That is really weird. 50% Flamebait and 50% Insightful yet it is marked as "Flamebait". Shouldn't it be "FlameSight" or maybe "InSightFlame"? And why, if it is 50/50 does Slashdot take the negative aspect over the positive? Hmmmmm..... Too many things to ponder.:-)
Well, I thought the charities could get together with the business (in this case Best Buy) and play "Let's make a deal!" along with the companies which are giving out the rebates.
It's not a perfect plan - but it might help out some charities.
You know at Christmas time there are people standing around outside of various places with a pot where you can put your change in, get a smile, maybe a wave, and you feel good. Well, why not put a large box outside where people can drop their rebate offers. The person standing there can have a box cutter to get the barcode off of the box and the charity can then send in the rebate coupon.
Unfortunately, in our world today the box cutter guy would be taken for a terrorist and hauled off in handcuffs probably.
Still, it could mean millions for charities and no one would have to shell out a dime since these are rebates.
and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively
I would not interpret it in that manner.
the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State
Free (as in not to restrict in any way, shape, or form) ingress (to enter into) and regress (to exit out of) each State (all current states of the union). Note that although this does mean someone may freely enter or exit any of the states in the union; it does not allow them to carry merchandise which is to be sold from one state to the next without paying taxes on the merchandise as it enters or exits the state. (Commonly called import and export duties.)
Note also that it doesn't say: "the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress after you've been properly strip searched, had your luggage examined and commented on, or your preferences for books debated upon, your choice in women/men, hair coloring, facial style, nationality, race, gender, or even fingernail polish - before allowing you to enter or exit from the state or to or from any other state."
There is also the section which reads that anyone passing into or out of a state must be given the same considerations as someone who already lives within that state. Therefore, no matter how you enter or exit a state (plane, train, or automobile) you have to be given the same considerations as if you were just going across town or across the state. These rules and regulations also must be extended to anyone visiting the country so that all men (in the archaic term which was used to mean men and women) are treated equally.
At no point does it say the government ever has the right to stop you and look through any of your personal belongings and in all cases a proper warrant is required. As was shown in:
Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You can not be searched, your house can not be searched, any documents you may have on you (like a book, notebook, diary, travel papers, etc...) can not be searched, and your "effects" - which is an archaic term to mean your personal belongings such as that laptop, iPod, suitcase, duffel bag, purse, and so on can not be searched without a warrant which has been issued by them going to a court and swearing, under oath, that you or your belongings really need to be searched. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been watching too much television.
The term "unreasonable" changes over time. But being strip searched or having destruction of private property on just a "belief" that there might be a problem isn't grounds for such a search. It is grounds for suing whatever agency is doing the illegal search - but it is not grounds for a search. There has to be what is called "probable cause" which means they must have a way to show that you either have or are going to commit a crime. Otherwise, they can't search you, your belongings, or anything else.
Which is why the amendment is there. To prevent the abuses the founding fathers suffered at the hands of the government in England. The government in England at the time did all of these things to the colonists and so they wanted to be sure that those who came after them wouldn't have to put up with the very things we are now having done to us by our government. They do this under the banner of "protecting us" - but from what? They do this under the flag of "keeping us safe" - but again, from what? If 9/11 is an example of their keeping us safe - then they are failing to keep us safe. Ma
I hate to say it, but this is what happened in Nazi Germany before World War II and just like in Nazi Germany, the people went along with it rather than putting a stop to it immediately. Just like we didn't stop Hitler from invading other countries because, as Hitler said, Germany could run the country better and make things better for everyone who lived there. It wasn't a good thing then - it's not a good thing now.
What (to me) is being done is called Divide and Conquer. Where you continue to split up something that is unified until it is in small enough parts to destroy it. In this case - it is your rights they are chiselling away at. "United we stand, divided we fall" is not just a saying. It has real meaning in today's world. If our government is allowed to continue to attack its own people we will become a military state or states run by an emperor or dictator. The stops in our laws were put in to prevent such a thing from happening. But if we just allow it to happen - it will. You want this nonsense to stop? You want it to go back to like it was before 9/11? Then you have to write your congressional person(s) and senators and tell them you want the government to stop trying to protect you from yourself. There are certain problems that go along with having as much freedom as we do and one of those is the fact that someone could decide to do something nasty to us. But the only way to be perfectly safe is to lock yourself in a steel vault situated on some remote planet in the universe. Since you can't do that you have to decide whether or not you are willing to give up all of your rights and live life as a slave or keep your freedoms and do the reasonable and sensible things to keep you and yours safe. This is not to say there should be NO security at airports but people moving between states should not be searched unless there is some kind of suspicious activity going on.
After all, a bank robber can be said to be a terrorist, or a kid who takes candy from another kid. The candy taker would be terrorizing the other kid. So where do you draw the line? How do you define when to stop the War on Terrorism? Today? Tomorrow? Next year? Never? Are we now 1984'ing things? Always a mindless war going on and on and on forever with no end in sight?
And ask yourself this: What was it like to live in a country that wasn't at war all of the time? Do you even remember what that was like anymore? Wasn't it a lot better? Weren't things a lot less hectic? Driven? Tense? Wouldn't it be nice to just say "Had enough. Going to go out and play with the kids, or have a nice time, enjoy myself?" Rather than, "How am I going to pay all of these taxes?" or "Damn! The price of gas is higher than my hourly wage!?"
Many viruses et al exploit holes found within Microsoft's system. My question is, since original Windows (v1.0), how many such holes (and especially backdoors) have been found with each version of Windows? In other words - are the number of problems increasing as the complexity of Windows has increased or has the number of problems decreased as each version has come out?
My reasons for asking is because Microsoft has tried (over the years) to structure things more and more. So presumably fewer and fewer problems should arise from programming mistakes. Yet it seems that there continue to be more and more problems. But is it that there truly are more problems? Or have there just been so many attacks that people are simply lumping together all versions of Microsoft Windows in their minds and counting all of the previous viruses as part of the one big problem?
As I said before - I believe you are being way to picky and literal.
First, you are assuming that I know nothing about Linux. Second, you are assuming I am just a Slashdotter who doesn't even program. Third you are just being too picky and literal.
I did not say Distribution of Linux because it is not a distribution. I said version of Linux which it is. Not, let's get down to the nitty-gritty of what constitutes Linux. Not, let me make a blanket statement on what is or is not a "distribution" or even if it has a "kernel" or even if it resembles what, to you and I-do-not-care whoever else may think along your path of reasoning.
It is
simply
a version of lINUX/Linux/LINUX/Li-nux/Lin-ux or however else you want to pronounce it.
Whether or not it implements the full code for Linux or just a shell. It is still a great way to introduce people who are Windows oriented without them having to give up Windows. Sometimes, you have to take small steps in order to get people to change. I know people who won't even turn on their computers for fear they will break it. And after some salesman scared them into buying Windows you have to undo all of that psychological damage they've done before they are even willing to consider an alternative OS.
But let me set your mind at ease. I work in a Unix environment. Originally we used SGIs (even before X-Windows came along!) and now we use Linux PC boxes. It was an uphill battle sometimes to keep upper management from switching to Windows boxes but we have come to a great compromise. We each have two boxes. One Linux, one Windows. We do the programming on the Linux boxes and then port it over to Windows. I'm presently pushing for us to switch to something like Dialogblocks or maybe GTK+.
So, I know what a Linux OS is, running it at home for my web server, use it at work, teaching others about it. I've installed, used, and reported bugs over the years on both Macs and PCs and I've lent my aid as a programmer when and where I could. And I've been doing this since Linux first came out. So it isn't like I don't know what's going on and as for your "it's just plain insulting to all of the people who have spent time and effort developing the software" - ya don't know what you're talking about and I believe you are just a bit too full of yourself.
Personally, I'm insulted by you and your overbearing attitude. Thinking you speak for everyone else when all you really are doing is just expressing your own outlook on the situation. With people like you - Linux is surely not going to keep growing because you will run them off as fast as I can get them to try it and/or switch over to it.
Whether it implements the full Linux distribution or just does the shell - it is a great way to introduce Linux to Windows people and it gives me everything I need in order to produce programs that will work under Linux on a Windows box.
Ok, I hate to say it, but I have six Macs and four IBM PCs. I used to try to get my Macs to run Windoze and Linux at the same time. Never could get it to do that and couldn't afford the really expensive Macs. WindowsXP does do this. Even with all of the other problems, handicaps, and whatnots that M$ puts into WindowsXP - the people at Cygwin have put together a great version of Linux for the average user to use. And if you work at it long enough and hard enough you can get Basilisk II up and running and then you can use pre-PowerPC software (which I just happen to have).
