deal.
I know a whole lot of people who build their own computers, I only know a handful, myself included, who are willing to mod anything, and touching PSUs isn't my favorite pastime, either. If you think modding hardware is not a big deal to most people, you're a bit out of touch. A long time ago, when I built my first two computers, I was scared shitless - having saved up for the hardware and all; I wouldn't have dared opening up the PSU. I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying it's a hassle, and I'd rather buy a PSU that's quiet from stock; especially since these days I can afford the 10 extra bucks for a nice PSU if it saves me an hour of work.
I'm not sure what gives you that idea. They very clearly rate notebook hard drives as having much, much higher vibrations than any desktop hard drives.
Ehm. No. Their vibration scale is x out of 10, 10 being completely without vibrations. Laptop drives routinely get 9/10, 3.5" HDDs vary between 3 and 6. "We've been recommending 2.5" notebook drives for desktop systems since early 2004." Why? First among other things: "Much lower noise."
FWIW AAM on or off doesn't make much of a difference with my drive, especially since I suspended it.
Not at all. Just replace the stock 80mm fan with a better (thermally controlled) one.
Yes. That's hard. At least compared to just buying cheap, off the shelf quiet components.
As for the rest: the doctrine at Silent PC Review, probably the definitive resource on this kind of stuff, is that 2.5" disks overall are more quiet than 3.5" disks and that current 120mm PSUs are more quiet than 80mm or 2x 80mm PSUs. The current Seasonics (sorry about the price, I'm in Europe and didn't want to underestimage the US prices) are really great, and they're 120mm. The 80mm PSUs had the advantage of usually having a straight airflow, which is more efficient and which also lends itself for easy PSU tunnel solutions giving the PSU its own airflow.
I've mounted my HD on elastic cord - you can't get more vibration isolation than that - and the noise management set to silent, it's still pretty much the only audible component. And it's a fairly silent HD to start with, 3.5" though.
But of course, your mileage may vary.
No, I made a choice between silent and overclocking. You won't cool that hardware passively, but that's not necessary, you can cool it with a very low number of very slow fans. It's not silent - nothing is! even passive PSUs buzz - but it's as good as silent at 2 feet. I've got a mid-end system running that way, and my cooling hardware is just vastly inferior to what's out there: a Scythe Ninja was designed to cool dual Prescotts quietly, a Quad Xeon just isn't that big of a problem.
That said, once you start jacking up the voltage for overclocking, getting a linear increase in speed at a quadratic increase in heat output - well, yeah, then all bets are off.
Quietly cooling a computer is really, really easy these days. Two or three years ago, it was a pain, because CPUs actually generated more heat back then, but more importantly because silent computing is just mainstream these days.
The power supply is probably the hardest thing to get quiet, unless you're going with a passive one. But you can also get an efficient one with a good fan controller, like a Seasonic, for 75 bucks or so. Silent CPU coolers can be had for 25, and while most graphics cards these days are obnoxious by default, you can regulate the fan speed down to sane levels when you're not actually gaming. (I actually have an aftermarket VGA cooler lying around, no point in using it since the stock fan is essentially turned off 90% of the time.) Another component which is difficult to get silent is the hard disk - elastic mounting works wonders, but it's still just quiet, not silent. You need to go for a more expensive 2.5" drive and possibly sound insulation for that.
So um, the point is, from a silent computing point of view, water cooling is pretty much a waste of time. It might still be interesting for the overclockers who (still) need extreme cooling power, in combination with peltiers or something; I wouldn't know, that stuff was never my thing.
You haven't heard of water cooling RAM because it's a waste of resources, even more so than water cooling other components. RAM doesn't use a whole lot of power and consequently doesn't generate a lot of heat, a quick Google says about 10W. That's comparable to hard drives - the difference being that RAM doesn't really mind running at 50 to 80C, while HDDs do. DDR2 SDRAM doesn't need special active cooling, a somewhat ventilated case is easily enough.
I wouldn't say I own it for attacking people, though I'm sure you're not implying any malice on my part.
:) Exam preparations fudging up my wording tonight.
Quite right.
Please, please don't form your opinion of the US from what you read here on Slashdot.
