A previous manager of, obviously, dubious ethics, recommended Machiavelli as required management reading. He was very good at gaming the system to further his political career ambitions while thrashing the company he was working for at the same time. When a choice came to further a company project that would likely make us unpopular to our competitors, he observed our company's financial position (wasn't looking great) and frankly said that if we went ahead with the project none of us would likely find employment among the competitors after our current company went under. Thus he killed the project and went with a weak-competition implementation to make it look like he was busy doing his job whilst all the while sabotaging the company at the expense of his career. That company went under and had to 'reorganize' under bankruptcy. You'd like to believe that good work or honesty wins out -- but quiet often, I've found that not to be the case. Political and marketing manipulations will trump good design any day.
Can't believe this -- had a 1T fail yesturday (from SMART=healthy to dead) and a 2nd 750 come up with multiple read errors (though not dead -- just multiple read errors). Oddly -- I was planning to take it back to the retailer, since the drive model number doesn't match the external box (external box is retail, drive label says it is OEM only. Model # doesn't match but serial # does!). Never seen such oddness, but it was a Fry's open box, so they said they'd replace it. Six month old drive.
You ignorant twit. Don't assume that anyone who preaches against Xtianity is an atheist, thank-you, and don't assume that those who speak against Xtianity (and Islam, and any "one-wayism) hasn't read the Bible -- more than once, and the new testament even more times -- and hastn't been through multiple bible studies, and multiple Xtian churches from evangelical, Bible-based, to older-'standard' have run through the gamut trying to make sense of it -- ascertain if it was true --- (having been raised in a church-going family).
IF ANYONE who claims to be a Christian actually limited themselves to Christ's writings (exclude old testament based nonsense against homosexuality or abortion and exclude any Paulianity-based nonsense), they'd be quite tolerable. But Xtians aren't. They are Paulians or O.T. pharisees who love to speak the law and accuse other of guilt.
Christ preached loving others as you love yourself and not to judge others unless you were perfect. No where did he say "institute your personal prejudices and selective Old Testament nonsense as social law against others and persecute anyone who doesn't conform".
Get a frackin' life.
Religion can provide comfort in a sucky world for the masses -- but it's no basis to force a moral/ethical system on humans. There are better things to base morality and ethics on that can't be taught because the dominant Xtians claim it's teaching [anti-]religion -- secular humanism -- promoting the benefit of the human race should be the goal we seek. Not adherence to antiquated mythological systems that someday will be seen as quaint as a belief in ancient Roman or Egyptian deities -- by "someone" (maybe another race examining why humans killed themselves off and likely finding conflict over competing mythological belief systems as a prime cause).
The facts don't really make a difference -- they'll implement whatever laws they want and claim that any studies to the opposite are biased or unrealistic. They they'll also implement rules to prohibit studying interactions of actual children in privacy and protection grounds.
Never let the facts get in the way of a personal/political bias! That's government's motto -- especially if there is money in it. Think of all the money we'll need to add to "online cops" -- and all the prisons we can build for those who violate our restriction (even if the restrictions are shown to be unnecessary...)...
Selling fear is a far more efficient way of manipulating^h^h^h...governing people...
How does Crysis compare in GPU usage to Oblivion running with 16x Anti-aliasing and 16x anisotropic filtering with full options? That seems to stress most video cards a little bit especially at 1920x1200...
You can add 2-3Gigabytes of extra-high res textures on top of the standard game through extensions so resolution is pretty high.
You forgot part of the equation: the financial incentive.
If you have ratings "AAA", "AA", "A", "B" and you get a credit on your energy bill by sending in a receipt or proof of purchase, then you get back $50 on an "A" rated TV, $75 on an "AA", and $125 on an "AAA". When I bought a fridge several years back, it had a "AAAAA" rating (didn't know they went that high), and I got back $350.
You don't have to make things illegal to change usage -- just provide "incentives" and you'll get most of the way to your energy goals...
I'm not into the idea of "banning sales" of different types in CA. With the incentive program, it gets pretty clear to all the players what the cost of a cheap TV is vs. an energy efficient one.
Each year, the ratings are recalculated and set based on a 'curve' based on where the technology is -- so "B" rated TV's might be at the 25th percentile, A: 50%, AA: 60...etc...
How is this different than a suggestion box (i.e. a real one, not the kind that routes to the circular file)? Many companies used to have these things -- it was called "getting ideas from customers about what they would like to see". Was advanced stuff at the time... Most companies you have to pay to give advice to now days -- be on a support contract or pay for an incident.
Are you seriously suggesting that all muslims can be recognized on sight and that it is impossible for, let's say, a white woman to be a muslim?
Just have pictures posted of Moses, Jesus and Mohammad and see who complains about Mohammad and starts killing the people adjacent to them.
Reminds me of when the did the prophet cartoons, and Islamic-fundie crowds had riots and scores killed -- I thought "Gee -- the anti-islam folks found a cheap way to wage war against islamic extremists -- just publish a cartoon and let the masses kill each other in mass protests.
