It was a joke. Amazon didn't patent "treating customers like crap" no matter what the summary or linked article say.
What Amazon patented is a predictive model used to optimize inventory handling and shipping.
In other words, they start to figure out the best way to ship you the crap on your "recommended items" list before you even order it. That way, should you actually buy any of that, they will already have figured out the best warehouse to ship it from and the best carrier to use. They also try to predict when you might buy those things, so they can figure in anticipated shipping costs, inventory levels and operating capacity of their various distribution centers. They want to avoid things like inventory shortages and overloading their packaging lines.
The patent says NOTHING about penalizing "bad" customers, or even giving "good" customers a specific advantage. The name of the game is to anticipate orders and optimize the order fulfillment process ahead of time. The only reason a "good" customer would benefit more is because there is more history to build the predictive model with, and thus it will be more accurate. =Smidge=
application can control the per file buffering recommendation.
Bing!
And if you don't realize this is exactly what I said in the first place (ie only the developer of the specific application knows the optimal buffer size), you need to be held back a grade. The OS can not magically know this, it needs to be told. The hard drive, also, can not know this, and there is currently no mechanism to tell it. The point being that if you COULD tell the hard drive what kind of demand to expect in the long term, it could optimize itself for power usage. Thanks for following along. =Smidge=
Again, that doesn't help the hard drive manufacturer, and the OS does not know how much data other applications may want to read at any given time. Only the application author can know that... maybe.
Unfortunately the hard drive has no way of knowing how much data a program is actually going to read from a particular file, so this is not something the hard drive firmware can handle.
It would be an issue for the software developers to determine the benefits of caching a huge file into RAM, and from their point of view there is little point in doing that for data you're just going to read linearly. =Smidge=
I ended up installing Steam along with The Orange Box. So far I have not seen anything suggesting you can get a refund, but then again I really haven't bothered to poke around a bit (just launch the dang game!)
However, even if refunds are offered, they still don't "lose" money - They give back what they took from you, but there's no shipping and handling fees or cost of making the physical copy that you have now returned (and can't really sell full price because it's "used"). At best they lost what few pennies it cost them in bandwidth for you to download it in the first place. =Smidge=
It is precicely BECAUSE exit polls suck that they are unlikely to influence the election. Also, if polls are closed throughout then that's not a problem either IMHO.
The problem is when you start announcing a "winner" before everyone has voted, which may disenfranchize people who would otherwise have voted for the "losing" candidate. =Smidge=
I think "instant reports before the voting is completely over" should be an illegal practice. Exit polls are one thing, but publishing "official" vote results before everyone has finished voting? That doesn't strike me as productive to the democratic process.
Sorry for the late reply. I glanced over this discussion when it was first posted, but just recently I found Amazon put up an officially official page on the device, including a mini tutorial video.
According to the official page (gleaned from the video):
-You can subscribe to a range of "US and international" newspapers and magazines which are downloaded automatically (providing you haven't turned off the wireless connection). The service also includes blog feeds (I saw Slashdot, TechCrunch, BoingBoing, Motely Fool and The Onion in the demo video).
-The wireless connection uses the cellular phone network, and there is no additional fee for using that data connection during purchases.
-"Everything you buy" is backed up online, which means I assume it is associated with your Amazon account and you can re-download it without additional cost.
-Includes dictionary and free Wikipedia access.
-Includes web access (though I think generic web access incurs additional fees)
-Per-line highlighting, custom notes, bookmarking and auto-bookmarking of last viewed page for each book/publication.
-Search all downloaded text for words and phrases. Searching also provides links to Wikipedia, Web search and Kindle store.
-For a "small fee" you can e-mail documents and images of various formats to your account and view them on the device.
-SD memory card slot, USB connection (likely used for charging as well) and 1/8" headphone jack (not clear if it actually plays audio at this point though)
Honestly, I'm a little impressed with the device. I still wouldn't buy one, since I don't really read on-the-go that much, but I'm still impressed by it. The only thing that sets me off is the rechargeable battery, which is probably not user-replaceable. I prefer gadgets that use standard batteries so I can put it my OWN rechargeables, and if I really need I can stop in almost any store and buy a few cells. That's just me, though. YMMV. =Smidge=
The RIAA are pressing for colleges to not cover the tracks of students who download copyrighted material. How can you say that's not fair?
