Don't know about the case, but a good motherboard might be the Asus TUSI-M - it seems to have everything you're looking for and Asus has always been one for stability (IMO). Why not just get a 1U rackmount case or something along those lines? They can be kinda costly, but you'll probably be able to use it for a loooong time. I built a small PC but I just grabbed an old 386/486 IBM case and drilled new holes for the mobo. It was very thrown together, but it works and it's tiny.
The more appropriate question is why size matters.
The weight of a power supply is directly related to the quantity, quality, and size of the material (thus cost) used to build the power supply. We opened a light and a heavy 300W-labeled power supplies. The heavy one has larger capacitors, thicker wires, larger transformer, larger heat sinks, more connectors, and more capacitors than the light one, all of which are important factors for the overall cost and quality of a power supply. The difference is illustrated below:
Lots of pics and interesting info. Go look if you're interested.
I'm a big fan of the Addtronics case line. If I can sit on my tower and it doesn't even slightly buckle, I'll trust my hundreds of dollars hardware in there. Plus they have the most convenient drive rail system I've ever seen. Plus they're decently priced. *shrug* Just my opinion...
Maybe it just doesn't bother me as much. I don't care if Katz wants to take Episode II to task in his very public venue... I enjoyed the movie thoroughly. If he wants to call me a groupie or Star Slut or whatever, no problem. It shouldn't bother you folks either, unless you're not confident in your opinions.
That being said, that's still hands down the least offensive Star Wars dig I've ever seen in my life. Does it simply bother you folks because he wields his 'power' to leverage his opinion? How does that hurt you? Do you get just as offended when Siskel (or Ebert - whichever one is still around) insults a movie that you like, or is it the fact that this is a geek website - ergo - we should all be united? I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but I'm genuinely curious.
You've implied that you're better than me because I enjoy Star Wars.
No he didn't. He said that Star Wars was bloated which, AFAIK, is not insulting or uplifting to anyone's character (w/ the exception of Lucas, I guess). I don't think it was out of place at all to mention Star Wars in a film review because it's the big thing right now and he's offering an alternative to what is probably still a packed theater. You always see movie reviews bring up other movies for comparison. If you think *this* is Star Wars bashing, go spend an hour on Ain't It Cool News. Those talkbacks can make any review look like a shining example of positive journalism.
"Groupies?" I think I've been called worse. Besides, that Natalie Portman _is_ kinda cute...
Another distortion of the basic idea came when they started granting copyrights to people who performed the works. Actors are not authors, singers are not authors.
That's a very good point. That's partially why a lot of the ASCAP bi-laws were created - to keep the songwriters in the loop and paid when the music industry was hiring people to perform their music. They kept the initial idea intact. However now you can probably search around Google and news sites for instances of ASCAP and BMI reps going to hotels and hearing a bar musician playing a coprighted song. The next day the hotel manager will have a notice on his desk telling him (or her) to purchase a $2,000 - $3,000 license. It's so easily corrupted. As a musician who plays for fun in his spare time all of this hypocrisy and greed really bother me... but maybe I don't 'get it' because I don't do it for a living.
The *essence* of copyright is that all the people got together and said 'Let's curtail our rights, let's say that if any of us wants to copy something that someone else wrote, they have to pay for it, for a limited period of time'.
From A History of Copyright in The U.S.:
1790: US Constitution
Copyright law in the US is derived from English copyright law (Statute of Anne) and common law. The framers of the U.S. Constitution made copyright law purely federal: "The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts . . . by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries." Congress subsequently enacted the Copyright Act of 1790 and major revisions to it in 1831, 1870, 1909, and 1976.
After 1976, of course, revisions started piling up to accomodate technologies. But in essence it seems to me that it was there to protect ideas so others would innovate. Innovation in regards to mass media is not something we're seeing a whole lot of (I would go so far to say that it's discouraged by the mainstream). I agree that there's nothing gained by copyright now in mass media cases because all we're subjected to is the same ol rehashed junk. Why does Britney Spears even need a copyright on her songs when Christina Aguilera is just singing basically the same things?
But the point is, the moment the public mandate for copyright is gone, there can be **no** justification for copyright. It's not a moral right. It's not a natural right.
Definitely not a moral or natural right, but it is a protected right. Copyright doesn't exist completely without backing. Besides, I'd say if you look outside of the scope of movies and music, you could find some justification for copyrights (at least in the fields of science and technology).
So will Microsoft be giving away a new version of the X-Box as a digital tv receiver? That'd be about the only way to boost sales of X-Box games there.
In that situation people would probably keep trying to fit their rented movies into it.
Consumer: "Well, it came from the TV provider, and it's as big as a VCR..."
multinational giants AT&T and WorldCom consider him a ruthless, gouging monopolist who is stifling competition at the expense of the Mexican people
That's pretty frightening. He really sounds like the Mexican Microsoft only with his hands much much deeper in the country's life. It seems that, at least until Vicente Fox came on the scene, nobody has been willing (or more likely able) to do anything about it.