Eventually the world will see that Darwin was right...
but the marketing on 5-10x the lifetime of a standard incandescent bulb couldn't be more wrong.
It actually "is" correct, but only if you leave them both 'on' all the time for comparison. CFL's usually die because the starters burn out. It's the act of 'turning them on' that ages them. I threw 4 Watt CFL into a night-light to replace a 25-watt incandescent. Since 1999, I'm into my 3rd or 4th bulb. I think it was about 2006 when I last replaced it so maybe 20,000 - 30,000 hours for 1 bulb. That's extreme, certainly, but such life with an incandescent would be unlikely.
I still have some bulbs in use that I bought over 10 years ago when I converted to CFL's. I went around with a light meter to make sure I had same or better lighting. I found that 'daylight' balanced bulbs were better for color but worse for reading (you'd need higher wattage to provide equivalent reading brightness). I didn't find that CFL's were 25-33% of the electricity (as their labeling would suggest), but more in the 30-40% range.
So you can't claim CFL's are heavier per hours of illumination. So any claim that CFL's are heavier would have to be measured at them having longer lifespans on the average. But you need to use them appropriately -- if you put them where they are going to be turned off and on alot, they will burn out faster.
How would a carbon tax be implemented if one didn't charge for gasoline? A mileage tax based on solar powered electric vehicles wouldn't help the shift away from carbon-expensive fuels (including ethanol blends). One might ask a more pertinent question -- why is the Oregon governor proposing this NOW? Have that many drivers really converted to low-gas mileage vehicles that its making a significant impact, or is the fact that the recession, triggered by 5 dollars/gallon gasoline has caused a significant drop in driving.
This seems like an especially poor time to think about ways to play games with tax collection because one (a governor 'one') notices his road taxes aren't what they should be.
Unfortunately, the reality is that the ISPs don't have the bandwidth they've sold if everyone wants to use it, any more than the banks had the money they were selling. Some sort of change in pricing is inevitable. One way or another, those who have been doing very well out of the current flat-rate deals are going to be the ones who lose out, because they are getting things disproportionately cheap right now.
You are making an assumption that fraud has occurred. If, like a properly run bank, if depositors' money has been invested in capital-producing ventures (new hardware & cables to support expanded capacity). When depositors come to withdraw money, they are usually able to withdraw it unless there has been mismanagement and/or there is a run on the bank -- i.e. if ISP's have invested in expansion, they should be able to handle demand unless every single user wants everything out at once. The ISP's are running over a public-infrastructure (the phone cables). In the "last mile" -- phone companies and cable companies have been given monopolies in exchange for public service. As part of that public service, they should be expanding the network to meet projected capacity.
OTOH -- back in reality land -- we have examples of the phone companies that were given 3+Billion dollars in Bailout, ^h^h^h^h, handout ^h^h^h^h, expansion money to expand capacity -- of course that was quickly divided up among shareholders as dividends and no expansion was ever done. Normally -- if a person did this, it would be called fraud and they'd face prison terms of 10-15 years, maybe more for conspiracy. But this seems to be regarded as morally acceptable behavior of the "public" (in quotes, because they are often private companies that have been given an "encumbered monopoly" -- i.e. they are suppose to be providing a public service.
I don't know about the UK -- but given that the BBC gets a fee TV owners to watch content, I suspect they will somehow want that fee to continue for computer-delivered entertainment. Consumers in the US are already paying for video content from many video services in that we "get" to watch ads. Again -- some of that ad revenue, should, in some way be going to capacity upgrade at the server ends. While I have a premium U.S. internet connect, running at about 3Mbps (*cough*), I find that when I watch videos, I often cannot watch a 1Mbit stream reliably. At no time, however, do I find that my connection to my provider runs under ~320KB/s, and any well-connected software site downloads in the 300+KB/s range.
Thus it seems that the there are already intermittent capacity problems at or near the server end. The question is, should ISP's be allowed to sell a service which they cannot provide? Do ISP's need to be regulated like banks to prevent a bandwidth crisis -- forcing ISP's to limit their supported bandwidth sales to some multiple of their capacity? To make things clear to consumers, the "oversell" ratio should be public knowledge -- so consumers can choose what level of "sharing" or "risk" they want to take on and select ISP's accordingly.
In a way -- and this is frightening -- if ISP's do not sell and manage bandwidth and capacity responsibly, they may find that governments will be demanded (by consumers) to step in and do some regulation to keep ISP's from going into bandwidth-bankruptcy.
Based on the looks of the machine -- it's the same chassis as their 2-3 yr old "Dell Precision 690" Workstation model. The 690 workstation sported a Intel 5000X Workstation motherboard (the other 5000-series boards are for servers) with sockets for two CPU's and expandable to 64GB of memory. It came with a stock 750W power supply or an optional 1KW PS. It's an impressive case that just feels solid. No tools needed to replace boards in the motherboard. Four 5" bays for media drives + 4 internal 3.5 HD bays. You might be able to configure a similarly equipped machine by ordering the basic system as a Precision workstation and adding in your own graphics card (the workstations usually come with Quadro graphics, which suck wrt/price:performance for gaming).
