Why bother with Norton Ghost for a home user, when you can get exactly the same effect with a knoppix cd, a network connection and judicious use of the "dd" command.
# mkdir/mnt/server # mount server:/remote/dir/mnt/server # dd if=/dev/hda | gzip > /mnt/server/winimage.img.gz (wait a while...) # reboot
Some tips:
Make sure the freshly installed winXP is a blank disk by dd'ing it with zeros before install. This way you get great compression.
If you burn the image to disc, make sure if you use split that you re-constitute the image on a network disc before trying to recover it.
One of these days I'm going to make a distro that does it all automagically (yes, yes, I know g4l exists, but there's some license issues there, apparently...)
The interest you pay on your home mortgage is tax deductible. We do this because, while you did earn income that year, some of it went into maintaining a place to live so it's not really any gain on your part. This makes it more complex, but more fair.
Why should this item be tax deductible? Here in Australia, mortgage payments to your own home are not tax deductible, while payments to investment property loans are tax deductible. The reasoning is that the investment property is giving you an income, so the interest on the loan is an expense incurred in gaining that income. Your home is a lifestyle choice - you can choose to live in a big, expensive house, or a small, more modest one. Why should the person who lives the life of luxury be given any financial incentive to do so?
As for capital gains tax, you don't pay capital gains tax here on any property you have lived in, since the primary reason for buying that property is assumed to not be profit. You will, however, pay capital gains tax on an investment property, but this will not be assessed as part of your "normal" income, as I understand it. I am not a tax consultant (nor lawyer), though, so could be wrong about this last bit.
I couldn't agree more. I installed Windows NT4 on a PII-266 last night with all of 32MB of RAM. It's quite a snappy desktop on that machine (I haven't yet run any 'modern' apps, though). I don't know why MS can't make WinXP run well on old, slow machines. 128MB minimum footprint, bah! 32MB should be heaps for running a bare desktop, with no eye candy, surely.
for i in $(seq 4) ; do dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/hda dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda done
Writes over the disk with random data, then zeroes, a total of four times. Good luck recovering anything off that puppy (although, it most likely can still be done with some *very* sophisticated equipment).
First let me say that allthough I had hoped that Kerry would win, Bush victory was the most likly outcome. Disappointed? Yup. But it's _not_ the end of the world.
Some people think it may well be the End of the World. Dubya scares me, and many others.
Try installing it. I've tried installing win98 on a 486/33, it barfs saying that "win98 won't install on a processor slower than 66MHz". Exact same machine, plugged in with a 66MHz processor, installed fine. Win98 also ran fine on the 33MHz processor once installed, BTW.
Bottom line is, I would guess win2k would also have these checks to make sure it won't install on a slow machine.
I'm an Aussie. Here in Australia, to root means something completely different to what you USAians would mean. Short answer is that yes, I would root for them. In fact, I'd root for anybody...
I have to disagree vehemently on this one. Open two word documents (in Office 2002), then two excel documents in Office 2002. Close Word (by clicking the close application button in the top right), then close excel the same way. The behaviour for the two applications is different. One will close the whole application (both documents), the other will close only the active document (can't remember which way around, too lazy to check)! If they can't even manage to get Excel 2002 and Word 2002 to behave the same, how the hell do you expect that they go over different generations??
My bad. I was basing my reply on the other statements that there is only 200W/m2 of insolation. You clearly didn't state this in this post. The bottom line is: bright, sunny day, you will get a minimum of 1000W/m2 of insolation at midday. The total insolation will work out at around 5kWh/m2 per day, or about 1kWh/m2 after conversion to electricity via photovoltaics.
It's just a damn shame the cells (fuel-cells and solar-cells) are so expensive, otherwise I'd put some on my roof in a heartbeat, with a 10kW fuel cell to store/recover the energy.
Yes, the problem is that you don't really get 10 hours of true sunlight. You get more like about 5 hours, 10am through 3pm. This is where you get the majority of your sunlight. The figures were also worst case, so during the summer months you will get more. If you have ever actually *measured* the insolation, you will discover that at midday, on a bright sunny day, you will get much much more that 1000W/m2. Trust me, I have done this.
If your figures are correct, perhaps you can explain this?