Although he's hardly what you'd call new economy, Slim says he knows enough about the Net to see that it's one of the biggest business opportunities in his lifetime
Well *I* could've told you that, and I don't even own half of Mexico.
LUCAS: (sitting at computer desk at home reading above post)
"Well, I suppose that's as good an idea as any." (Opens word processor and types: "Episode VII: Meesa Gonna")
[insert mouse clicks and Windows sound of cutting and pasting]
If you really were willing to spend the money, you could locate your own 'facility' in a country with lesser restrictions on content and maybe less of a strain on bandwidth (if such a thing exists). There are some interesting (read as bandwidth consuming rom site) examples of this in China and France and a few other countries that have minimal advertising and no subscription type service. The obvious disadvantages would be not having hands on access to it without moving there (and probably some amount of data security depending on who's watching it for you), but certainly a high level of autonomy could be achieved.
Actually the horrendous creature movies of the 50s and early 60s are probably what embedded some of the ridiculous notions about atomic energy in the public's mind.
Not to mention the duck and cover videos and the constant proliferation about the "safety and cleanliness" of nuclear power. It's like the two suddenly become one unit because they both have the word "nuclear" in them.
(It was Alfred Nobel's hope that his invention, dynamite, would make war so horrific that it would never be fought again. Didn't quite work out that way.)
Interesting that dynamite's something else that's looked at through cartoon goggles now...
Here's a shot of the plate... looks like an explosion out of a Bugs Bunny cartoon or something.
Also, if anyone's interested, here's the cached version of a supposedly related design contest for the plate. Sounds like they had virtually no requirements except for size. Neato.
I could've sworn that there was a real primitive 8086 chess simulator back in the day that had various strategies of various champion chess players programmed in and it would stick to whatever player's philosophy you chose. It was crude and predictable, but it may have been on the right track...
Lucas blames the anti-Jar Jar sentiment on "37-year-old guys who spend all their time on the Internet. But you have to remember that when we did The Empire Strikes Back, some people hated C-3PO. When we did Jedi, they just loathed the Ewoks. There was no Internet to jazz it up, but there was the same conversation. Fans are very opinionated, and that's good. But I can't make a movie for fans."
Well, any evidence they *did* have may have just been negated...
Slashdot Mirror
Don't know about the case, but a good motherboard might be the Asus TUSI-M - it seems to have everything you're looking for and Asus has always been one for stability (IMO). Why not just get a 1U rackmount case or something along those lines? They can be kinda costly, but you'll probably be able to use it for a loooong time. I built a small PC but I just grabbed an old 386/486 IBM case and drilled new holes for the mobo. It was very thrown together, but it works and it's tiny.
Here ya go... From Directron's website:
Why Weight Matters?
The more appropriate question is why size matters.
The weight of a power supply is directly related to the quantity, quality, and size of the material (thus cost) used to build the power supply. We opened a light and a heavy 300W-labeled power supplies. The heavy one has larger capacitors, thicker wires, larger transformer, larger heat sinks, more connectors, and more capacitors than the light one, all of which are important factors for the overall cost and quality of a power supply. The difference is illustrated below:
Lots of pics and interesting info. Go look if you're interested.
I'm a big fan of the Addtronics case line. If I can sit on my tower and it doesn't even slightly buckle, I'll trust my hundreds of dollars hardware in there. Plus they have the most convenient drive rail system I've ever seen. Plus they're decently priced. *shrug* Just my opinion...
Maybe it just doesn't bother me as much. I don't care if Katz wants to take Episode II to task in his very public venue... I enjoyed the movie thoroughly. If he wants to call me a groupie or Star Slut or whatever, no problem. It shouldn't bother you folks either, unless you're not confident in your opinions.
That being said, that's still hands down the least offensive Star Wars dig I've ever seen in my life. Does it simply bother you folks because he wields his 'power' to leverage his opinion? How does that hurt you? Do you get just as offended when Siskel (or Ebert - whichever one is still around) insults a movie that you like, or is it the fact that this is a geek website - ergo - we should all be united? I'm not trying to start a flame war here, but I'm genuinely curious.
You've implied that you're better than me because I enjoy Star Wars.
No he didn't. He said that Star Wars was bloated which, AFAIK, is not insulting or uplifting to anyone's character (w/ the exception of Lucas, I guess). I don't think it was out of place at all to mention Star Wars in a film review because it's the big thing right now and he's offering an alternative to what is probably still a packed theater. You always see movie reviews bring up other movies for comparison. If you think *this* is Star Wars bashing, go spend an hour on Ain't It Cool News. Those talkbacks can make any review look like a shining example of positive journalism.
"Groupies?" I think I've been called worse. Besides, that Natalie Portman _is_ kinda cute...
that they'll still try and overclock it?
And in the source:
... interesting.
This web page has no relation to www.transmeta.com
Another distortion of the basic idea came when they started granting copyrights to people who performed the works. Actors are not authors, singers are not authors.