Haven't tried configuring or ordering one, but you might get a similar i7 based system through their small business and home-office store-front with less flash, similar internals, but less cash. You might also have option to choose a SAS controller that allows you to mix SAS and SATA drives for a RAID0 config + a large cheap SATA drive.
Of course SGI found out about this about 15-20 years ago, and included a defragmenter with their XFS file system for pathological cases. Normally, their XFS file system resists fragmentation by using delayed allocation, but with multiple I/O streams going to disk, its unavoidable.
Tell that to the US citizens who were served National Security Letters under the auspices of the PATRIOT Act. Oh wait, you can't, because those people are legally prohibited from disclosure...
On non NAS devices (like from a linux server), I get 200-400Mb/s Xfer over 1G (w/non-raid disks). I don't see that on NAS devices. Max speed I was able to get with standard packets (1500 bytes) was about 700Mbs -- that's expectable/acceptable. I would "love" to use jumbo frames, but Jumbo Frames usage is flawed as currently implemented (IMO).
Currently, all equipment must run at same frame size -- you can't upgrade "some cards", and switch over to larger packetsizes, slowly as you need to replace things...its all 1 size or nothing. The bad thing is that when larger packet devices would try to talk to smaller devices, they would work find for small packet xfers -- like 'ssh' -- but just "drop" larger packets on a TCP connection -- no error sent back to sending device to break packet down into smaller chunks -- packet is just dropped.
There was no negotiation (or no "correct negotiation") of max packet size -- if a host was set to allow use of large packets, it would use them talking to every client -- was MAJORLY bummed when I figured this out -- there was no way to tell the host to use different packet sizes based on some agreed max-MTU size -- all or nothing.
I might have been able to use multiple virtual IP interfaces and cut up the network into different virtual, overlapping IP spaces based on their MAX MTU size, but that was way too much headache to enable Jumbo frames. Having to move clients around on a virtual subnet based on what card they were running and what Max-MTU they were capable of... There needs to be some auto-negotiation as is done for link-speed&duplex.
Under test conditions, though, Jumbo packets only gave me about a max of 15% more throughput. In practice, it wasn't noticeable, but admittedly, could have been if my server had been using RAID or if more of the clients were linux (instead of Windows -- Windows stack was notably slower).
if it says gigabit ethernet, for me that usually means anywhere between 200-800Mbps And you would be one of those 'suckers' born every minute.
I tried a 1Ge that allowed an internal 2-disk RAID-0, setup. The best it would do was about 12MB/s read, 7-8MB/s write. That's about the performance I'd expect on a 100Mb ethernet -- they just added Gb-E, as a marketing gimmick and because with current volumes -- GbE are probably getting chearper than 100bE.
Do not assume 1Gb ethernet is >= 100Mb ethernet for throughput unless you have numbers to back it up.
It's a very sad state of NAS units -- it's been only recently that they started offering 1Gb, but I have yet to see any that really support those speeds.
So someone who doesn't have WORD installed, but thinks they are safe because they only have a converter (WordPad viewer) and no Macro functionality will be screwed.
So if you use any Open source pdf->text converter, then you are saying users that get infected by opening a pdf in their pdf->text converter are "stupid" and "deserve [shit]"?
Wouldn't this also correspond to any open source conversion util? I.e. -- your assessment of them being "stupid" -- anyone using a converter from some higher level format to view in a lower level format is "stupid"? What about people who use an HTML viewer? Like a browser? Do they qualify as stupid too?
Just checking... Maybe you could tell everyone which higher level format converters are 'safe'? Please be exhaustive so those who strive not to be 'stupid' will be able to protect themselves...
In a capitalistic society, it goes against the grain to release "dead" code to the public. It might give some competitor a 'leg-up' in some future venture against you. Companies that kill products, or go out of business are nearly always intent on taking their code to the grave with them.
All that wasted intellectual capital -- that others could have looked at, gotten ideas from, possible adapted for other uses...It's a sick and harmful effect on society and humanity -- so much better to throw away good code than to let anyone else possibly benefit.
Certainly it isn't pro-human-race survival for humans to always be "knee-capping" each other to always keep others from getting ahead -- but it's like -- I think it was female lobsters put in a bucket. If it looks like one is about to get out -- the others will pull her back in to prevent her from "getting ahead" and "surviving"....better to kill everyone so we are all 'even'.
It's very related to people going out of their way to make sure others don't get or make use of some perceived advantage. It's sad to see some 25% of the people who will go out of their way -- out of spite, to bring others down to their level -- rather than going with the idea that if some are pushed up, there may be more opportunities for them -- even if they aren't the ones that make it ahead.
To me, that's a psychopathic, negative personality -- that seems to exist in the US population in the 25-33% range (maybe depending on generation or economic climate).
