How many datacenters have been subject to terrorist attacks so far? The only one that comes close was 9/11, and even that wasn't primarily an effort to destroy data or disrupt networks.
To sink a ship, you need a bomb. The same bomb would do quite a lot of damage to the average datacenter building.
Besides, if you need your datacenter to be really secure, there's always the 'old military bunker' option instead.
In port, the rocking wouldn't be too much of an issue, but ISTR harddrives don't respond well to being on a ship. The gyroscopic effects of constant motion tend to lead to early failure.
My current monitor is about 30 cm high. I could easily use one that's 40-50 cm high: I'd be able to see from top edge to bottom edge without having to move my head.
What's this fascination with letterbox displays? I can see the appeal for movies, but for text, you want as much as possible to fit on screen without having to scroll AND without ending up with ridiculously long lines. IMO 1200 pixels vertically is the minimum usable size these days, and even that feels cramped. Especially with a display this size: if you can afford 2800 pixels across, why skimp so much on the other dimension?
There are many cases where text needs to be written with a certain amount of layout, and where no time or money is available to have that layout added by a DTP'er and his layout application.
Also, writing the text in a text editor and then importing it into a layout engine means you'll have to go through the text at least twice: once to write it, and another time to add the layout cues (headings, footnotes, etc.). This is incredibly inefficient. Maybe you prefer this two-step approach, I like working in a document that looks close to what the final output will be. I start by creating a clean, consistent layout definition, and over the course of most of my projects (books that typically number several hundred pages) I rarely need to change that definition. During writing, I'll add headings, insert graphics, footnotes, callouts etc., all things you can't do in an editor, but which are essential to my document. Even a first draft is not doable without those.
Of course word processors are primary writing tools. Unlike an editor they contain all the tools needed to create a usable text document. Those tools include formatting, but also things like spelling checkers, TOC and index generation, maybe an outliner etc. These are valuable tools during the writing process because they help to add structure to whatever you're writing.
Now, I agree that many people focus too much on layout at the expense of writing well. Also, Word (and the many programs that copy its approach) is a horrible tool for creating a document that has consistent formatting. But the solution is not to force everybody into an austere environment. As I see it, the solution is twofold: 1. Education. People need to learn e.g. that spaces, tabs and returns are not formatting tools, and that giving every paragraph a unique format doesn't make your document look professional. Agree on a single style and stick with it. 2. Use tools that allow for (or enforce) this consistency. LyX seems to be one. FrameMaker is another (and my favorite).
Blatant lies like It is not an HDMI problem. It's a digital issue make me want to avoid HDMI like the plague. I'd like to replace my 22 year-old TV and rubbish VHS VCR with a digital system, but I've been putting it off for three years now because I can't bring myself to expend the time and headaches involved in figuring out a system that works.
IMO consumer electronics are a market that's firmly in the grip of the 'race to the bottom' where new versions of the same gadget are shoveled out the door with minimal effort in an attempt to make money when the margins are razor-thin.
Obviously, you need both: lots of sockets just above the floor for all those gadgets you plug in once and then forget about, plus a few easily-accessible sockets in each room for things that need plugging in temporarily. Problem is, even if you build your own house and have full control over the entire process, you're going to discover not all sockets are exactly where you're going to need them.
Re:The article was mostly about audio compression
on
The Death of High Fidelity
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Why - well it's got the actual shape of the sound on the surface - no digitisation, no mucking around with dynamic range - it's there and about as unadulterated as you can get.
Not quite. There may be no digitisation (but only if the entire mastering process has been analogue as well), but there is a lower limit to the detail that can be reproduced: none of the process steps (the cutting process on the master, and the various pressing steps) can reproduce the input signal down to the molecular level. IIRC you can't reproduce much more accurately than with 16-bit digitisation. Vinyl does have a superior sampling rate to CD (although the same limit as above applies).
The dynamic range of vinyl is much more limited than that of CD, though. The dynamic range depends on the thickness of the record and the groove pitch, but most commercial recordings are limited to 50 dB or so, so for most music you do need some compression. The dynamic range of a small group of musicians is something like 90 dB, an orchestra can reach 120 dB, so in practice you need compression for any recording.