Oh heck, no. And I didn't actually mean to equate or even compare the US media to (what's left of) the Russian, although I might have given that impression. I was in fact referring to the big media outlets, particularly the TV stations. I am given the distinct impression that dissent isn't given a very large voice in the US. It's way different from the Russian situation in that dissent is voluntarily kept down, without actual government force. Rallying around the flag and all. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe one of the other American Slashdotters wants to chip in.
Also I should add that I am also told that it's slowly getting better the past 12 months.
Yeah, I was just teasing. ;) Still, the difference seems to be quite profound. I mean, just to continue from my previous post, I don't personally know a single person who runs around town armed at night. Not a one. A select few of my acquaintances and in my (greatly extended) family own firearms for sports or hunting, but none of them owns a gun for, you know, attacking people. And it's not like I'm living in a peaceful village, I'm in one of the regions most densely populated in Europe.
So, where is that? Nicaragua? Haven't heard a single gunshot in my life outside of compulsory military training, and certainly never a gunshot fired in anger. Odd.
Of course the individual countries have their own constitutions and legal systems which can go beyond (but not against) this convention.
Yes, well. I'm German, and I tend to get into heated discussions with my peers about the need to have less restrictions on speech here in Europe, very much a minority position here. Their argument usually goes that speech can itself infringe on basic human rights of others, implying that hurting them - which some forms of speech certainly do - can also be extended to include psychological harm. Others argue that you can't deny historical facts - obviously this refers to holocaust denying, an extremely sensitive matter especially in my own country.
Personally, I don't buy either of those arguments, and I don't think giving even holocaust denying scum their free speech will cause much harm. But then again, this particular instance of banning speech doesn't cause a whole lot of harm either, the only reason I might be against is for the sake of principle, but I admit I can't muster a whole lot of energy for that.
And other instance, where I would muster more energy, well they are just not a problem. For one thing, we actually have large media outlets critical of local governments - unlike Russia, for one thing, or apparently the US. And you can still protest on issues you disapprove of, without being tasered five times or attacked with CS gas. Heck, you can even break the law doing so and be treated as a human being, typically getting away with a slap on the wrist because you were primarily excersising your right of free speech and of pointing out grievances.
So, in principle I agree with you and I do typically argue in line with you. In practice it's still all right. But I'm sure you think that's an impossible position to take.
Good point. But that needn't be due to those religions being deistic - there could be other explanations. Maybe they are just being propagated particularly aggressively? Of course, maybe deistic religions tend to have followers who do so... Not exactly my field of expertise. (Hey lets ask Essjay, the web's foremost expert on religion.)
Has being smarter on math tests actually made the Germans (or others) richer? Check on per capita incomes.
Haha. I don't even know where to start with a sentence like that. Oh heck, I'll just quote it and leave the rest to the informed reader.
I do not doubt what you say is true, but what is true for people in POW camps does not have to be true for people in general. Fortunately, those are extraordinary circumstances. I reserve judgement on the original question...
If you are purporting to *KNOW* what is causing this climate change...
I didn't say that, either. There are a few areas where I know my stuff, in some other areas I just know enough to know who to ask. If you really want to *KNOW* what is causing this climate change, more power to you! We need more people who are researching this issue. It will take a 5 to 10 year commitment, though, otherwise you won't be much farther than I am.
(I assume you haven't commited those years yet, though even if you had - and there's no way I can know for sure since you're just some internet guy - I still couldn't really know if I could trust your judgement.)
Inflammable means flammable? What a country!
If you are saying that the earth's orbit and the sun have 0 effect on the climate...
I said no such thing.
I am stating that if we were burning fossil fuels or not, the pattern of our orbit around the sun and the sun's output are greater drivers of our climate than anything we can do.
Yeah, we got that. Repeating it won't make it true.
In general, Wikipedia may be totally discredited by this scandal.
Oh rubbish. Hardly anybody will remember it in a month - although I'm sure Larry Sanger will. Hey Larry, you say this will determine how much you personally will support Wikipedia in the future, so in what ways do you support Wikipedia now? Apart from critising it, that is, a necessary job which you do fairly well, but not as well (or as fervently) as Andrew Orlowski, among others.
And I don't give a FRA about whether college profs accept Wikipedia as a valid source. If Wikipedia's main value was as a source for college papers, well, then it would be pretty worthless compared to what it really is.
Wikipedia, if nothing else, should teach people not to trust any source blindly. And Essjay, if nobody else, should teach people not to trust persons solely because they claim to be an authority.