What's odd, is that in group studies where one person can donate money to a 'pot' that is then divided among all, there are US folks that will forfeit their own money and progress to punish those who are perceived as not giving their "fair share", yet reap benefit. However, this is specific to US society. In ex-Soviet states, the "punishers" punished those who gave who gave *more* than the average -- or gave the higher amounts -- there, it had become more important to punish those who put pressure on the others to give more.
Similar 'sentiments' punish those who don't meet the norm, but very fascinating the way it went in different directions in different societies. Yet -- it still boils down to some 25-33% of the population who make themselves guardians, judges, and enforcers of some 'mediocrity' in society.
It's almost as sad as thinking about all the resources and capital that have been 'burned' or gone to waste by people singly and in large groups fighting against each other and destroying accomplishments all to keep others from getting ahead -- all of which ultimately drags down the entire group.
It's one of the saddest features of most large US companies -- where employees are rated and ranked against each other -- a large number spend significant time and effort to undermine successes of other employees.
It really needs to be classified as *pathological*, sick and criminal behavior -- not "human nature" and not "acceptable" -- because it pulls everyone backwards and down. Ultimate -- it fits the true definition of evil -- something that is anti-human (human health, life, race, evolution). Things that have ill will toward humans (in general) or humanity are the most general definition of "evil".
When some government auditor wonders why they paid $20K for an HP laptop instead of the $1150.00 quoted pricing, it's a pain for the buyer to have to explain that they have a special contract through which they get their HP computers:
* First going through a NO-BID Alaskan Native American firm (except from normal bid process because they are a qualifying minority) in AK (they hold back $7K as handling fee).
* Second, they kick back 2.3K to the state senator's political committee for re-election, and have some contractors deliver some winter jackets -- out of white-bear skin, baby-seal for the kids (~worth $3-5K)
* Third the native firm subscontracts with Haliburton (who has called 'dibs' on the D.C. contract market) and pays them 10K to procure the PC. They charge $5K overhead and then
* Fourth, give $5K to their new employee who was working for the government when the PC was ordered (he ordered it!), but has since quit and taken a job in the private sector working for Haliburton.
* Fifth, He orders it from CDW on a 10% GA discount, costing him about 1K and keeps the 4K as his bonus for inventing and procuring the government contract.
* Six, with typical Republican efficiency, they've gotten rid of all the government employees who would normally handle the entire transaction, and replaced them with contractors who end up charging 10 times as much as what it was costing the government to do it in house. Especially, since many of those laid off during the Bush-II years had been career, government administrators, expert in their jobs and actually knew what they were doing. But, then, that's why they had to be encouraged to quit (or fired in some cases).
== Neo-con government maxims: (1)eliminate government functions and outsource all work to gain the efficiencies of the market (except the outsourced work usually goes to predetermined vendors via under-table negotiations/'campaign donation'). (2) If you can't eliminate a government function, remove all enforcement branches: The Consumer Safety Commission can no longer "order" that a recall be done on something 'unsafe' -- they must 'beseech' the retailers, who (in cases where the original seller has gone bankrupt or 'disappeared') often must handle the expense of the recall themselves and, in some cases, eat the cost of the goods. The FDA -- food inspectors have had their budget and numbers cut -- notice how lead poisoning, melamine poisoning, and food poisonings have been in the news alot more frequently the past few years? (3) if you can't eliminate a government function either a) (best choice) place someone hostile to the government organization in charge of it: examples: James Watt as Interior Secretary, or Bush's pics for our UN ambassador(Bolton:someone who thought we should exit the UN and it should be disbanded), Dept-of-Interior (an oil-drilling rancher), Dept-of-Education (someone who has said he wants to eliminate public schools)...etc. If you can't find someone hostile -- place someone who doesn't know anything about the job (recent attorney generals, FEMA("Browny" in Katrina), et al.)....
Yeah -- there are all sorta of reasons why corporations, especially ones that do business with the government, to not want decisions and pricing to be open for public review....
Couldn't directional antennae be placed around the prison and aimed at the prison and 'downward' (angle) so that only the prison's property would be affected?
Another option would be to install micro-cell towers around or inside the prison. Range of 20-50yards? Supposedly a university on 'hilly land' (on the side of a hill), needed to blanket their campus with micro-cells to get good coverage. But they seemed to have no problem with making sure that the micro-cells aren't accessible to line-of-site locations off campus -- either the power is too low, or the RF transceivers are focused downward. If they install multiple towers (each tower would have to support all active phone networks), couldn't triangulation be used to automatically drop or prevent calls that were triangulated to inside the prison property?
Slashdot Mirror
Respond to remote, yes. Anything else -- not in a normal sleep mode.