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, Timey-Wimey... stuff"
The nuclear plant in a sub takes up something like 1/3 of the internal volume. this page quotes the size and weight of the plant in a Los Angeles-class sub as 1600 tons, with a volume of 42 (length) x 33 (diameter) feet. Its heat output is ~160 MW, part of which is used to drive a 35000 shp turbine. Now, the reactor itself is just a fraction of this volume. The data are classified, but as a comparison the reactor in Dodewaard (an experimental nuclear plant in the Netherlands, decommissioned a few years ago, power output 60 MWe) was about 2x1 m. The rest of the space is taken up by the cooling circuits, turbines etc.
A naval plant also uses highly enriched fuel so the reactor can be smaller than commercial ones.
Because Johnny Foreigner doesn't pay the TV license fee.
Speak for yourself. My TV provider [1] offers BBC 1 and 2 plus several BBC radio channels. They pay the BBC for the privilege. Why shouldn't I be able to access the same programming via the Web?
1: and pretty much every TV provider in the Netherlands
In my limited tests, FW400 was about 30% faster than USB2 on the same computer/external harddrive combo. Plus I've the impression FW performs better when the load increases (more devices on the same bus).
Instead of trying to cram RF signals at ever higher frequencies down a coax or twisted pair cable with all the problems that entails, why don't we switch to optical cabling?
(I know, it's because that's not profitable enough for the manufacturers. They wouldn't be able to sell us new cables every 5 years)
Depending on how you heat your house and how your electricity is generated, it's also an inefficient space heater. I'd much rather use a primary energy source to heat my home than incur the 50% efficiency loss by converting the primary source into electricity first.
F22 airframe is mostly titanium and it's got to take 9G turns which are much more stressful then Mach3 level flight.
9G turns require the aircraft to withstand kinetic loading, with Mach 3 flight, heat is the problem. Mach 3 generates so much heat that it starts to dictate the entire design: you'll need fuel that won't boil off inside the wing, you need to cool the cockpit, electronics, bomb bays, etc. At Mach 2 it's much simpler: you can get away with using simple materials and fuels, and you don't need a massive cooling plant.
Slashdot Mirror
How many datacenters have been subject to terrorist attacks so far? The only one that comes close was
9/11, and even that wasn't primarily an effort to destroy data or disrupt networks.
To sink a ship, you need a bomb. The same bomb would do quite a lot of damage to the average datacenter building.
Besides, if you need your datacenter to be really secure, there's always the 'old military bunker' option instead.
In port, the rocking wouldn't be too much of an issue, but ISTR harddrives don't respond well to being on a ship. The gyroscopic effects of constant motion tend to lead to early failure.
My current monitor is about 30 cm high. I could easily use one that's 40-50 cm high: I'd be able to see from top edge to bottom edge without having to move my head.
What's this fascination with letterbox displays? I can see the appeal for movies, but for text, you want as much as possible to fit on screen without having to scroll AND without ending up with ridiculously long lines. IMO 1200 pixels vertically is the minimum usable size these days, and even that feels cramped. Especially with a display this size: if you can afford 2800 pixels across, why skimp so much on the other dimension?
Stop telling me what to do!
There are many cases where text needs to be written with a certain amount of layout, and where no time or money is available to have that layout added by a DTP'er and his layout application.
Also, writing the text in a text editor and then importing it into a layout engine means you'll have to go through the text at least twice: once to write it, and another time to add the layout cues (headings, footnotes, etc.). This is incredibly inefficient.
Maybe you prefer this two-step approach, I like working in a document that looks close to what the final output will be. I start by creating a clean, consistent layout definition, and over the course of most of my projects (books that typically number several hundred pages) I rarely need to change that definition. During writing, I'll add headings, insert graphics, footnotes, callouts etc., all things you can't do in an editor, but which are essential to my document. Even a first draft is not doable without those.
Of course word processors are primary writing tools. Unlike an editor they contain all the tools needed to create a usable text document. Those tools include formatting, but also things like spelling checkers, TOC and index generation, maybe an outliner etc. These are valuable tools during the writing process because they help to add structure to whatever you're writing.
Now, I agree that many people focus too much on layout at the expense of writing well. Also, Word (and the many programs that copy its approach) is a horrible tool for creating a document that has consistent formatting.
But the solution is not to force everybody into an austere environment. As I see it, the solution is twofold:
1. Education. People need to learn e.g. that spaces, tabs and returns are not formatting tools, and that giving every paragraph a unique format doesn't make your document look professional. Agree on a single style and stick with it.
2. Use tools that allow for (or enforce) this consistency. LyX seems to be one. FrameMaker is another (and my favorite).
Blatant lies like It is not an HDMI problem. It's a digital issue make me want to avoid HDMI like the plague. I'd like to replace my 22 year-old TV and rubbish VHS VCR with a digital system, but I've been putting it off for three years now because I can't bring myself to expend the time and headaches involved in figuring out a system that works.