Because they have not, in hundreds of lawsuits, actually managed to prove anything with that information in court. Not once. Their track record for accurately identifying pirates is nonexistant. All it does it create a chilling effect on legitimate use.
That "only criminals have anything to fear" argument is pure bullshit too. Do you have blinds of curtains on your windows? Why? If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide! Moron. While I understand what you're trying to do, there are centuries of precedence that show us it's not going to work. Why don't you try something that doesn't kill legitimate business in the process? =Smidge=
If you are a band that wants to give your music away FREE, nobody will or can stop you.
Not entirely true.
If your distribution relies on P2P technology, and I make P2P illegal, I have stopped you from giving away your music for free.
If I throw up enough legal hurdles and threats that no web host will allow music files to be stored on their servers anymore, or only ones that you can't afford are willing to host, I have stopped you.
If I convince your potential audience that downloading any music is somehow morally wrong and/or illegal, I have stopped you.
Please show me evidence of how big business and the RIAA are preventing a small indie garage band selling their music direct for free. tell me how they will stop me. a direct example of how its done.
First, RTFA. If that plan succeeds and even one college band is silenced because they can't distribute their work, what would you say?
Second, it's called an infringement lawsuit. Plenty of small-time bands have been shut up with legal threats because a handful of notes sounds somewhat similar to an existing song. (Some more deserving than others, IMHO) Just one of the many tools they can use to stall the music industry paradigm shift to make that extra buck.
Lastly: You're delusional if you think my side of this discussion has ANYTHING to do piracy. Have fun beating that strawman... My argument is that they (*IAA) are controlling for the sake of controlling, not protecting, and ultimately it does nothing productive but actually hurts everyone involved. =Smidge=
Okay, here's the problem... you're not on the same page as everyone else. You're in your own little fantasy world where you reply to what you THINK people are saying and not what they ARE.
I'm not saying it's okay to steal the music. Nowhere did I say that. What I DID say is there is a proven link between cost/easy of purchase and piracy rates. If you make a product easily available at a reasonable price, fewer people will rip you off. *IAA companies don't like that line of thinking because it eats at their profits, so they'd rather try to stop people from going after the cheaper product.
I'm not saying the industry leaders shouldn't take steps to protect their property either, though I bet you wish I was.
Big business has been attempting to squash, criminalize, or otherwise legislate away the ability for anyone else to sell music for the price they (the little guy) want.
One method to do this is to instill a "downloading is bad" mentality within the public. RIAA lawsuits, reports with very questionable links between P2P use and declining sales, etc. And now, trying to muscle in on university networks by cutting off federal funding if they don't block P2P traffic.
P2P traffic DOES have legit uses, you know, even if some (arguably most) of its use is less so. It doesn't matter how many torrent sites host links to illegal copies - if people are willing to get it legit they will do so. People who download illegally will probably do so no matter what. The whole point is to lower the bar for legitimacy, not scare people into thinking anything not bought directly from you is illegal.
You're delusional if you think any amount of law will make it better. This is purely a problem of the industry trying to force the market and public midshare into their outdated business model when it should be the other way around. The big guys need to start trying to understand their new market and new technologies. =Smidge=
There is no longer a monopoly on content. anyone can make it.
And that is exactly why the *IAA are trying to make more laws.
If you look a little closer, this is about stopping all P2P traffic. basically they are trying to make it illegal to download movies and music as a matter of public image, regardless of the true legality of it.
Piracy is an unfortunate consequence of easy and cheap distribution. However, it has been shown that piracy can be mitigated in large part by making the product cheaply and easily available. Big business doesn't want to sell you a new CD for $5 though, even if it costs them $0 to give it to you and even if the independent publishers can make money at that price. =Smidge=
Here's the thing you keep missing, though: The "US" is not "in charge."
ICANN, the primary (but not the only) body that regulates the internet structure and growth, Just happens to be based in the United States. Only 4 out of the 15 Directors on the board are American. The US Government does not control ICANN any more than the President controls the Congress.