A previous manager of, obviously, dubious ethics, recommended Machiavelli as required management reading. He was very good at gaming the system to further his political career ambitions while thrashing the company he was working for at the same time. When a choice came to further a company project that would likely make us unpopular to our competitors, he observed our company's financial position (wasn't looking great) and frankly said that if we went ahead with the project none of us would likely find employment among the competitors after our current company went under. Thus he killed the project and went with a weak-competition implementation to make it look like he was busy doing his job whilst all the while sabotaging the company at the expense of his career. That company went under and had to 'reorganize' under bankruptcy. You'd like to believe that good work or honesty wins out -- but quiet often, I've found that not to be the case. Political and marketing manipulations will trump good design any day.
In the real world, Machiavelli's are the one's who get remembered in history.
Can't believe this -- had a 1T fail yesturday (from SMART=healthy to dead) and a 2nd 750 come up with multiple read errors (though not dead -- just multiple read errors). Oddly -- I was planning to take it back to the retailer, since the drive model number doesn't match the external box (external box is retail, drive label says it is OEM only. Model # doesn't match but serial # does!). Never seen such oddness, but it was a Fry's open box, so they said they'd replace it. Six month old drive.
You ignorant twit. Don't assume that anyone who preaches against Xtianity is an atheist, thank-you, and don't assume that those who speak against Xtianity (and Islam, and any "one-wayism) hasn't read the Bible -- more than once, and the new testament even more times -- and hastn't been through multiple bible studies, and multiple Xtian churches from evangelical, Bible-based, to older-'standard' have run through the gamut trying to make sense of it -- ascertain if it was true --- (having been raised in a church-going family).
IF ANYONE who claims to be a Christian actually limited themselves to Christ's writings (exclude old testament based nonsense against homosexuality or abortion and exclude any Paulianity-based nonsense), they'd be quite tolerable. But Xtians aren't. They are Paulians or O.T. pharisees who love to speak the law and accuse other of guilt.
Christ preached loving others as you love yourself and not to judge others unless you were perfect. No where did he say "institute your personal prejudices and selective Old Testament nonsense as social law against others and persecute anyone who doesn't conform".
Get a frackin' life.
Religion can provide comfort in a sucky world for the masses -- but it's no basis to force a moral/ethical system on humans. There are better things to base morality and ethics on that can't be taught because the dominant Xtians claim it's teaching [anti-]religion -- secular humanism -- promoting the benefit of the human race should be the goal we seek. Not adherence to antiquated mythological systems that someday will be seen as quaint as a belief in ancient Roman or Egyptian deities -- by "someone" (maybe another race examining why humans killed themselves off and likely finding conflict over competing mythological belief systems as a prime cause).
Look at Cannabis prosecution...
The facts don't really make a difference -- they'll implement whatever laws they want and claim that any studies to the opposite are biased or unrealistic. They they'll also implement rules to prohibit studying interactions of actual children in privacy and protection grounds.
Never let the facts get in the way of a personal/political bias! That's government's motto -- especially if there is money in it. Think of all the money we'll need to add to "online cops" -- and all the prisons we can build for those who violate our restriction (even if the restrictions are shown to be unnecessary...)...
Selling fear is a far more efficient way of manipulating^h^h^h...governing people...
How does Crysis compare in GPU usage to Oblivion running with 16x Anti-aliasing and 16x anisotropic filtering with full options? That seems to stress most video cards a little bit especially at 1920x1200...
You can add 2-3Gigabytes of extra-high res textures on top of the standard game through extensions so resolution is pretty high.
Is Crysis about .5 as fast or what?
You forgot part of the equation: the financial incentive.
If you have ratings "AAA", "AA", "A", "B" and you get a credit on your energy bill by sending in a receipt or proof of purchase, then you get back $50 on an "A" rated TV, $75 on an "AA", and $125 on an "AAA". When I bought a fridge several years back, it had a "AAAAA" rating (didn't know they went that high), and I got back $350.
You don't have to make things illegal to change usage -- just provide "incentives" and you'll get most of the way to your energy goals...
I'm not into the idea of "banning sales" of different types in CA. With the incentive program, it gets pretty clear to all the players what the cost of a cheap TV is vs. an energy efficient one.
Each year, the ratings are recalculated and set based on a 'curve' based on where the technology is -- so "B" rated
TV's might be at the 25th percentile, A: 50%, AA: 60...etc...
Also, I believe the U.S. uses time of "invention" rather than time of "filing" as the start date for patents.
How is this different than a suggestion box (i.e. a real one, not the kind that routes to the circular file)? Many companies used to have these things -- it was called "getting ideas from customers about what they would like to see". Was advanced stuff at the time... Most companies you have to pay to give advice to now days -- be on a support contract or pay for an incident.
Are you seriously suggesting that all muslims can be recognized on sight and that it is impossible for, let's say, a white woman to be a muslim?
Just have pictures posted of Moses, Jesus and Mohammad and see who complains about Mohammad and starts killing the people adjacent to them.
Reminds me of when the did the prophet cartoons, and Islamic-fundie crowds had riots and scores killed -- I thought "Gee -- the anti-islam folks found a cheap way to wage war against islamic extremists -- just publish a cartoon and let the masses kill each other in mass protests.