This has allowed me to have the best of all three worlds: Windows, Macintosh, and Linux. Further, all three OSs can be up and running at the same time which, with today's computers, is a lot faster than the old Macs used to run and strangely enough - the Mac emulator doesn't crash. Well, that's not quite the way to say that. I mean that even though the emulated Mac crashes - it doesn't take the emulator with it. I've run a lot of emualtors and most of them actually crash when the emulated OS crashes, but the Basilisk emulator doesn't seem to do that. It just lets you reboot the system and continue on from there. Which is kind of weird and freaky to me since I'm thinking I should be pushing the reset button or something.
Anyway, since you bashed Windows (and who doesn't!) I thought I'd say that, at least for me, WindowsXP is not a bad thing. (Oh darn it! Now I've jinxed myself!)
BTW: My predicitions for 2006 are:
Intel buys TiVO to help jump start it's entry into that area and Intel hooks up with a small phone producing company to try to get its CPUS et al into proprietary phone systems. They want to have the first truly portable phone computer that will work more like a PDA than a phone. Unfortunately, it weighs twenty pounds and uses DRM software that makes it impossible to listen to your messages without first paying a fee for each and every message. This is not to mention the unfortunate side effect caused by the quantum engine which makes your ear appear in two places at once.
Nokia will make the announcement that they are expanding their phones to include the "Pay as you go" type of deal. They will allow the user to swipe their credit cards along a slot on the side of the phone, punch in how many minutes you want to buy, and begin talking - but only in Japanese.
The PS3 will be delayed by about a month due to a lack of certain parts but once production has really begun it will come packaged with instructions on how to install the version of Linux which was used to work on the machine. Unfortunately, Sony will try to block anyone from getting that version and the Open Source people will have to step in and sue Sony. People will tout "Sony and SCO, lamest companies that we know!" until Sony agrees it was a stupid idea in the first place and gives Linux away for free. Nevermind it was free and open source software to begin with, it's their Playstation and they will do whatever they want to with it.
(And for the joke impaired out there - those were jokes.:-) )
This has been my question. Why not do these things like the old memory cards for the Apple//e et al systems?
You have a controller that decides which bank of memory to store the information. There are several banks of memory, the controller makes it all look like one continuous amount of memory. I just looked at PriceWatch for USB flash memory units and they show a 1GB at $55.00 and a 512MB at $30.00.
So ten 512MB = 5.12GB at $300.00, but if these were manufactured like this I would think the cost would drop to around $150.00 or maybe $200.00 for the unit.
Or ten 1GB = 10GB at $550.00 (or maybe $300.00 - $400.00).
I would think that whatever type of controller they are already using should be expandable to handle the larger sizes.
I'm also wondering about the heat problem. Does anyone know if the larger sized drives have a heat problem? Are any of them using micro fans or something like that? Can you post if you know of anything along these lines? TIA!
World War II saw the greatest expansion of education since....welllll World War I. It was still a boom economy in the fifties and the baby boomers were in full swing. Education was in full swing also. Many people who, as children, never had educations were getting their kids educations. Actually, not since World War II have we had so many people trying to better themselves and get an education (in the US that is). The dropout rate and educational rate of most students in today's schools is dismal compared to the 1950s. Free thinking, free love, free, free, free makes people lazy. Lazy people don't try to think and in many cases refuse to think. My wife, who teaches science, sometimes just wants to go screaming down the corridor. You teach a kid something, ask them to repeat it, and many times they either can't or won't. Last year 80% of her class graduated, this year (she got moved to 8th grade from 6th grade) only 60% of the student are passing. Of those, only 30% may make it to the end of the semester. Compare this to the 90% graduation rates of the fifties and I think you will see that although there are more people around now than before - fewer of them are graduating or even making it through school.
Now, granted, my wife is teaching in a mainly hispanic school who got a large influx of kids from Louisiana after the hurricane. Many of the kids can barely talk English, there is a high dropout rate because the families move a lot, and they have a higher percentage of kids who's parents get divorced or just one of them walks out on the other. But her school is not out of line with others where other ethnic majorities reside.
For instance, the Sharpstown school in Houston, Texas last year had a huge scandal because they falsely stated that only 5% of the kids were dropping out of school. Then it was found out that the principal and others had cooked the books and that really about 25% of the kids had dropped out of that school. The Sharpstown school is predominately white so any social bias would not apply.
So the problem isn't who you are teaching but that kids today seem to be less motivated to go to school than ever before. I can't blame them either. With all of the things the government has done and is doing about all these kids can look forwards to are scum jobs. As with Charles Dickenson's book "A Tale of Two Cities", we are becoming a country of the haves and have nots even though we already know what happens when that situation occurs. This isn't to say that there aren't people out there trying to change things. But it is to say that there are a heck of a lot more people in need than we have people to fix the problem (or even money to fix the problem).
So no. There are more people alive today than there were back in the 50s and there are more people out of work, looking for jobs, and not having the proper skills to achieve their goals today than in the 50s. Consequently, there are more people today and fewer in yesteryear who are uneducated and unskilled.
. ..
To show what I mean:
My father's father was an unskilled worker until World War I. During World War I he received an education while in the military. My father was born just after the end of World War I. His family lived in a tiny town which didn't even have running water and was near a swamp. Where exactly I won't say. His dad taught him how to hunt so he could help bring home food when he was old enough. My father went to school up to 10th grade. (Which, I think, was the highest grade at the time.) When World War II came along, he enlisted, fought, came home, and then went to college while still in the armed forces. He married my mom who had also gone to school. Both parents went through the Great Depression. My mom's family moved all the way from the northwest to the southeast where, when she was older, she met my father. No matter where we moved to - we went to school. Being military kids, our f
Strange - I sent in a reply but it didn't post.:-/
It would be based upon the previous year's results for each category and it would be set at the beginning of the patent's term. That being, when the patent was issued would be the length of the patent's life.
I am also in favor of full disclosure of any patents which are submitted.
I am also in favor of the government assigning anyone who is given grant money to the task of reviewing patent applications for uniqueness in their given field. It should be a stipulation of any grants being assigned that they must review at least one patent a year. Probably more. At over 400,000 patent applications a year and (estimated off the top of my head) over 100,000 grants going out each year; having to review four patents a year would not be a bad thing. (Although I do realize that the majority of patents are probably falling into certain areas such as software patents and the like which can be mind numbing to say the least to review. Especially if the patent is covering ground like the movement of a mouse or something else that is so obvious as to be a waste of time to even review.)
CERT: You have 62,000,000 fish caught last year. Fishermen: No we don't. We have so many sardines, tuna, flounder, and what not. CERT: They are all fish aren't they? Fishermen: Yeah.... CERT: So you have 62,000,000 fish caught last year.
We already have tried it at the lab where I work. As I said - it is an ok solution and doesn't or wouldn't give as good of a response per machine as the faster 1U system. Overall though, it is faster.
Also, as you must not have read:
Each machine would still serve a web page at less than a second per page (at least that is what I get with Apache and Linux installed and my tests show my web pages [which run Perl scripts and PHP scripts] execute fairly quickly and that was at 850Mhz. Now I'm getting a 1.6Ghz system.
I use Perl/PHP in my scripts and, as I said, they deliver approximately a good number of pages per second. That was at 850Mhz. I think I can safely say that a 1.6Ghz system will be a bit faster.
You: They have 1 sysadmin....
We only have one sysadmin at work to handle the machines we have and yes, it does cost more via electricity than a single unit. Our sysadmin wrote several Perl scripts and Bash scripts to handle the separate units in our lab. She also uses a network boot method so each system only needs a small hard drive (well, 50GB is small relatively speaking). The system boots itself, checks the net, downloads our updates, and then reboots (a pain I have to admit). Most updates are made over night to the central repository and then our separate systems get the updates. A similar system in another area has no hard drive of its own and runs completely off of the network. It is a bit slower than our systems and is why we don't use it since we do a lot of graphics at work.
I did not say to use 128MB of memory nor that I was using 128MB of memory. If you had of actually read what I wrote I said I ordered the system at 128MB of memory because I already had 1GB from the old system and it was the lowest amount of memory I could order. Please, read more carefully or quote me by selecting the actual sentence and not just one or two words. This is because people tend to take one or two words out of context to the rest of the sentence as in this:
(Since I already have memory I got the lowest thing they have - 128MB of memory.)