Putting it in the hands of the UN would likely INCREASE the amount of American political tinkering, and definately increase the political tinkering overall. As it stands the whole operation is run by people who actually know what they're doing... why are you so keen to turn it into what is guaranteed to be a festering do-nothing bureaucracy? =Smidge=
The US does not "Rule the web" in the sense that it could actively prevent another country from doing whatever it wants. It just so happens that ICANN - the recognized authority that regulates certain aspects of the internet - can (but never has) be prevented from acting by the US government on a case-by-case basis.
The US President can veto an act of Congress. That is a far cry from saying he controls Congress.
Also, the solution to the problem is amazingly simple: Don't recognize ICANN as the authority! Make your own authority to govern the part of the internet you control, and/or literally make your own internet and connect it to the global network. In that situation, the only way ICANN can do anything is to cut access to it... which would be a trick, because that requires cutting access to you and every other country you're connected to. It's doubtful that will happen.
All this ignoring the fact that ICANN holds public assemblies all over the world proportedly for the purpose of getting everyone involved.
I guess the crux of my argument is "if it ain't broke don't fix it." When someone can actually demonstrate that the system is broken to the point where making the process MORE political would improve things, I'll gladly reconsider my opinion. =Smidge=
Is there a clear technical reason why "control over the internet" should be handed over to the "International Community" ?
It issues you cite: "packet shaping, net neutrality, etc..." are all end-user (ISP level) issues. They do not effect the backbones and international communications at all. Furthermore, there is still no legislation at all regarding these issues (though the packet shaping/tampering thing is currently being "worked on")
Putting things into the hands of the UN is a horrible idea, simply because the UN has basically failed to do anything noteworthy since it's formation - unless they screwed something up, anyway. Do you honestly think that putting control into the hands of the "international community" will magically resolve all the political issues?
Also, my understanding is that international domain names are largely a TECHNICAL problem, not so much a political one. Putting the UN in charge will very likely not solve it. If their track record is anything to go by, they will likely force the issue and mess everything up. Let's not get politicians involved any more than they already are, yes?
Right now, the bulk of the argument in favor of the shift is essentially anti-American sentiment. Every country is free to build their own national internet and connect it to the global network... then they will have total control over the part that effects their country. =Smidge=
In an AC circuit with inductive or capacitive loads, Volt-Amps does NOT equal Watts.
To use the common Beer analogy:
Volt-amps drawn by the device is the size of a beer mug. Watts used by the device is the amount of beer in the mug. VAR (reactive VA) as the amount of foam in the mug. Your Power factor is therefore the percentage of beer in the mug. Problem is, you pay for beer by the mug (1 pint each, say). If you want 3 pints of beer but each mug is 35% foam (PF = 0.65), you pay for 4.6 mugs.
So, if you have two devices that take the same number of "Watts" then PF=0.65 device is costing you 1 watt but delivering 0.65 watts of performance. If you only need 0.65 watts of performance you can replace it with a theoretical PF=1.00 device that costs 0.65 watts.
In other words, the two devices in your question must have different outputs (same 1 watt input and different PF) and are therefore not equivalent. =Smidge=
I think you need to take a step back and think about that...
Where, on Earth, can you stand and see both complete night and complete day at the same time?
And even if you manage to find such a place, consider the hundreds of miles between those points. What you're proposing is to construct a "rolling station" that is, effectively, at least a third of the planet's circumference. And that says nothing of a clear path for it to travel on... =Smidge=
You're absolutely right, and I'm embarassed that I made such a mistake.
Please ignore everything related to "tons" in the original post. The rest of it is fine, though.:p
On the flip side, some people gladly abuse their system cooling equipment rather than maintain the equipment itself, so depending on the specs of the unit an abnormally high degree of oversizing is not as bad as, say, a typical office or residential application. A good, commercial air handler with DX cooling can modulate quite a bit, and I've known more than one sysadmin that would rather turn the thermostat down to 50 degrees than clean the air filters on his server cabinets. (Actually had to have a manufacturer's engineering rep give the okay that the unit wouldn't die when trying to do that. It's an air handler not a refrigeration unit!)
But yeah, factor-of-10 is inexcusable. My bad. =Smidge=
The solution (no pun intended) is to use something other than water for coolant, such as a fluorocarbon liquid (Not to be confused wth ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons...)