That's a very good point. That's partially why a lot of the ASCAP bi-laws were created - to keep the songwriters in the loop and paid when the music industry was hiring people to perform their music. They kept the initial idea intact. However now you can probably search around Google and news sites for instances of ASCAP and BMI reps going to hotels and hearing a bar musician playing a coprighted song. The next day the hotel manager will have a notice on his desk telling him (or her) to purchase a $2,000 - $3,000 license. It's so easily corrupted. As a musician who plays for fun in his spare time all of this hypocrisy and greed really bother me... but maybe I don't 'get it' because I don't do it for a living.
The *essence* of copyright is that all the people got together and said 'Let's curtail our rights, let's say that if any of us wants to copy something that someone else wrote, they have to pay for it, for a limited period of time'.
From A History of Copyright in The U.S.:
1790: US Constitution Copyright law in the US is derived from English copyright law (Statute of Anne) and common law. The framers of the U.S. Constitution made copyright law purely federal: "The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts . . . by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries." Congress subsequently enacted the Copyright Act of 1790 and major revisions to it in 1831, 1870, 1909, and 1976.
After 1976, of course, revisions started piling up to accomodate technologies. But in essence it seems to me that it was there to protect ideas so others would innovate. Innovation in regards to mass media is not something we're seeing a whole lot of (I would go so far to say that it's discouraged by the mainstream). I agree that there's nothing gained by copyright now in mass media cases because all we're subjected to is the same ol rehashed junk. Why does Britney Spears even need a copyright on her songs when Christina Aguilera is just singing basically the same things?
But the point is, the moment the public mandate for copyright is gone, there can be **no** justification for copyright. It's not a moral right. It's not a natural right.
Definitely not a moral or natural right, but it is a protected right. Copyright doesn't exist completely without backing. Besides, I'd say if you look outside of the scope of movies and music, you could find some justification for copyrights (at least in the fields of science and technology).
So will Microsoft be giving away a new version of the X-Box as a digital tv receiver? That'd be about the only way to boost sales of X-Box games there.
In that situation people would probably keep trying to fit their rented movies into it.
Consumer: "Well, it came from the TV provider, and it's as big as a VCR..."
multinational giants AT&T and WorldCom consider him a ruthless, gouging monopolist who is stifling competition at the expense of the Mexican people
That's pretty frightening. He really sounds like the Mexican Microsoft only with his hands much much deeper in the country's life. It seems that, at least until Vicente Fox came on the scene, nobody has been willing (or more likely able) to do anything about it.
Although he's hardly what you'd call new economy, Slim says he knows enough about the Net to see that it's one of the biggest business opportunities in his lifetime
Well *I* could've told you that, and I don't even own half of Mexico.
LUCAS: (sitting at computer desk at home reading above post)
"Well, I suppose that's as good an idea as any."
(Opens word processor and types: "Episode VII: Meesa Gonna")
[insert mouse clicks and Windows sound of cutting and pasting]
"Hey kids, does this sound cool?"
If you really were willing to spend the money, you could locate your own 'facility' in a country with lesser restrictions on content and maybe less of a strain on bandwidth (if such a thing exists). There are some interesting (read as bandwidth consuming rom site) examples of this in China and France and a few other countries that have minimal advertising and no subscription type service. The obvious disadvantages would be not having hands on access to it without moving there (and probably some amount of data security depending on who's watching it for you), but certainly a high level of autonomy could be achieved.
Actually the horrendous creature movies of the 50s and early 60s are probably what embedded some of the ridiculous notions about atomic energy in the public's mind.
Not to mention the duck and cover videos and the constant proliferation about the "safety and cleanliness" of nuclear power. It's like the two suddenly become one unit because they both have the word "nuclear" in them.
(It was Alfred Nobel's hope that his invention, dynamite, would make war so horrific that it would never be fought again. Didn't quite work out that way.)
Interesting that dynamite's something else that's looked at through cartoon goggles now...
It would never happen. Too many of the people interested would boycott it because they'd have to pay for it.
Here's a shot of the plate... looks like an explosion out of a Bugs Bunny cartoon or something.
Also, if anyone's interested, here's the cached version of a supposedly related design contest for the plate. Sounds like they had virtually no requirements except for size. Neato.
I could've sworn that there was a real primitive 8086 chess simulator back in the day that had various strategies of various champion chess players programmed in and it would stick to whatever player's philosophy you chose. It was crude and predictable, but it may have been on the right track...
..but I could be wrong.
Maybe he's worried someone else will make a movie with Jar Jar in it...
Wait, that's what I thought *we* were worried about...
"He's not a stupid man. He doesn't want to hurt the franchise." There's evidence to back that up.
And from this article:
Lucas blames the anti-Jar Jar sentiment on "37-year-old guys who spend all their time on the Internet. But you have to remember that when we did The Empire Strikes Back, some people hated C-3PO. When we did Jedi, they just loathed the Ewoks. There was no Internet to jazz it up, but there was the same conversation. Fans are very opinionated, and that's good. But I can't make a movie for fans."
Well, any evidence they *did* have may have just been negated...
Geez, don't give Microsoft any ideas...