Notice that I didn't say I was going to run the system with only 128Mb of memory as you suggest in your message but that actually I have 1Gb of memory already and thus did not need to buy another 1Gb of memory.
Something you seem to have forgotten also is that it has been less than five years when everyone was using 1.6Ghz systems to run everything and everything ran just fine and the 1.6Ghz systems were praised for how many web pages they could actually process. With good response times as well. Which is what the whole point of my message was. That it is nothing more than someone's wish to have the biggest, brightest toy rather than actual need that is driving Wikipedia's requests for so much money. The older systems work just as well as they used to and could still be used to handle the needs of Wikipedia at a lower cost. Further, replacement costs are less. Electricity usage is more, but the last time I checked, electricity was still somewhere around $0.25 a Kilowatt (although that might not be the case in their area). If it is more, especially a lot more, maybe they should slso start looking at investing in alternative forms of energy. Slashdot had a great article on someone building their own wind driven energy generator a while back. That also is a good investment of the money given to them. Because it would lower their overall operating costs. But we digress and only because you brought up the subject.
In any event, slower systems are just that - slower. But they also cost less. Sometimes a lot less as is the case here. I am not saying it is an ideal solution but it would allow them to buy more computing power than by going with a single system. Especially at a difference of $2,500.00 versus $300.00 per system.
These are similar remarks I have made (and heard) of copyrights.
There are some problems though:
1. Huge undertakings (like the building of supercolliders and the like) usually require such vast amounts of money that only corporations or governments can afford to create them. This means that lots and lots of people work to make the item a reality. In this case, who should be on the patent and who should not? Just the original inventor? Just the corporation who paid for everything? Or all of those people who helped? (Hint: This is why corporations pay people salaries. Otherwise it is "We'll pay you as soon as you get it working." Which doesn't work all that well.)
While it is true that those people who work on a project should get paid something for their efforts - they usually are already being paid a salary. In my case, having helped create a software program I do get small bonuses every now and then for having helped to create the program. But I get paid a regular salary also.
The problem with making Patents like Trademarks is that a Trademark doesn't have to do anything other than just show up. While a Patent is something you don't want to show up, because then it's not unique. No. The way to end the Patent Troll is to put in to place some common sense rules without the legaleze attached to it. That is to say, the reason the Bill of Rights works is because it is in standard english that anyone can look at and understand. When you allow the lawyers in, then you begin to get what I call wiggle room. Throw out the lawyers and put in common sense rules and then you will get a better Patent system. Like so:
An item that already exists and that the general public can see, touch, hear, taste, feel, or in any other way, shape, or form interact with or have knowledge of - can not be patented.
An extension to an already existing item is not patentable. (Example: The light bulb was invented. Just because you make a blue light, green light, big light, small light, or any other change you want to make to the standard light bulb - it can not be Patented. However, different methods to create light [such as a Neon bulb, LED bulb, Hydrogen Bomb bulb, etc... - can be Patented.])
Patents come in slow, medium and fast types.
Slow = 20 years maximum. Medium = 10 years maximum. Fast = 5 years maximum.
Depending upon how many Patents are issued for a given field, it falls into one of the above areas.
Slow: X <= 1,000. Medium: 1,000 < X <= 10,000. Fast: 10,000 < X <= Infinity.
So fewer Patents are better Patents.
Patents can never be extended beyond the maximum range of its type. (So we have no "Limited Time" clause for lawyers to mess around with.)
I agree with you though - neither copyright, nor patent ownership should be transferable. The owner should only be able to lease out the usage of their copyright or patent. In the case of corporations though, the names of everyone who has worked on the patent BEFORE it was patented, should be listed. So everyone who worked on the project is given proper credit. (ie: It should not just be something like IBM CORPORATION. It should be something like "IBM CORPORATION via the work of the following people: A, B, C, D....) The corporation should have control of the Patent, but the Patent should not be allowed to change ownership. Again, the corporation can lease it out as much as it wants, however it wants to do so, but ownership stays with the originating corporation or person(s). I know some people are against this concept but it would reduce and remove ambiguity. It would also solidify exactly who owns what. Even if the lease is X number of dollars for usage of the patent/copyright until the patent/copyright expires - this is still more favorable than trying to figure out who owns what years after all of the originating people are gone. (Take John Lennon's songs for example.)
"The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing."
-- Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1964
Me thinks they chose unwisely.
Einstein:
As with many others - I think the article is wrong and basically shows a hidden wish to live in the time when Einstein lived. People are famous not so much for discovering something but how they went about discovering it as well as how they behaved before, during, and after the discovery.
People achieve noteriety because they stood up for a principle. Whether that principle is for good or evil. Lasting fame comes when mediocrity is overcome and word spreads about the person's deeds. But every generation has its people who stand out. Albert Einstein - yes. But what about Carl Sagan? Donald Knuth? Issac Asimov? Mathematicians, Physicists, Astrophysicists?
Every generation is different. Facing different problems as well as the old ones which came before. We have as of yet to even establish a base on the Moon and therefore there is an entire galaxy waiting to be discovered. So Einstein is one of the greats, but there is going to be others who will be just as great as him. Who knows? It might even be a machine like the one which just won the test of driving across the desert. Or one of these mega-net set-ups like what SETI has or the ones to try to find new drugs to fight cancer, extend life, and so on. But my bet is that there will be someone. Some person who will become as well known as Einstein for his contributions to science and I think the time is nearing when this one person will become known. Because we or coming up to the middle of the next generation and it is about time for someone. So here's to whomever that one person may be!:-)
Ok, let me play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. I just got the cheapest thing I could possibly buy to replace my web server. It cost me $115.00. If I had bought the 1GB optional memory it would have cost me about $300.00. (Since I already have memory I got the lowest thing they have - 128MB of memory.) I'm getting a 1.6GHz AMD Duron with 400FSB. My system does get mediocre response next to what Wikipedia does but then I'm not trying to be a powerhouse; just want to give reasonable response to anyone who goes to my site.
The question becomes: Is Wikipedia trying to operate like a business (such as Google does) but are asking everyone else to foot the bill?
The reason is - is because at $300.00 a whack they could get 8 machines for that $2,500.00 per server cost. Yes, they would run slower, but it would allow them to serve more web pages to more people at a cheaper cost. Each machine would still serve a web page at less than a second per page (at least that is what I get with Apache and Linux installed and my tests show my web pages [which run Perl scripts and PHP scripts] execute fairly quickly and that was at 850Mhz. Now I'm getting a 1.6Ghz system. So it will be even faster.) Now, I won't be able to run hundreds of thousands of web pages per second since I only have one machine. But....
If Wikipedia set each machine to only handle up to 200 requests per second (well below what a 1.6Ghz system should be able to handle) times eight machines would give you 1,600 requests per second that could be handled. This is (or should be) on the low side of what the eight machines could handle. From what I remember of previous benchmarks on systems at the 1.6Ghz range - they should be able to handle upwards of about 1,000 requests per second before the system degrades given that Apache caches previously requested web pages so it can just shove them back out to the requestor. This would mean that the eight separate machines should be able to handle up to somewhere around 8,000 requests per second whereas the single server would probably start to choke around 3,000 to 4,000 requests per second.
This is not to mention the fact that it is cheaper to replace/repair the slower, cheaper machines than it is to replace/repair the singler server. So even if the machines broke down after only six months to a year's usage - it would be cheaper to replace it with another $300.00 machine than to replace the server at $2,500.00. And before you say the server would last longer - my 850Mhz system lasted about five years and wouldn't have gone down except I decided to use it for some mathematical computations while it was running the server and it over heated and burned up the cpu. So if not for my stupidity - it would still be running and chugging away. And the only reason I'm buying a brand new motherboard and cpu is because they don't make 850Mhz cpus anymore. Luckily the memory is the same speed for the new motherboard (or rather I can set the memory speed to be the same as what I already had) and I've bought a couple of heavy duty fans so I can do other things with the cpu while it also runs the web server.
Overall, the need to be the fastest or to use the latest technology really should not be thought about. It is really what do you need in order to get the job done. So what if the web page takes a second or two to load? It is not a matter of life and death. The server might take up less space, being a 1U unit, but so what? Most of the work is being done on the client side. All the server is doing is storing and retreiving information. And that information is not megabytes at a time but may be hundreds of kilobytes (like 150Kb or less). In many cases, if the banner et al does not change it might be as little as 20Kb per request. (Due to the browser caching the images.) This most probably means your biggest bottleneck isn't your computers or disk drives, but is most probably your ethernet connection. In these types of cases it is better to concentrate your money on having excelle
1. Could they get by with slightly slower servers or general purpose computers (versus servers) that are cheaper but slightly slower? From what I've seen on the net, computers which are specifically made to be servers are faster but much more expensive than general cpus. So basically, if they wished to save money, why not go with the cheaper, but slower, general purpose computers versus those made specifically to be a server? That would probably save them some money.