LFCs are electrically and chemically inert, allowing for direct submersion cooling. If that is undesirable, a normal "water block" heat sink can be used and leaks are only a mess issue, not a functional one.
"best" would be, IMHO, a heat pipe design inside the server module that brings heat to a contact surface on the back, which then thermally connects to a cooling backplate of some kind. This eliminates any liquid inside the modules themselves and mitigates the leak risk completely. =Smidge=
So if your server/network setup has 1000 watts of power supply capacity, I would recommend no less than 3410 BTU/Hr of cooling capacity, or 3 tons of cooling. This is given that power supplies don't usually run at their peak rated capacity, so it's slightly more than you technically need if there were no other sources of heat. Add in 10-25% for additional heat gains. Add 250 watts on top of that for each person that may work in that room more than an hour at a time.
Final formula I used on the job:
[1.2 * (Max rated wattage for all equipment)] + [250 * (Max number of people)] * 3.41 = BTU/Hr cooling
(1200 BTU/Hr = 1 ton of cooling, as some cooling equipment is rated in tons)
Of course, consult your local P.E. or cooling equipment manufacturer since there may be unique things about your situation. =Smidge=
Length of day IS a problem. more specifically, the length of NIGHT that goes along with it. During the "day" you would have the hot sun beating down constantly, and during the "night" you have the icy cold blackness of space into which all your heat radiates into.
Temperature swings would be a bitch.
Right now, the planet has a nice thick blanket of CO2 and dust to keep the warmth in and solar radiation out, so the temperature swings aren't that bad. We would need to strip that blanket off if we ever want to live on it without special suits, though. =Smidge=
You're right. All those ads about it being "More secure" would be for naught if they actually... oh wait.
That said, I use 2K exclusively and suggest it highly to everyone who asks... so I'll be keeping an eye out for a hotfix (that will, sadly, take forever if it comes out at all) =Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
It was a joke. Amazon didn't patent "treating customers like crap" no matter what the summary or linked article say.
What Amazon patented is a predictive model used to optimize inventory handling and shipping.
In other words, they start to figure out the best way to ship you the crap on your "recommended items" list before you even order it. That way, should you actually buy any of that, they will already have figured out the best warehouse to ship it from and the best carrier to use. They also try to predict when you might buy those things, so they can figure in anticipated shipping costs, inventory levels and operating capacity of their various distribution centers. They want to avoid things like inventory shortages and overloading their packaging lines.
The patent says NOTHING about penalizing "bad" customers, or even giving "good" customers a specific advantage. The name of the game is to anticipate orders and optimize the order fulfillment process ahead of time. The only reason a "good" customer would benefit more is because there is more history to build the predictive model with, and thus it will be more accurate.
=Smidge=
Bing!
And if you don't realize this is exactly what I said in the first place (ie only the developer of the specific application knows the optimal buffer size), you need to be held back a grade. The OS can not magically know this, it needs to be told. The hard drive, also, can not know this, and there is currently no mechanism to tell it. The point being that if you COULD tell the hard drive what kind of demand to expect in the long term, it could optimize itself for power usage. Thanks for following along.
=Smidge=
That's great... but by how much do you read ahead?
How can the OS know if the amount to buffer is optimal for that particular application?
=Smidge=
This could be a blessing in disguise!
If another retailer takes forever and a day to ship your stuff, they open themselves up to a patent infringement suit!
This could be a boon for internet shoppers everywhere...
=Smidge=
Again, that doesn't help the hard drive manufacturer, and the OS does not know how much data other applications may want to read at any given time. Only the application author can know that... maybe.
=Smidge=
Unfortunately the hard drive has no way of knowing how much data a program is actually going to read from a particular file, so this is not something the hard drive firmware can handle.
It would be an issue for the software developers to determine the benefits of caching a huge file into RAM, and from their point of view there is little point in doing that for data you're just going to read linearly.
=Smidge=
I ended up installing Steam along with The Orange Box. So far I have not seen anything suggesting you can get a refund, but then again I really haven't bothered to poke around a bit (just launch the dang game!)