Eventually the world will see that Darwin was right...
but the marketing on 5-10x the lifetime of a standard incandescent bulb couldn't be more wrong.
It actually "is" correct, but only if you leave them both 'on' all the time for comparison. CFL's usually die because the starters burn out. It's the act of 'turning them on' that ages them. I threw 4 Watt CFL into a night-light to replace a 25-watt incandescent. Since 1999, I'm into my 3rd or 4th bulb. I think it was about 2006 when I last replaced it so maybe 20,000 - 30,000 hours for 1 bulb. That's extreme, certainly, but such life with an incandescent would be unlikely.
I still have some bulbs in use that I bought over 10 years ago when I converted to CFL's. I went around with a light meter to make sure I had same or better lighting. I found that 'daylight' balanced bulbs were better for color but worse for reading (you'd need higher wattage to provide equivalent reading brightness). I didn't find that CFL's were 25-33% of the electricity (as their labeling would suggest), but more in the 30-40% range.
So you can't claim CFL's are heavier per hours of illumination. So any claim that CFL's are heavier would have to be measured at them having longer lifespans on the average. But you need to use them appropriately -- if you put them where they are going to be turned off and on alot, they will burn out faster.
How would a carbon tax be implemented if one didn't charge for gasoline? A mileage tax based on solar powered electric vehicles wouldn't help the shift away from carbon-expensive fuels (including ethanol blends). One might ask a more pertinent question -- why is the Oregon governor proposing this NOW? Have that many drivers really converted to low-gas mileage vehicles that its making a significant impact, or is the fact that the recession, triggered by 5 dollars/gallon gasoline has caused a significant drop in driving.
This seems like an especially poor time to think about ways to play games with tax collection because one (a governor 'one') notices his road taxes aren't what they should be.
Unfortunately, the reality is that the ISPs don't have the bandwidth they've sold if everyone wants to use it, any more than the banks had the money they were selling. Some sort of change in pricing is inevitable. One way or another, those who have been doing very well out of the current flat-rate deals are going to be the ones who lose out, because they are getting things disproportionately cheap right now.
You are making an assumption that fraud has occurred. If, like a properly run bank, if depositors' money has been invested in capital-producing ventures (new hardware & cables to support expanded capacity). When depositors come to withdraw money, they are usually able to withdraw it unless there has been mismanagement and/or there is a run on the bank -- i.e. if ISP's have invested in expansion, they should be able to handle demand unless every single user wants everything out at once. The ISP's are running over a public-infrastructure (the phone cables). In the "last mile" -- phone companies and cable companies have been given monopolies in exchange for public service. As part of that public service, they should be expanding the network to meet projected capacity.
OTOH -- back in reality land -- we have examples of the phone companies that were given 3+Billion dollars in Bailout, ^h^h^h^h, handout ^h^h^h^h, expansion money to expand capacity -- of course that was quickly divided up among shareholders as dividends and no expansion was ever done. Normally -- if a person did this, it would be called fraud and they'd face prison terms of 10-15 years, maybe more for conspiracy. But this seems to be regarded as morally acceptable behavior of the "public" (in quotes, because they are often private companies that have been given an "encumbered monopoly" -- i.e. they are suppose to be providing a public service.
I don't know about the UK -- but given that the BBC gets a fee TV owners to watch content, I suspect they will somehow want that fee to continue for computer-delivered entertainment. Consumers in the US are already paying for video content from many video services in that we "get" to watch ads. Again -- some of that ad revenue, should, in some way be going to capacity upgrade at the server ends. While I have a premium U.S. internet connect, running at about 3Mbps (*cough*), I find that when I watch videos, I often cannot watch a 1Mbit stream reliably. At no time, however, do I find that my connection to my provider runs under ~320KB/s, and any well-connected software site downloads in the 300+KB/s range.
Thus it seems that the there are already intermittent capacity problems at or near the server end. The question is, should ISP's be allowed to sell a service which they cannot provide? Do ISP's need to be regulated like banks to prevent a bandwidth crisis -- forcing ISP's to limit their supported bandwidth sales to some multiple of their capacity? To make things clear to consumers, the "oversell" ratio should be public knowledge -- so consumers can choose what level of "sharing" or "risk" they want to take on and select ISP's accordingly.
In a way -- and this is frightening -- if ISP's do not sell and manage bandwidth and capacity responsibly, they may find that governments will be demanded (by consumers) to step in and do some regulation to keep ISP's from going into bandwidth-bankruptcy.
Based on the looks of the machine -- it's the same chassis as their 2-3 yr old "Dell Precision 690" Workstation model.
The 690 workstation sported a Intel 5000X Workstation motherboard (the other 5000-series boards are for servers) with sockets for two CPU's and expandable to 64GB of memory. It came with a stock 750W power supply or an optional 1KW PS. It's an impressive case that just feels solid. No tools needed to replace boards in the motherboard. Four 5" bays for media drives + 4 internal 3.5 HD bays. You might be able to configure a similarly equipped machine by ordering the basic system as a Precision workstation and adding in your own graphics card (the workstations usually come with Quadro graphics, which suck wrt/price:performance for gaming).