2. Why don't they try setting up a self-sustaining monetary income? What I mean is is that now, while the amount needed is still somewhat small, why not try to set up an account where part (not all) of the interest earned on an amount of money is used to help sustain Wikipedia? (And YES! I know it would probably take ten times as much money as they probably currently have in order to make it feasible! But you have to start somewhere.)
What I mean is - if an amount of money is placed into the bank and it earns interest (say 5%) and only half of that earned money is used (so 2.5%), then the amount would grow by 2.5% minus any taxes which have to be paid. Thus, if $10.00 were put into the bank, then after a year Wikipedia would earn $0.125 cents and the other $0.125 would be used to pay any/all taxes. Which might leave $0.06 cents say. The next year, then, interest would be accured on the $10.06, and then $10.12, and so on.
I know - rates go up, rates go down. But at some point in the future the amount of money being made on that money would equal or exceed the amount of money Wikipedia needed in order to operate and then they would no longer need donations.
I am not saying it would help out today, tomorrow, next week, or even next year. But if they plan on being around for more than ten years and their expenses continue to increase over time, then the only way to handle this problem is to start now with a methodology that will, at some point in the future, enable them to stop asking for hand-outs and to stand on their own feet. After all, PBS does the same thing. It keeps asking people for money and trying to raise somewhere around $400,000.00 to $600,000.00 every year here in Houston, Texas. If they had set money aside (and kept their fingers out of the money) in a similar fashion, then we wouldn't have to listen to their asking for donations every three to six weeks. In essence, they would still be a public service without having to be a public burden.
<soapbox>Sorry, but this has touched upon one of my pet peeves. Charities seem to think it is their right to do whatever it takes to make you give your hard earned money to them. There is no such right. Any organization (charity or otherwise) has an obligation to itself to ensure that it can run without needing a single penny from anyone else. The word "donate" does NOT mean to force people to give you money. Either through threats (such as "YOU WILL LOSE YOUR JOB IF YOU DON'T DONATE TO THIS CHARITY!" - which I have run into), coersion, extortion, or any other means you can think of. Yet almost every charity now in existence feels it has the right to force others to give of their hard earned money. I do not think this is right. These organizations should not spend every penny they get. They should instead, set things up so they are assurded of having enough money to operate and THEN start helping whoever it is they want to help.
Now! Before anyone jumps up and starts spouting off about "WHAT ABOUT X?" like the American Red Cross? It applies to everyone and YES! There will always come a time where resources are stretched until they snap. But that is why you set these things up first so you can ensure your organization will survive and is already taken care of and can get by in hard times. If you had already set things up properly then you wouldn't go and plunder what you know you will need in order to survive and continue after this catastrophy. This is also when you do ask for donations. Not five o
Heh! When I went to post there was only one comment. By the time I'd finished typing that one line and submitted it - it was redundant! No matter what anyone else says, Slashdot is obviously not going downhill in readership!
PS: If the guy who posted "You've got Jail!" isn't at +5 yet, please mod him up for me!:-)
Everyone who has posted about this virus just says that it asks for your credit card information. No one (as far as I've read) has posted anything about the virus scanning your hard drive for credit card information and/or encrypted information. Therefore, my question.
There were, in some older file formats, methods for running programs so that images could be overlaid with other images (as in schematics). If I remember correctly AutoCAD and some of the other CAD type files used to use this to link various files in to a give file (like layers on diagrams). Some file formats (one of the GE file formats - can't remember the name right now) actually had such things as the capability to send e-mail built in to the specs. Many of these "gotcha" things have been removed from the file formats now and others were dropped either due to concerns over viruses or just because they were a flash-in-the-pan kind of thing that never caught on.
Like the other poster though - this has nothing to do with an overflow problems. Which, if I remember correctly, first started showing up (for me) with TCP/IP stack overflows and PING of death kinds of things. Not that viruses were not around before this (I remember an IBM PC XT having a list of something like fifty viruses), but the first viruses I actually ran into had to do with the TCP/IP stack overflows and PINGs of death (another type of buffer overflow problem).
But to answer your question - some older file formats for graphics actually had commands in there to execute other programs. Sort of a "Look! You can have this graphics start this other graphic" and so on. You give it the command and the path to that command and it tries to execute it. So long as the program is just on your system there isn't a lot of problems with this. When the program resides on another computer somewhere on the internet and when a company integrates the capability to execute programs anywhere on the net (for whatever reason they may want to state), then it becomes bad news. Because you basically are giving control of your system to the other person.
My big question is - why are they even bothering to ask you for credit card information? Why not first do a scan to see if you have this information already on your hard drive and then just suck the info over the net to their site? I guess that maybe they've already done the search thing, but it doesn't seem (from those reporting in) that a search was already done. It looks more like they just tried to make it seem like you had to pay them to get rid of the virus activity. Maybe they think people really are that stupid.:-/
Many people both known and unknown have given themselves to tests for various things which might help the human race. One of our own people where I work has just undergone an extensive test to help determine the tolerance of people when given shots against anthrax. (A dosing test.) Some of the people had allergic reactions and were put in the hospital. Others suffered only mild problems (aching joints etc....). Everyone in the experiment could have died but they did it anyway.
Babe Ruth allowed controversial radiation therapy to be done to him (if I remember correctly) and there have been a number of others who have undergone therapies which were not completely flushed out.
Open heart surgery where enlarged hearts are cut down to size is now being done in Central and South America and is being studied by North American doctors because the people who are undergoing the surgery are surviving fairly well (considering the operating rooms are just tables in a room and not sterile environments) and are leading healthy lives.
American doctors would not even consider eye surgery for years until the Russians perfected the technique. (As a side note, I asked my eye doctor is the mid 1970s why eye doctors didn't perform similar surgery on a patient's eyes to fix eye problems and was told that it was impossible to do that type of surgery even though they were already doing cataract surgery at the time.)
So my point here is that human guinea pigs are happening all of the time. Many people are very glad to help out either because: 1)Of the money paid to people who do such things, 2)The benefits it might make to mankind, and 3)Because the person actually has the problem and they are willing to take the risk of the treatment because it might cure them.
Look at Micheal J. Fox who is pushing strongly for stem cell research because of his condition. There already is a lot of medical research which shows that stem cells can cure his condition - yet it will be years yet before tests are even to be done on humans. Meanwhile, his condition becomes worse each year.
Or Muhammed Ali. Or even the kid two houses down from where I live who has been wheelchair ridden for the last two years because he has some degenerative disease that has made it so he can no longer walk. I forget the name but eventually the muscles in his chest will stop working and then he will die.
Or even look at me. Diabetes. I'm already losing feeling in my feet. Soon it will be my legs, then my legs will have to be removed, then my hands, and finally I will die.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that sometimes, the government plods along too slowly with a CYA attitude instead of a how can we get this done as quickly as possible and as safely as possible attitude. Look at hurricane Rita. Why did they yank out the government guys who were working on the problem? Because they were too interested in government red tape, CYA'ing themselves, and were plodding along not getting anything done. Now things are starting to move along slowly but surely. The same holds true for medical research. Sometimes, like I said, too much CYA. (And yeah, I know, CYA or be sued to death by someone. Well, don't go around saying "Buy XYZ Product! It's GREAT!.,.,...,.;.,..," <-Look out for those mumbled "Using this product may cause heart attacks, blindness, internal bleeding, or even death." This is the kind of stupidity that gets companies sued. "Why, we TOLD everyone there might be side effects." Yeah, you mumbled it and said it so fast that you'd have to record the message and play it at half the speed in order to understand what some of these shyster companies are actually saying. The more mumbling I hear in a commerical - the farther away from it I want to stay. This is also one of the main differences I see between stem cell research and drug research.)
On the other hand though, we already have several examples of the drug industry pushing through drugs which have killed
Slashdot Mirror
That is really weird. 50% Flamebait and 50% Insightful yet it is marked as "Flamebait". Shouldn't it be "FlameSight" or maybe "InSightFlame"? And why, if it is 50/50 does Slashdot take the negative aspect over the positive? Hmmmmm..... Too many things to ponder. :-)
Well, I thought the charities could get together with the business (in this case Best Buy) and play "Let's make a deal!" along with the companies which are giving out the rebates.