However, even if refunds are offered, they still don't "lose" money - They give back what they took from you, but there's no shipping and handling fees or cost of making the physical copy that you have now returned (and can't really sell full price because it's "used"). At best they lost what few pennies it cost them in bandwidth for you to download it in the first place.
=Smidge=
It is precicely BECAUSE exit polls suck that they are unlikely to influence the election. Also, if polls are closed throughout then that's not a problem either IMHO.
The problem is when you start announcing a "winner" before everyone has voted, which may disenfranchize people who would otherwise have voted for the "losing" candidate.
=Smidge=
I think "instant reports before the voting is completely over" should be an illegal practice. Exit polls are one thing, but publishing "official" vote results before everyone has finished voting? That doesn't strike me as productive to the democratic process.
=Smidge=
Sorry for the late reply. I glanced over this discussion when it was first posted, but just recently I found Amazon put up an officially official page on the device, including a mini tutorial video.
According to the official page (gleaned from the video):
-You can subscribe to a range of "US and international" newspapers and magazines which are downloaded automatically (providing you haven't turned off the wireless connection). The service also includes blog feeds (I saw Slashdot, TechCrunch, BoingBoing, Motely Fool and The Onion in the demo video).
-The wireless connection uses the cellular phone network, and there is no additional fee for using that data connection during purchases.
-"Everything you buy" is backed up online, which means I assume it is associated with your Amazon account and you can re-download it without additional cost.
-Includes dictionary and free Wikipedia access.
-Includes web access (though I think generic web access incurs additional fees)
-Per-line highlighting, custom notes, bookmarking and auto-bookmarking of last viewed page for each book/publication.
-Search all downloaded text for words and phrases. Searching also provides links to Wikipedia, Web search and Kindle store.
-For a "small fee" you can e-mail documents and images of various formats to your account and view them on the device.
-SD memory card slot, USB connection (likely used for charging as well) and 1/8" headphone jack (not clear if it actually plays audio at this point though)
Honestly, I'm a little impressed with the device. I still wouldn't buy one, since I don't really read on-the-go that much, but I'm still impressed by it. The only thing that sets me off is the rechargeable battery, which is probably not user-replaceable. I prefer gadgets that use standard batteries so I can put it my OWN rechargeables, and if I really need I can stop in almost any store and buy a few cells. That's just me, though. YMMV.
=Smidge=
The RIAA are pressing for colleges to not cover the tracks of students who download copyrighted material. How can you say that's not fair?
Because they have not, in hundreds of lawsuits, actually managed to prove anything with that information in court. Not once. Their track record for accurately identifying pirates is nonexistant. All it does it create a chilling effect on legitimate use.
That "only criminals have anything to fear" argument is pure bullshit too. Do you have blinds of curtains on your windows? Why? If you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide! Moron. While I understand what you're trying to do, there are centuries of precedence that show us it's not going to work. Why don't you try something that doesn't kill legitimate business in the process?
=Smidge=
Not entirely true.
If your distribution relies on P2P technology, and I make P2P illegal, I have stopped you from giving away your music for free.
If I throw up enough legal hurdles and threats that no web host will allow music files to be stored on their servers anymore, or only ones that you can't afford are willing to host, I have stopped you.
If I convince your potential audience that downloading any music is somehow morally wrong and/or illegal, I have stopped you.
First, RTFA. If that plan succeeds and even one college band is silenced because they can't distribute their work, what would you say?
Second, it's called an infringement lawsuit. Plenty of small-time bands have been shut up with legal threats because a handful of notes sounds somewhat similar to an existing song. (Some more deserving than others, IMHO) Just one of the many tools they can use to stall the music industry paradigm shift to make that extra buck.
Lastly: You're delusional if you think my side of this discussion has ANYTHING to do piracy. Have fun beating that strawman... My argument is that they (*IAA) are controlling for the sake of controlling, not protecting, and ultimately it does nothing productive but actually hurts everyone involved.
=Smidge=
Okay, here's the problem... you're not on the same page as everyone else. You're in your own little fantasy world where you reply to what you THINK people are saying and not what they ARE.
I'm not saying it's okay to steal the music. Nowhere did I say that. What I DID say is there is a proven link between cost/easy of purchase and piracy rates. If you make a product easily available at a reasonable price, fewer people will rip you off. *IAA companies don't like that line of thinking because it eats at their profits, so they'd rather try to stop people from going after the cheaper product.