Haven't tried configuring or ordering one, but you might get a similar i7 based system through their small business and home-office store-front with less flash, similar internals, but less cash. You might also have option to choose a SAS controller that allows you to mix SAS and SATA drives for a RAID0 config + a large cheap SATA drive.
Of course SGI found out about this about 15-20 years ago, and included a defragmenter with their XFS file system for pathological cases. Normally, their XFS file system resists fragmentation by using delayed allocation, but with multiple I/O streams going to disk, its unavoidable.
Tell that to the US citizens who were served National Security Letters under the auspices of the PATRIOT Act. Oh wait, you can't, because those people are legally prohibited from disclosure...
Not no more: Court Rules Patriot Act's "National Security Letter" Gag Provisions Unconstitutional (12/15/2008)
On non NAS devices (like from a linux server), I get 200-400Mb/s Xfer over 1G (w/non-raid disks). I don't see that on NAS devices.
Max speed I was able to get with standard packets (1500 bytes) was about 700Mbs -- that's expectable/acceptable. I would "love" to use jumbo frames, but Jumbo Frames usage is flawed as currently implemented (IMO).
Currently, all equipment must run at same frame size -- you can't upgrade "some cards", and switch over to larger packetsizes, slowly as you need to replace things...its all 1 size or nothing. The bad thing is that when larger packet devices would try to talk to smaller devices, they would work find for small packet xfers -- like 'ssh' -- but just "drop" larger packets on a TCP connection --
no error sent back to sending device to break packet down into smaller chunks -- packet is just dropped.
There was no negotiation (or no "correct negotiation") of max packet size -- if a host was set to allow use of large packets, it would use them talking to every client -- was MAJORLY bummed when I figured this out -- there was no way to tell the host to use different packet sizes based on some agreed max-MTU size -- all or nothing.
I might have been able to use multiple virtual IP interfaces and cut up the network into different virtual, overlapping IP spaces based on their MAX MTU size, but that was way too much headache to enable Jumbo frames. Having to move clients around on a virtual subnet based on what card they were running and what Max-MTU they were capable of... There needs to be some auto-negotiation as is done for link-speed&duplex.
Under test conditions, though, Jumbo packets only gave me about a max of 15% more throughput. In practice, it wasn't noticeable, but admittedly, could have been if my server had been using RAID or if more of the clients were linux (instead of Windows -- Windows stack was notably slower).
if it says gigabit ethernet, for me that usually means anywhere between 200-800Mbps
And you would be one of those 'suckers' born every minute.
I tried a 1Ge that allowed an internal 2-disk RAID-0, setup. The best it would do was about 12MB/s read, 7-8MB/s write.
That's about the performance I'd expect on a 100Mb ethernet -- they just added Gb-E, as a marketing gimmick and because with current volumes -- GbE are probably getting chearper than 100bE.
Do not assume 1Gb ethernet is >= 100Mb ethernet for throughput unless you have numbers to back it up.
It's a very sad state of NAS units -- it's been only recently that they started offering 1Gb, but I have yet to see any that really support those speeds.
Orange asked: "What if you had less sunlight because you caused a nuclear winter?"
Use people as batteries? :-)
I need to see a comparison with a non-crippled version of Windows. Vista is a non-OS....
So someone who doesn't have WORD installed, but thinks they are safe because they only have a converter (WordPad viewer) and no Macro functionality will be screwed.
So if you use any Open source pdf->text converter, then you are saying users that get infected by opening a pdf in their pdf->text converter are "stupid" and "deserve [shit]"?
Wouldn't this also correspond to any open source conversion util ? I.e. -- your assessment of them being "stupid" -- anyone using a converter from some higher level format to view in a lower level format is "stupid"? What about people who use an HTML viewer? Like a browser ? Do they qualify as stupid too?
Just checking...
Maybe you could tell everyone which higher level format converters are 'safe'? Please be exhaustive so those who strive not to be 'stupid' will be able to protect themselves...
In a capitalistic society, it goes against the grain to release "dead" code to the public. It might give some competitor a 'leg-up' in some future venture against you. Companies that kill products, or go out of business are nearly always intent on taking their code to the grave with them.
All that wasted intellectual capital -- that others could have looked at, gotten ideas from, possible adapted for other uses...It's a sick and harmful effect on society and humanity -- so much better to throw away good code than to let anyone else possibly benefit.
Certainly it isn't pro-human-race survival for humans to always be "knee-capping" each other to always keep others from getting ahead -- but it's like -- I think it was female lobsters put in a bucket. If it looks like one is about to get out -- the others will pull her back in to prevent her from "getting ahead" and "surviving"....better to kill everyone so we are all 'even'.