It's not a perfect plan - but it might help out some charities.
I had an idea once for charities. Here it is:
You know at Christmas time there are people standing around outside of various places with a pot where you can put your change in, get a smile, maybe a wave, and you feel good. Well, why not put a large box outside where people can drop their rebate offers. The person standing there can have a box cutter to get the barcode off of the box and the charity can then send in the rebate coupon.
Unfortunately, in our world today the box cutter guy would be taken for a terrorist and hauled off in handcuffs probably.
Still, it could mean millions for charities and no one would have to shell out a dime since these are rebates.
and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively
I would not interpret it in that manner.
the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State
Free (as in not to restrict in any way, shape, or form) ingress (to enter into) and regress (to exit out of) each State (all current states of the union). Note that although this does mean someone may freely enter or exit any of the states in the union; it does not allow them to carry merchandise which is to be sold from one state to the next without paying taxes on the merchandise as it enters or exits the state. (Commonly called import and export duties.)
Note also that it doesn't say: "the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress after you've been properly strip searched, had your luggage examined and commented on, or your preferences for books debated upon, your choice in women/men, hair coloring, facial style, nationality, race, gender, or even fingernail polish - before allowing you to enter or exit from the state or to or from any other state."
There is also the section which reads that anyone passing into or out of a state must be given the same considerations as someone who already lives within that state. Therefore, no matter how you enter or exit a state (plane, train, or automobile) you have to be given the same considerations as if you were just going across town or across the state. These rules and regulations also must be extended to anyone visiting the country so that all men (in the archaic term which was used to mean men and women) are treated equally.
At no point does it say the government ever has the right to stop you and look through any of your personal belongings and in all cases a proper warrant is required. As was shown in:
Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You can not be searched, your house can not be searched, any documents you may have on you (like a book, notebook, diary, travel papers, etc...) can not be searched, and your "effects" - which is an archaic term to mean your personal belongings such as that laptop, iPod, suitcase, duffel bag, purse, and so on can not be searched without a warrant which has been issued by them going to a court and swearing, under oath, that you or your belongings really need to be searched. Anyone who thinks otherwise has been watching too much television.
The term "unreasonable" changes over time. But being strip searched or having destruction of private property on just a "belief" that there might be a problem isn't grounds for such a search. It is grounds for suing whatever agency is doing the illegal search - but it is not grounds for a search. There has to be what is called "probable cause" which means they must have a way to show that you either have or are going to commit a crime. Otherwise, they can't search you, your belongings, or anything else.
Which is why the amendment is there. To prevent the abuses the founding fathers suffered at the hands of the government in England. The government in England at the time did all of these things to the colonists and so they wanted to be sure that those who came after them wouldn't have to put up with the very things we are now having done to us by our government. They do this under the banner of "protecting us" - but from what? They do this under the flag of "keeping us safe" - but again, from what? If 9/11 is an example of their keeping us safe - then they are failing to keep us safe. Ma
I hate to say it, but this is what happened in Nazi Germany before World War II and just like in Nazi Germany, the people went along with it rather than putting a stop to it immediately. Just like we didn't stop Hitler from invading other countries because, as Hitler said, Germany could run the country better and make things better for everyone who lived there. It wasn't a good thing then - it's not a good thing now.
Amendment IV:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
On people having the right to move freely between the various states in the United States of America:
The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States . . . shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States, and the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively. . . [p764]
What (to me) is being done is called Divide and Conquer. Where you continue to split up something that is unified until it is in small enough parts to destroy it. In this case - it is your rights they are chiselling away at. "United we stand, divided we fall" is not just a saying. It has real meaning in today's world. If our government is allowed to continue to attack its own people we will become a military state or states run by an emperor or dictator. The stops in our laws were put in to prevent such a thing from happening. But if we just allow it to happen - it will. You want this nonsense to stop? You want it to go back to like it was before 9/11? Then you have to write your congressional person(s) and senators and tell them you want the government to stop trying to protect you from yourself. There are certain problems that go along with having as much freedom as we do and one of those is the fact that someone could decide to do something nasty to us. But the only way to be perfectly safe is to lock yourself in a steel vault situated on some remote planet in the universe. Since you can't do that you have to decide whether or not you are willing to give up all of your rights and live life as a slave or keep your freedoms and do the reasonable and sensible things to keep you and yours safe. This is not to say there should be NO security at airports but people moving between states should not be searched unless there is some kind of suspicious activity going on.
The real question I have is:
"What constitutes an end to a War on Terrorism?"
After all, a bank robber can be said to be a terrorist, or a kid who takes candy from another kid. The candy taker would be terrorizing the other kid. So where do you draw the line? How do you define when to stop the War on Terrorism? Today? Tomorrow? Next year? Never? Are we now 1984'ing things? Always a mindless war going on and on and on forever with no end in sight?
And ask yourself this: What was it like to live in a country that wasn't at war all of the time? Do you even remember what that was like anymore? Wasn't it a lot better? Weren't things a lot less hectic? Driven? Tense? Wouldn't it be nice to just say "Had enough. Going to go out and play with the kids, or have a nice time, enjoy myself?" Rather than, "How am I going to pay all of these taxes?" or "Damn! The price of gas is higher than my hourly wage!?"
Think about it.
Many viruses et al exploit holes found within Microsoft's system. My question is, since original Windows (v1.0), how many such holes (and especially backdoors) have been found with each version of Windows? In other words - are the number of problems increasing as the complexity of Windows has increased or has the number of problems decreased as each version has come out?
My reasons for asking is because Microsoft has tried (over the years) to structure things more and more. So presumably fewer and fewer problems should arise from programming mistakes. Yet it seems that there continue to be more and more problems. But is it that there truly are more problems? Or have there just been so many attacks that people are simply lumping together all versions of Microsoft Windows in their minds and counting all of the previous viruses as part of the one big problem?
As I said before - I believe you are being way to picky and literal.
First, you are assuming that I know nothing about Linux.
Second, you are assuming I am just a Slashdotter who doesn't even program.
Third you are just being too picky and literal.
I did not say Distribution of Linux because it is not a distribution. I said version of Linux which it is. Not, let's get down to the nitty-gritty of what constitutes Linux. Not, let me make a blanket statement on what is or is not a "distribution" or even if it has a "kernel" or even if it resembles what, to you and I-do-not-care whoever else may think along your path of reasoning.
It is
simply
a version of lINUX/Linux/LINUX/Li-nux/Lin-ux or however else you want to pronounce it.
Whether or not it implements the full code for Linux or just a shell. It is still a great way to introduce people who are Windows oriented without them having to give up Windows. Sometimes, you have to take small steps in order to get people to change. I know people who won't even turn on their computers for fear they will break it. And after some salesman scared them into buying Windows you have to undo all of that psychological damage they've done before they are even willing to consider an alternative OS.
But let me set your mind at ease. I work in a Unix environment. Originally we used SGIs (even before X-Windows came along!) and now we use Linux PC boxes. It was an uphill battle sometimes to keep upper management from switching to Windows boxes but we have come to a great compromise. We each have two boxes. One Linux, one Windows. We do the programming on the Linux boxes and then port it over to Windows. I'm presently pushing for us to switch to something like Dialogblocks or maybe GTK+.
So, I know what a Linux OS is, running it at home for my web server, use it at work, teaching others about it. I've installed, used, and reported bugs over the years on both Macs and PCs and I've lent my aid as a programmer when and where I could. And I've been doing this since Linux first came out. So it isn't like I don't know what's going on and as for your "it's just plain insulting to all of the people who have spent time and effort developing the software" - ya don't know what you're talking about and I believe you are just a bit too full of yourself.
Personally, I'm insulted by you and your overbearing attitude. Thinking you speak for everyone else when all you really are doing is just expressing your own outlook on the situation. With people like you - Linux is surely not going to keep growing because you will run them off as fast as I can get them to try it and/or switch over to it.
Picky, picky, picky. :-)
:-)
Whether it implements the full Linux distribution or just does the shell - it is a great way to introduce Linux to Windows people and it gives me everything I need in order to produce programs that will work under Linux on a Windows box.
Me thinks you are being a bit too literal.