I'm not saying the industry leaders shouldn't take steps to protect their property either, though I bet you wish I was.
Big business has been attempting to squash, criminalize, or otherwise legislate away the ability for anyone else to sell music for the price they (the little guy) want.
One method to do this is to instill a "downloading is bad" mentality within the public. RIAA lawsuits, reports with very questionable links between P2P use and declining sales, etc. And now, trying to muscle in on university networks by cutting off federal funding if they don't block P2P traffic.
P2P traffic DOES have legit uses, you know, even if some (arguably most) of its use is less so. It doesn't matter how many torrent sites host links to illegal copies - if people are willing to get it legit they will do so. People who download illegally will probably do so no matter what. The whole point is to lower the bar for legitimacy, not scare people into thinking anything not bought directly from you is illegal.
You're delusional if you think any amount of law will make it better. This is purely a problem of the industry trying to force the market and public midshare into their outdated business model when it should be the other way around. The big guys need to start trying to understand their new market and new technologies.
=Smidge=
There is no longer a monopoly on content. anyone can make it.
And that is exactly why the *IAA are trying to make more laws.
If you look a little closer, this is about stopping all P2P traffic. basically they are trying to make it illegal to download movies and music as a matter of public image, regardless of the true legality of it.
Piracy is an unfortunate consequence of easy and cheap distribution. However, it has been shown that piracy can be mitigated in large part by making the product cheaply and easily available. Big business doesn't want to sell you a new CD for $5 though, even if it costs them $0 to give it to you and even if the independent publishers can make money at that price.
=Smidge=
Here's the thing you keep missing, though: The "US" is not "in charge."
ICANN, the primary (but not the only) body that regulates the internet structure and growth, Just happens to be based in the United States. Only 4 out of the 15 Directors on the board are American. The US Government does not control ICANN any more than the President controls the Congress.
Putting it in the hands of the UN would likely INCREASE the amount of American political tinkering, and definately increase the political tinkering overall. As it stands the whole operation is run by people who actually know what they're doing... why are you so keen to turn it into what is guaranteed to be a festering do-nothing bureaucracy?
=Smidge=
Geographic location os root name servers worldwide
The US does not "Rule the web" in the sense that it could actively prevent another country from doing whatever it wants. It just so happens that ICANN - the recognized authority that regulates certain aspects of the internet - can (but never has) be prevented from acting by the US government on a case-by-case basis.
The US President can veto an act of Congress. That is a far cry from saying he controls Congress.
Also, the solution to the problem is amazingly simple: Don't recognize ICANN as the authority! Make your own authority to govern the part of the internet you control, and/or literally make your own internet and connect it to the global network. In that situation, the only way ICANN can do anything is to cut access to it... which would be a trick, because that requires cutting access to you and every other country you're connected to. It's doubtful that will happen.
All this ignoring the fact that ICANN holds public assemblies all over the world proportedly for the purpose of getting everyone involved.
I guess the crux of my argument is "if it ain't broke don't fix it." When someone can actually demonstrate that the system is broken to the point where making the process MORE political would improve things, I'll gladly reconsider my opinion.
=Smidge=
Is there a clear technical reason why "control over the internet" should be handed over to the "International Community" ?
It issues you cite: "packet shaping, net neutrality, etc..." are all end-user (ISP level) issues. They do not effect the backbones and international communications at all. Furthermore, there is still no legislation at all regarding these issues (though the packet shaping/tampering thing is currently being "worked on")
Putting things into the hands of the UN is a horrible idea, simply because the UN has basically failed to do anything noteworthy since it's formation - unless they screwed something up, anyway. Do you honestly think that putting control into the hands of the "international community" will magically resolve all the political issues?
Also, my understanding is that international domain names are largely a TECHNICAL problem, not so much a political one. Putting the UN in charge will very likely not solve it. If their track record is anything to go by, they will likely force the issue and mess everything up. Let's not get politicians involved any more than they already are, yes?
Right now, the bulk of the argument in favor of the shift is essentially anti-American sentiment. Every country is free to build their own national internet and connect it to the global network... then they will have total control over the part that effects their country.