It's very related to people going out of their way to make sure others don't get or make use of some perceived advantage. It's sad to see some 25% of the people who will go out of their way -- out of spite, to bring others down to their level -- rather than going with the idea that if some are pushed up, there may be more opportunities for them -- even if they aren't the ones that make it ahead.
To me, that's a psychopathic, negative personality -- that seems to exist in the US population in the 25-33% range (maybe depending on generation or economic climate).
What's odd, is that in group studies where one person can donate money to a 'pot' that is then divided among all,
there are US folks that will forfeit their own money and progress to punish those who are perceived as not giving their "fair share", yet reap benefit. However, this is specific to US society. In ex-Soviet states, the "punishers" punished those who gave who gave *more* than the average -- or gave the higher amounts -- there, it had become more important to punish those who put pressure on the others to give more.
Similar 'sentiments' punish those who don't meet the norm, but very fascinating the way it went in different directions in different societies. Yet -- it still boils down to some 25-33% of the population who make themselves guardians, judges, and enforcers of some 'mediocrity' in society.
It's almost as sad as thinking about all the resources and capital that have been 'burned' or gone to waste by people singly and in large groups fighting against each other and destroying accomplishments all to keep others from getting ahead -- all of which ultimately drags down the entire group.
It's one of the saddest features of most large US companies -- where employees are rated and ranked against each other -- a large number spend significant time and effort to undermine successes of other employees.
It really needs to be classified as *pathological*, sick and criminal behavior -- not "human nature" and not "acceptable" -- because it pulls everyone backwards and down. Ultimate -- it fits the true definition of evil -- something that is anti-human (human health, life, race, evolution). Things that have ill will toward humans (in general) or humanity are the most general definition of "evil".
When some government auditor wonders why they paid $20K for an HP laptop instead of the $1150.00 quoted pricing, it's a pain for the buyer to have to explain that they have a special contract through which they get their HP computers:
* First going through a NO-BID Alaskan Native American firm (except from normal bid process because they are a qualifying minority) in AK (they hold back $7K as handling fee).
* Second, they kick back 2.3K to the state senator's political committee for re-election, and have some contractors deliver some winter jackets -- out of white-bear skin, baby-seal for the kids (~worth $3-5K)
* Third the native firm subscontracts with Haliburton (who has called 'dibs' on the D.C. contract market) and pays them 10K to procure the PC. They charge $5K overhead and then
* Fourth, give $5K to their new employee who was working for the government when the PC was ordered (he ordered it!), but has since quit and taken a job in the private sector working for Haliburton.
* Fifth, He orders it from CDW on a 10% GA discount, costing him about 1K and keeps the 4K as his bonus for inventing and procuring the government contract.
* Six, with typical Republican efficiency, they've gotten rid of all the government employees who would normally handle the entire transaction, and replaced them with contractors who end up charging 10 times as much as what it was costing the government to do it in house. Especially, since many of those laid off during the Bush-II years had been career, government administrators, expert in their jobs and actually knew what they were doing. But, then, that's why they had to be encouraged to quit (or fired in some cases).
== Neo-con government maxims: (1)eliminate government functions and outsource all work to gain the efficiencies of the market (except the outsourced work usually goes to predetermined vendors via under-table negotiations/'campaign donation'). (2) If you can't eliminate a government function, remove all enforcement branches: The Consumer Safety Commission can no longer "order" that a recall be done on something 'unsafe' -- they must 'beseech' the retailers, who (in cases where the original seller has gone bankrupt or 'disappeared') often must handle the expense of the recall themselves and, in some cases, eat the cost of the goods. The FDA -- food inspectors have had their budget and numbers cut -- notice how lead poisoning, melamine poisoning, and food poisonings have been in the news alot more frequently the past few years? (3) if you can't eliminate a government function either a) (best choice) place someone hostile to the government organization in charge of it: examples: James Watt as Interior Secretary, or Bush's pics for our UN ambassador(Bolton:someone who thought we should exit the UN and it should be disbanded), Dept-of-Interior (an oil-drilling rancher), Dept-of-Education (someone who has said he wants to eliminate public schools)...etc. If you can't find someone hostile -- place someone who doesn't know anything about the job (recent attorney generals, FEMA("Browny" in Katrina), et al.)....
Yeah -- there are all sorta of reasons why corporations, especially ones that do business with the government, to not want decisions and pricing to be open for public review....
Couldn't directional antennae be placed around the prison and aimed at the prison and 'downward' (angle) so that only the prison's property would be affected?
Another option would be to install micro-cell towers around or inside the prison. Range of 20-50yards? Supposedly a university on 'hilly land' (on the side of a hill), needed to blanket their campus with micro-cells to get good coverage. But they seemed to have no problem with making sure that the micro-cells aren't accessible to line-of-site locations off campus -- either the power is too low, or the RF transceivers are focused downward. If they install multiple towers (each tower would have to support all active phone networks), couldn't triangulation be used to automatically drop or prevent calls that were triangulated to inside the prison property?