Ok, I hate to say it, but I have six Macs and four IBM PCs. I used to try to get my Macs to run Windoze and Linux at the same time. Never could get it to do that and couldn't afford the really expensive Macs. WindowsXP does do this. Even with all of the other problems, handicaps, and whatnots that M$ puts into WindowsXP - the people at Cygwin have put together a great version of Linux for the average user to use. And if you work at it long enough and hard enough you can get Basilisk II up and running and then you can use pre-PowerPC software (which I just happen to have).
:-) )
This has allowed me to have the best of all three worlds: Windows, Macintosh, and Linux. Further, all three OSs can be up and running at the same time which, with today's computers, is a lot faster than the old Macs used to run and strangely enough - the Mac emulator doesn't crash. Well, that's not quite the way to say that. I mean that even though the emulated Mac crashes - it doesn't take the emulator with it. I've run a lot of emualtors and most of them actually crash when the emulated OS crashes, but the Basilisk emulator doesn't seem to do that. It just lets you reboot the system and continue on from there. Which is kind of weird and freaky to me since I'm thinking I should be pushing the reset button or something.
Anyway, since you bashed Windows (and who doesn't!) I thought I'd say that, at least for me, WindowsXP is not a bad thing. (Oh darn it! Now I've jinxed myself!)
BTW: My predicitions for 2006 are:
Intel buys TiVO to help jump start it's entry into that area and Intel hooks up with a small phone producing company to try to get its CPUS et al into proprietary phone systems. They want to have the first truly portable phone computer that will work more like a PDA than a phone. Unfortunately, it weighs twenty pounds and uses DRM software that makes it impossible to listen to your messages without first paying a fee for each and every message. This is not to mention the unfortunate side effect caused by the quantum engine which makes your ear appear in two places at once.
Nokia will make the announcement that they are expanding their phones to include the "Pay as you go" type of deal. They will allow the user to swipe their credit cards along a slot on the side of the phone, punch in how many minutes you want to buy, and begin talking - but only in Japanese.
The PS3 will be delayed by about a month due to a lack of certain parts but once production has really begun it will come packaged with instructions on how to install the version of Linux which was used to work on the machine. Unfortunately, Sony will try to block anyone from getting that version and the Open Source people will have to step in and sue Sony. People will tout "Sony and SCO, lamest companies that we know!" until Sony agrees it was a stupid idea in the first place and gives Linux away for free. Nevermind it was free and open source software to begin with, it's their Playstation and they will do whatever they want to with it.
(And for the joke impaired out there - those were jokes.
This has been my question. Why not do these things like the old memory cards for the Apple //e et al systems?
You have a controller that decides which bank of memory to store the information. There are several banks of memory, the controller makes it all look like one continuous amount of memory. I just looked at PriceWatch for USB flash memory units and they show a 1GB at $55.00 and a 512MB at $30.00.
So ten 512MB = 5.12GB at $300.00, but if these were manufactured like this I would think the cost would drop to around $150.00 or maybe $200.00 for the unit.
Or ten 1GB = 10GB at $550.00 (or maybe $300.00 - $400.00).
I would think that whatever type of controller they are already using should be expandable to handle the larger sizes.
I'm also wondering about the heat problem. Does anyone know if the larger sized drives have a heat problem? Are any of them using micro fans or something like that? Can you post if you know of anything along these lines? TIA!
Actually, fifty years ago I was born (1956). :-)
.
World War II saw the greatest expansion of education since....welllll World War I. It was still a boom economy in the fifties and the baby boomers were in full swing. Education was in full swing also. Many people who, as children, never had educations were getting their kids educations. Actually, not since World War II have we had so many people trying to better themselves and get an education (in the US that is). The dropout rate and educational rate of most students in today's schools is dismal compared to the 1950s. Free thinking, free love, free, free, free makes people lazy. Lazy people don't try to think and in many cases refuse to think. My wife, who teaches science, sometimes just wants to go screaming down the corridor. You teach a kid something, ask them to repeat it, and many times they either can't or won't. Last year 80% of her class graduated, this year (she got moved to 8th grade from 6th grade) only 60% of the student are passing. Of those, only 30% may make it to the end of the semester. Compare this to the 90% graduation rates of the fifties and I think you will see that although there are more people around now than before - fewer of them are graduating or even making it through school.
Now, granted, my wife is teaching in a mainly hispanic school who got a large influx of kids from Louisiana after the hurricane. Many of the kids can barely talk English, there is a high dropout rate because the families move a lot, and they have a higher percentage of kids who's parents get divorced or just one of them walks out on the other. But her school is not out of line with others where other ethnic majorities reside.
For instance, the Sharpstown school in Houston, Texas last year had a huge scandal because they falsely stated that only 5% of the kids were dropping out of school. Then it was found out that the principal and others had cooked the books and that really about 25% of the kids had dropped out of that school. The Sharpstown school is predominately white so any social bias would not apply.
So the problem isn't who you are teaching but that kids today seem to be less motivated to go to school than ever before. I can't blame them either. With all of the things the government has done and is doing about all these kids can look forwards to are scum jobs. As with Charles Dickenson's book "A Tale of Two Cities", we are becoming a country of the haves and have nots even though we already know what happens when that situation occurs. This isn't to say that there aren't people out there trying to change things. But it is to say that there are a heck of a lot more people in need than we have people to fix the problem (or even money to fix the problem).
So no. There are more people alive today than there were back in the 50s and there are more people out of work, looking for jobs, and not having the proper skills to achieve their goals today than in the 50s. Consequently, there are more people today and fewer in yesteryear who are uneducated and unskilled.
. .
To show what I mean:
My father's father was an unskilled worker until World War I. During World War I he received an education while in the military. My father was born just after the end of World War I. His family lived in a tiny town which didn't even have running water and was near a swamp. Where exactly I won't say. His dad taught him how to hunt so he could help bring home food when he was old enough. My father went to school up to 10th grade. (Which, I think, was the highest grade at the time.) When World War II came along, he enlisted, fought, came home, and then went to college while still in the armed forces. He married my mom who had also gone to school. Both parents went through the Great Depression. My mom's family moved all the way from the northwest to the southeast where, when she was older, she met my father. No matter where we moved to - we went to school. Being military kids, our f
Strange - I sent in a reply but it didn't post. :-/
It would be based upon the previous year's results for each category and it would be set at the beginning of the patent's term. That being, when the patent was issued would be the length of the patent's life.
I am also in favor of full disclosure of any patents which are submitted.
I am also in favor of the government assigning anyone who is given grant money to the task of reviewing patent applications for uniqueness in their given field. It should be a stipulation of any grants being assigned that they must review at least one patent a year. Probably more. At over 400,000 patent applications a year and (estimated off the top of my head) over 100,000 grants going out each year; having to review four patents a year would not be a bad thing. (Although I do realize that the majority of patents are probably falling into certain areas such as software patents and the like which can be mind numbing to say the least to review. Especially if the patent is covering ground like the movement of a mouse or something else that is so obvious as to be a waste of time to even review.)
US-CERT on the fishing industries:
CERT: You have 62,000,000 fish caught last year.
Fishermen: No we don't. We have so many sardines, tuna, flounder, and what not.
CERT: They are all fish aren't they?
Fishermen: Yeah....
CERT: So you have 62,000,000 fish caught last year.
We already have tried it at the lab where I work. As I said - it is an ok solution and doesn't or wouldn't give as good of a response per machine as the faster 1U system. Overall though, it is faster.
Also, as you must not have read:
Each machine would still serve a web page at less than a second per page (at least that is what I get with Apache and Linux installed and my tests show my web pages [which run Perl scripts and PHP scripts] execute fairly quickly and that was at 850Mhz. Now I'm getting a 1.6Ghz system.
I use Perl/PHP in my scripts and, as I said, they deliver approximately a good number of pages per second. That was at 850Mhz. I think I can safely say that a 1.6Ghz system will be a bit faster.
You: They have 1 sysadmin....
We only have one sysadmin at work to handle the machines we have and yes, it does cost more via electricity than a single unit. Our sysadmin wrote several Perl scripts and Bash scripts to handle the separate units in our lab. She also uses a network boot method so each system only needs a small hard drive (well, 50GB is small relatively speaking). The system boots itself, checks the net, downloads our updates, and then reboots (a pain I have to admit). Most updates are made over night to the central repository and then our separate systems get the updates. A similar system in another area has no hard drive of its own and runs completely off of the network. It is a bit slower than our systems and is why we don't use it since we do a lot of graphics at work.