=Smidge=
I think we're using different meanings of the verb "pay/buy" here. I'm using it in a thermodynamic sense, you're using it in a monetary sense...
=Smidge=
In an AC circuit with inductive or capacitive loads, Volt-Amps does NOT equal Watts.
To use the common Beer analogy:
Volt-amps drawn by the device is the size of a beer mug. Watts used by the device is the amount of beer in the mug. VAR (reactive VA) as the amount of foam in the mug. Your Power factor is therefore the percentage of beer in the mug. Problem is, you pay for beer by the mug (1 pint each, say). If you want 3 pints of beer but each mug is 35% foam (PF = 0.65), you pay for 4.6 mugs.
So, if you have two devices that take the same number of "Watts" then PF=0.65 device is costing you 1 watt but delivering 0.65 watts of performance. If you only need 0.65 watts of performance you can replace it with a theoretical PF=1.00 device that costs 0.65 watts.
In other words, the two devices in your question must have different outputs (same 1 watt input and different PF) and are therefore not equivalent.
=Smidge=
I think you need to take a step back and think about that...
Where, on Earth, can you stand and see both complete night and complete day at the same time?
And even if you manage to find such a place, consider the hundreds of miles between those points. What you're proposing is to construct a "rolling station" that is, effectively, at least a third of the planet's circumference. And that says nothing of a clear path for it to travel on...
=Smidge=
You're absolutely right, and I'm embarassed that I made such a mistake.
:p
Please ignore everything related to "tons" in the original post. The rest of it is fine, though.
On the flip side, some people gladly abuse their system cooling equipment rather than maintain the equipment itself, so depending on the specs of the unit an abnormally high degree of oversizing is not as bad as, say, a typical office or residential application. A good, commercial air handler with DX cooling can modulate quite a bit, and I've known more than one sysadmin that would rather turn the thermostat down to 50 degrees than clean the air filters on his server cabinets. (Actually had to have a manufacturer's engineering rep give the okay that the unit wouldn't die when trying to do that. It's an air handler not a refrigeration unit!)
But yeah, factor-of-10 is inexcusable. My bad.
=Smidge=
The solution (no pun intended) is to use something other than water for coolant, such as a fluorocarbon liquid (Not to be confused wth ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons...)
LFCs are electrically and chemically inert, allowing for direct submersion cooling. If that is undesirable, a normal "water block" heat sink can be used and leaks are only a mess issue, not a functional one.
"best" would be, IMHO, a heat pipe design inside the server module that brings heat to a contact surface on the back, which then thermally connects to a cooling backplate of some kind. This eliminates any liquid inside the modules themselves and mitigates the leak risk completely.
=Smidge=
1 Watt = 3.41 BTU/hr
So if your server/network setup has 1000 watts of power supply capacity, I would recommend no less than 3410 BTU/Hr of cooling capacity, or 3 tons of cooling. This is given that power supplies don't usually run at their peak rated capacity, so it's slightly more than you technically need if there were no other sources of heat. Add in 10-25% for additional heat gains. Add 250 watts on top of that for each person that may work in that room more than an hour at a time.
Final formula I used on the job:
[1.2 * (Max rated wattage for all equipment)] + [250 * (Max number of people)] * 3.41 = BTU/Hr cooling
(1200 BTU/Hr = 1 ton of cooling, as some cooling equipment is rated in tons)
Of course, consult your local P.E. or cooling equipment manufacturer since there may be unique things about your situation.
=Smidge=
Length of day IS a problem. more specifically, the length of NIGHT that goes along with it. During the "day" you would have the hot sun beating down constantly, and during the "night" you have the icy cold blackness of space into which all your heat radiates into.
Temperature swings would be a bitch.
Right now, the planet has a nice thick blanket of CO2 and dust to keep the warmth in and solar radiation out, so the temperature swings aren't that bad. We would need to strip that blanket off if we ever want to live on it without special suits, though.
=Smidge=
You're right. All those ads about it being "More secure" would be for naught if they actually... oh wait.
That said, I use 2K exclusively and suggest it highly to everyone who asks... so I'll be keeping an eye out for a hotfix (that will, sadly, take forever if it comes out at all)
=Smidge=