Well, you and me both. I never got the appeal of those 'social networking' sites.
(clicks http://images.slashdot.org/neutral.gif)
Should be easy enough to add a filter:
if (char) ASCII, then nuke(url)
IMO consumer electronics are a market that's firmly in the grip of the 'race to the bottom' where new versions of the same gadget are shoveled out the door with minimal effort in an attempt to make money when the margins are razor-thin.
Obviously, you need both: lots of sockets just above the floor for all those gadgets you plug in once and then forget about, plus a few easily-accessible sockets in each room for things that need plugging in temporarily.
Problem is, even if you build your own house and have full control over the entire process, you're going to discover not all sockets are exactly where you're going to need them.
Why - well it's got the actual shape of the sound on the surface - no digitisation, no mucking around with dynamic range - it's there and about as unadulterated as you can get.
Not quite. There may be no digitisation (but only if the entire mastering process has been analogue as well), but there is a lower limit to the detail that can be reproduced: none of the process steps (the cutting process on the master, and the various pressing steps) can reproduce the input signal down to the molecular level.
IIRC you can't reproduce much more accurately than with 16-bit digitisation.
Vinyl does have a superior sampling rate to CD (although the same limit as above applies).
The dynamic range of vinyl is much more limited than that of CD, though. The dynamic range depends on the thickness of the record and the groove pitch, but most commercial recordings are limited to 50 dB or so, so for most music you do need some compression.
The dynamic range of a small group of musicians is something like 90 dB, an orchestra can reach 120 dB, so in practice you need compression for any recording.
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a non-linear, non subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, Timey-Wimey... stuff"
IMO the real story is that they can run a 648-processor cluster on 1200 W.
The nuclear plant in a sub takes up something like 1/3 of the internal volume. this page quotes the size and weight of the plant in a Los Angeles-class sub as 1600 tons, with a volume of 42 (length) x 33 (diameter) feet. Its heat output is ~160 MW, part of which is used to drive a 35000 shp turbine.
Now, the reactor itself is just a fraction of this volume. The data are classified, but as a comparison the reactor in Dodewaard (an experimental nuclear plant in the Netherlands, decommissioned a few years ago, power output 60 MWe) was about 2x1 m. The rest of the space is taken up by the cooling circuits, turbines etc.
A naval plant also uses highly enriched fuel so the reactor can be smaller than commercial ones.
I wouldn't consider these to be 'very small'.
"Rom"? Hate to break it to you, but that's way off.
Hydrodynamic building set
Chaos tower
Because Johnny Foreigner doesn't pay the TV license fee.
Speak for yourself. My TV provider [1] offers BBC 1 and 2 plus several BBC radio channels. They pay the BBC for the privilege. Why shouldn't I be able to access the same programming via the Web?
1: and pretty much every TV provider in the Netherlands
In my limited tests, FW400 was about 30% faster than USB2 on the same computer/external harddrive combo. Plus I've the impression FW performs better when the load increases (more devices on the same bus).
IIRC FireWire needed more complex (=more expensive) interfaces, so wasn't really suitable for mice etc.
Instead of trying to cram RF signals at ever higher frequencies down a coax or twisted pair cable with all the problems that entails, why don't we switch to optical cabling?
(I know, it's because that's not profitable enough for the manufacturers. They wouldn't be able to sell us new cables every 5 years)
Depending on how you heat your house and how your electricity is generated, it's also an inefficient space heater. I'd much rather use a primary energy source to heat my home than incur the 50% efficiency loss by converting the primary source into electricity first.
...of angular momentum, that is. Wouldn't want to be near when a bearing seized on one of those.
Probably???
That's NORAD, as seen in War Games. You can turn in your geek card on your way out.
(oh, and -1, Whooosh!)
I expected this, not some crummy office with a conference table.
F22 airframe is mostly titanium and it's got to take 9G turns which are much more stressful then Mach3 level flight.
9G turns require the aircraft to withstand kinetic loading, with Mach 3 flight, heat is the problem. Mach 3 generates so much heat that it starts to dictate the entire design: you'll need fuel that won't boil off inside the wing, you need to cool the cockpit, electronics, bomb bays, etc. At Mach 2 it's much simpler: you can get away with using simple materials and fuels, and you don't need a massive cooling plant.