I did not say to use 128MB of memory nor that I was using 128MB of memory. If you had of actually read what I wrote I said I ordered the system at 128MB of memory because I already had 1GB from the old system and it was the lowest amount of memory I could order. Please, read more carefully or quote me by selecting the actual sentence and not just one or two words. This is because people tend to take one or two words out of context to the rest of the sentence as in this:
(Since I already have memory I got the lowest thing they have - 128MB of memory.)
Notice that I didn't say I was going to run the system with only 128Mb of memory as you suggest in your message but that actually I have 1Gb of memory already and thus did not need to buy another 1Gb of memory.
Something you seem to have forgotten also is that it has been less than five years when everyone was using 1.6Ghz systems to run everything and everything ran just fine and the 1.6Ghz systems were praised for how many web pages they could actually process. With good response times as well. Which is what the whole point of my message was. That it is nothing more than someone's wish to have the biggest, brightest toy rather than actual need that is driving Wikipedia's requests for so much money. The older systems work just as well as they used to and could still be used to handle the needs of Wikipedia at a lower cost. Further, replacement costs are less. Electricity usage is more, but the last time I checked, electricity was still somewhere around $0.25 a Kilowatt (although that might not be the case in their area). If it is more, especially a lot more, maybe they should slso start looking at investing in alternative forms of energy. Slashdot had a great article on someone building their own wind driven energy generator a while back. That also is a good investment of the money given to them. Because it would lower their overall operating costs. But we digress and only because you brought up the subject.
In any event, slower systems are just that - slower. But they also cost less. Sometimes a lot less as is the case here. I am not saying it is an ideal solution but it would allow them to buy more computing power than by going with a single system. Especially at a difference of $2,500.00 versus $300.00 per system.
There are some problems though:
1. Huge undertakings (like the building of supercolliders and the like) usually require such vast amounts of money that only corporations or governments can afford to create them. This means that lots and lots of people work to make the item a reality. In this case, who should be on the patent and who should not? Just the original inventor? Just the corporation who paid for everything? Or all of those people who helped? (Hint: This is why corporations pay people salaries. Otherwise it is "We'll pay you as soon as you get it working." Which doesn't work all that well.)
While it is true that those people who work on a project should get paid something for their efforts - they usually are already being paid a salary. In my case, having helped create a software program I do get small bonuses every now and then for having helped to create the program. But I get paid a regular salary also.
The problem with making Patents like Trademarks is that a Trademark doesn't have to do anything other than just show up. While a Patent is something you don't want to show up, because then it's not unique. No. The way to end the Patent Troll is to put in to place some common sense rules without the legaleze attached to it. That is to say, the reason the Bill of Rights works is because it is in standard english that anyone can look at and understand. When you allow the lawyers in, then you begin to get what I call wiggle room. Throw out the lawyers and put in common sense rules and then you will get a better Patent system. Like so:
touch, hear, taste, feel, or in any other way, shape, or form interact
with or have knowledge of - can not be patented.
(Example: The light bulb was invented. Just because you make a
blue light, green light, big light, small light, or any other change
you want to make to the standard light bulb - it can not be Patented.
However, different methods to create light [such as a Neon bulb, LED
bulb, Hydrogen Bomb bulb, etc... - can be Patented.])
Slow = 20 years maximum.
Medium = 10 years maximum.
Fast = 5 years maximum.
Depending upon how many Patents are issued for a given
field, it falls into one of the above areas.
Slow: X <= 1,000.
Medium: 1,000 < X <= 10,000.
Fast: 10,000 < X <= Infinity.
So fewer Patents are better Patents.
type. (So we have no "Limited Time" clause for lawyers to mess
around with.)
I agree with you though - neither copyright, nor patent ownership should be transferable. The owner should only be able to lease out the usage of their copyright or patent. In the case of corporations though, the names of everyone who has worked on the patent BEFORE it was patented, should be listed. So everyone who worked on the project is given proper credit. (ie: It should not just be something like IBM CORPORATION. It should be something like "IBM CORPORATION via the work of the following people: A, B, C, D....) The corporation should have control of the Patent, but the Patent should not be allowed to change ownership. Again, the corporation can lease it out as much as it wants, however it wants to do so, but ownership stays with the originating corporation or person(s). I know some people are against this concept but it would reduce and remove ambiguity. It would also solidify exactly who owns what. Even if the lease is X number of dollars for usage of the patent/copyright until the patent/copyright expires - this is still more favorable than trying to figure out who owns what years after all of the originating people are gone. (Take John Lennon's songs for example.)
As I've posted twice
"The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing."
:-)
-- Ronald Reagan, October 27, 1964
Me thinks they chose unwisely.
Einstein:
As with many others - I think the article is wrong and basically shows a hidden wish to live in the time when Einstein lived. People are famous not so much for discovering something but how they went about discovering it as well as how they behaved before, during, and after the discovery.
People achieve noteriety because they stood up for a principle. Whether that principle is for good or evil. Lasting fame comes when mediocrity is overcome and word spreads about the person's deeds. But every generation has its people who stand out. Albert Einstein - yes. But what about Carl Sagan? Donald Knuth? Issac Asimov? Mathematicians, Physicists, Astrophysicists?
Every generation is different. Facing different problems as well as the old ones which came before. We have as of yet to even establish a base on the Moon and therefore there is an entire galaxy waiting to be discovered. So Einstein is one of the greats, but there is going to be others who will be just as great as him. Who knows? It might even be a machine like the one which just won the test of driving across the desert. Or one of these mega-net set-ups like what SETI has or the ones to try to find new drugs to fight cancer, extend life, and so on. But my bet is that there will be someone. Some person who will become as well known as Einstein for his contributions to science and I think the time is nearing when this one person will become known. Because we or coming up to the middle of the next generation and it is about time for someone. So here's to whomever that one person may be!
Ok, let me play Devil's Advocate here for a moment. I just got the cheapest thing I could possibly buy to replace my web server. It cost me $115.00. If I had bought the 1GB optional memory it would have cost me about $300.00. (Since I already have memory I got the lowest thing they have - 128MB of memory.) I'm getting a 1.6GHz AMD Duron with 400FSB. My system does get mediocre response next to what Wikipedia does but then I'm not trying to be a powerhouse; just want to give reasonable response to anyone who goes to my site.
The question becomes: Is Wikipedia trying to operate like a business (such as Google does) but are asking everyone else to foot the bill?
The reason is - is because at $300.00 a whack they could get 8 machines for that $2,500.00 per server cost. Yes, they would run slower, but it would allow them to serve more web pages to more people at a cheaper cost. Each machine would still serve a web page at less than a second per page (at least that is what I get with Apache and Linux installed and my tests show my web pages [which run Perl scripts and PHP scripts] execute fairly quickly and that was at 850Mhz. Now I'm getting a 1.6Ghz system. So it will be even faster.) Now, I won't be able to run hundreds of thousands of web pages per second since I only have one machine. But....
If Wikipedia set each machine to only handle up to 200 requests per second (well below what a 1.6Ghz system should be able to handle) times eight machines would give you 1,600 requests per second that could be handled. This is (or should be) on the low side of what the eight machines could handle. From what I remember of previous benchmarks on systems at the 1.6Ghz range - they should be able to handle upwards of about 1,000 requests per second before the system degrades given that Apache caches previously requested web pages so it can just shove them back out to the requestor. This would mean that the eight separate machines should be able to handle up to somewhere around 8,000 requests per second whereas the single server would probably start to choke around 3,000 to 4,000 requests per second.
This is not to mention the fact that it is cheaper to replace/repair the slower, cheaper machines than it is to replace/repair the singler server. So even if the machines broke down after only six months to a year's usage - it would be cheaper to replace it with another $300.00 machine than to replace the server at $2,500.00. And before you say the server would last longer - my 850Mhz system lasted about five years and wouldn't have gone down except I decided to use it for some mathematical computations while it was running the server and it over heated and burned up the cpu. So if not for my stupidity - it would still be running and chugging away. And the only reason I'm buying a brand new motherboard and cpu is because they don't make 850Mhz cpus anymore. Luckily the memory is the same speed for the new motherboard (or rather I can set the memory speed to be the same as what I already had) and I've bought a couple of heavy duty fans so I can do other things with the cpu while it also runs the web server.
Overall, the need to be the fastest or to use the latest technology really should not be thought about. It is really what do you need in order to get the job done. So what if the web page takes a second or two to load? It is not a matter of life and death. The server might take up less space, being a 1U unit, but so what? Most of the work is being done on the client side. All the server is doing is storing and retreiving information. And that information is not megabytes at a time but may be hundreds of kilobytes (like 150Kb or less). In many cases, if the banner et al does not change it might be as little as 20Kb per request. (Due to the browser caching the images.) This most probably means your biggest bottleneck isn't your computers or disk drives, but is most probably your ethernet connection. In these types of cases it is better to concentrate your money on having excelle
A couple of things:
1. Could they get by with slightly slower servers or general purpose computers (versus servers) that are cheaper but slightly slower? From what I've seen on the net, computers which are specifically made to be servers are faster but much more expensive than general cpus. So basically, if they wished to save money, why not go with the cheaper, but slower, general purpose computers versus those made specifically to be a server? That would probably save them some money.
2. Why don't they try setting up a self-sustaining monetary income? What I mean is is that now, while the amount needed is still somewhat small, why not try to set up an account where part (not all) of the interest earned on an amount of money is used to help sustain Wikipedia? (And YES! I know it would probably take ten times as much money as they probably currently have in order to make it feasible! But you have to start somewhere.)
What I mean is - if an amount of money is placed into the bank and it earns interest (say 5%) and only half of that earned money is used (so 2.5%), then the amount would grow by 2.5% minus any taxes which have to be paid. Thus, if $10.00 were put into the bank, then after a year Wikipedia would earn $0.125 cents and the other $0.125 would be used to pay any/all taxes. Which might leave $0.06 cents say. The next year, then, interest would be accured on the $10.06, and then $10.12, and so on.
I know - rates go up, rates go down. But at some point in the future the amount of money being made on that money would equal or exceed the amount of money Wikipedia needed in order to operate and then they would no longer need donations.
I am not saying it would help out today, tomorrow, next week, or even next year. But if they plan on being around for more than ten years and their expenses continue to increase over time, then the only way to handle this problem is to start now with a methodology that will, at some point in the future, enable them to stop asking for hand-outs and to stand on their own feet. After all, PBS does the same thing. It keeps asking people for money and trying to raise somewhere around $400,000.00 to $600,000.00 every year here in Houston, Texas. If they had set money aside (and kept their fingers out of the money) in a similar fashion, then we wouldn't have to listen to their asking for donations every three to six weeks. In essence, they would still be a public service without having to be a public burden.
<soapbox>Sorry, but this has touched upon one of my pet peeves. Charities seem to think it is their right to do whatever it takes to make you give your hard earned money to them. There is no such right. Any organization (charity or otherwise) has an obligation to itself to ensure that it can run without needing a single penny from anyone else. The word "donate" does NOT mean to force people to give you money. Either through threats (such as "YOU WILL LOSE YOUR JOB IF YOU DON'T DONATE TO THIS CHARITY!" - which I have run into), coersion, extortion, or any other means you can think of. Yet almost every charity now in existence feels it has the right to force others to give of their hard earned money. I do not think this is right. These organizations should not spend every penny they get. They should instead, set things up so they are assurded of having enough money to operate and THEN start helping whoever it is they want to help.
Now! Before anyone jumps up and starts spouting off about "WHAT ABOUT X?" like the American Red Cross? It applies to everyone and YES! There will always come a time where resources are stretched until they snap. But that is why you set these things up first so you can ensure your organization will survive and is already taken care of and can get by in hard times. If you had already set things up properly then you wouldn't go and plunder what you know you will need in order to survive and continue after this catastrophy. This is also when you do ask for donations. Not five o
Heh! When I went to post there was only one comment. By the time I'd finished typing that one line and submitted it - it was redundant! No matter what anyone else says, Slashdot is obviously not going downhill in readership!
:-)
PS: If the guy who posted "You've got Jail!" isn't at +5 yet, please mod him up for me!
Ok, I hate stating the obvious but....
Everyone who has posted about this virus just says that it asks for your credit card information. No one (as far as I've read) has posted anything about the virus scanning your hard drive for credit card information and/or encrypted information. Therefore, my question.
Does this mean that the guy from GM was a prophet?
Something tells me that this is just not going to work.
There were, in some older file formats, methods for running programs so that images could be overlaid with other images (as in schematics). If I remember correctly AutoCAD and some of the other CAD type files used to use this to link various files in to a give file (like layers on diagrams). Some file formats (one of the GE file formats - can't remember the name right now) actually had such things as the capability to send e-mail built in to the specs. Many of these "gotcha" things have been removed from the file formats now and others were dropped either due to concerns over viruses or just because they were a flash-in-the-pan kind of thing that never caught on.
:-/
Like the other poster though - this has nothing to do with an overflow problems. Which, if I remember correctly, first started showing up (for me) with TCP/IP stack overflows and PING of death kinds of things. Not that viruses were not around before this (I remember an IBM PC XT having a list of something like fifty viruses), but the first viruses I actually ran into had to do with the TCP/IP stack overflows and PINGs of death (another type of buffer overflow problem).
But to answer your question - some older file formats for graphics actually had commands in there to execute other programs. Sort of a "Look! You can have this graphics start this other graphic" and so on. You give it the command and the path to that command and it tries to execute it. So long as the program is just on your system there isn't a lot of problems with this. When the program resides on another computer somewhere on the internet and when a company integrates the capability to execute programs anywhere on the net (for whatever reason they may want to state), then it becomes bad news. Because you basically are giving control of your system to the other person.
My big question is - why are they even bothering to ask you for credit card information? Why not first do a scan to see if you have this information already on your hard drive and then just suck the info over the net to their site? I guess that maybe they've already done the search thing, but it doesn't seem (from those reporting in) that a search was already done. It looks more like they just tried to make it seem like you had to pay them to get rid of the virus activity. Maybe they think people really are that stupid.
Many people both known and unknown have given themselves to tests for various things which might help the human race. One of our own people where I work has just undergone an extensive test to help determine the tolerance of people when given shots against anthrax. (A dosing test.) Some of the people had allergic reactions and were put in the hospital. Others suffered only mild problems (aching joints etc....). Everyone in the experiment could have died but they did it anyway.
.,.,...,.;.,..," <-Look out for those mumbled "Using this product may cause heart attacks, blindness, internal bleeding, or even death." This is the kind of stupidity that gets companies sued. "Why, we TOLD everyone there might be side effects." Yeah, you mumbled it and said it so fast that you'd have to record the message and play it at half the speed in order to understand what some of these shyster companies are actually saying. The more mumbling I hear in a commerical - the farther away from it I want to stay. This is also one of the main differences I see between stem cell research and drug research.)
Babe Ruth allowed controversial radiation therapy to be done to him (if I remember correctly) and there have been a number of others who have undergone therapies which were not completely flushed out.
Open heart surgery where enlarged hearts are cut down to size is now being done in Central and South America and is being studied by North American doctors because the people who are undergoing the surgery are surviving fairly well (considering the operating rooms are just tables in a room and not sterile environments) and are leading healthy lives.
American doctors would not even consider eye surgery for years until the Russians perfected the technique. (As a side note, I asked my eye doctor is the mid 1970s why eye doctors didn't perform similar surgery on a patient's eyes to fix eye problems and was told that it was impossible to do that type of surgery even though they were already doing cataract surgery at the time.)
So my point here is that human guinea pigs are happening all of the time. Many people are very glad to help out either because: 1)Of the money paid to people who do such things, 2)The benefits it might make to mankind, and 3)Because the person actually has the problem and they are willing to take the risk of the treatment because it might cure them.
Look at Micheal J. Fox who is pushing strongly for stem cell research because of his condition. There already is a lot of medical research which shows that stem cells can cure his condition - yet it will be years yet before tests are even to be done on humans. Meanwhile, his condition becomes worse each year.
Or Muhammed Ali. Or even the kid two houses down from where I live who has been wheelchair ridden for the last two years because he has some degenerative disease that has made it so he can no longer walk. I forget the name but eventually the muscles in his chest will stop working and then he will die.
Or even look at me. Diabetes. I'm already losing feeling in my feet. Soon it will be my legs, then my legs will have to be removed, then my hands, and finally I will die.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that sometimes, the government plods along too slowly with a CYA attitude instead of a how can we get this done as quickly as possible and as safely as possible attitude. Look at hurricane Rita. Why did they yank out the government guys who were working on the problem? Because they were too interested in government red tape, CYA'ing themselves, and were plodding along not getting anything done. Now things are starting to move along slowly but surely. The same holds true for medical research. Sometimes, like I said, too much CYA. (And yeah, I know, CYA or be sued to death by someone. Well, don't go around saying "Buy XYZ Product! It's GREAT!
On the other hand though, we already have several examples of the drug industry pushing through drugs which have killed