4.5kWh average insolation per day means that you are going to get well more than 1000W on a sunny day. Note that the map is worst-case; from the page: Particularly if the site is at a latitude higher than 45, be aware that the ESH number represents average
daily insolation during the worst month of the year. It is not indicative of how much solar energy is
available during other months, which--particularly at high latitudes--may be substantial.
In a past life I also did a literature search, and found a survey of insolation levels (you know, actually measured, on the ground), for all of Australia. The figure was generally above 1000W/m2 .
And that can't go any higher than 1.3kw/m^2, because that's all the Earth manages to get from the Sun. In reality, we'll never see that 1.3kw/m^2 unless we manage to rip away our atmosphere. (Not a good thing.)
You, and others, keep saying this, but this is inaccurate. The average solar energy striking the earth's surface is around 1000W/m2. This is the energy that reaches the ground. On a bright sunny day, you might get up to 1600W/m2, but solar car people work on 1000W/m2 in their calculations.
From the article: The major version number will from now on be used to indicate a major release and the minor version number to indicate a minor release.
What the hell were they using these numbers for preiously??
With that in mind... I wonder if they have it fixed this time so it doesn't need a copy of the key file in every mod directory you play in. I always thought that was incredibly dumb. (It would ask you for the key everytime you played a new mod...)
$ cd/usr/local/games/doom3 $ for d in $(find . -type d) ; do cp $key $d ; done
You hit the nail on the head there. Applications kids learn today as far as computers go will NOT be relevent when they get to the workforce in 5-10 years, but the concepts will be. Using a mouse, using a keyboard, basic word processing etc are all a kid should really learn, picking up computing concepts for the future.
Linking sh to bash creates portability issues for shell scripts.
Why? From the bash man page:
A non-interactive shell invoked with the name sh does not attempt to read any other startup files. When invoked as sh, bash enters posix mode after the startup files are read.
Bottom line: bash when invoked as #!/bin/sh will behave pretty much the same as sh. Bash invoked as #!/bin/bash behaves much more sanely:-).
Try writing a shell script under linux invoked as #!/bin/sh, then write one invoked as #!/bin/bash. They behave differently, despite/bin/sh being a symlink to/bin/bash.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, maybe, but Norton Ghost costs money, while Knoppix is pretty much free except for the download time and something like $0.30 for a CD.
I've never had a problem, but I've only done it once or twice. Thanks for the tip - I'll add the blocksize in future.
Some tips:
To recover:
Or something like that, anyway...
One of these days I'm going to make a distro that does it all automagically (yes, yes, I know g4l exists, but there's some license issues there, apparently...)
Why should this item be tax deductible? Here in Australia, mortgage payments to your own home are not tax deductible, while payments to investment property loans are tax deductible. The reasoning is that the investment property is giving you an income, so the interest on the loan is an expense incurred in gaining that income. Your home is a lifestyle choice - you can choose to live in a big, expensive house, or a small, more modest one. Why should the person who lives the life of luxury be given any financial incentive to do so?
As for capital gains tax, you don't pay capital gains tax here on any property you have lived in, since the primary reason for buying that property is assumed to not be profit. You will, however, pay capital gains tax on an investment property, but this will not be assessed as part of your "normal" income, as I understand it. I am not a tax consultant (nor lawyer), though, so could be wrong about this last bit.
I couldn't agree more. I installed Windows NT4 on a PII-266 last night with all of 32MB of RAM. It's quite a snappy desktop on that machine (I haven't yet run any 'modern' apps, though). I don't know why MS can't make WinXP run well on old, slow machines. 128MB minimum footprint, bah! 32MB should be heaps for running a bare desktop, with no eye candy, surely.
Well, I think that post sums up the total of your math knowledge.
I'm sorry, do you mean aleph 0, aleph 1, or some other (higher) value of infinity? And can you prove it?
No.
Since when was emacs an editor? I thought it was an operating system, in need of an editor.
Or, better:
Writes over the disk with random data, then zeroes, a total of four times. Good luck recovering anything off that puppy (although, it most likely can still be done with some *very* sophisticated equipment).
Some people think it may well be the End of the World. Dubya scares me, and many others.
Bottom line is, I would guess win2k would also have these checks to make sure it won't install on a slow machine.
I'm an Aussie. Here in Australia, to root means something completely different to what you USAians would mean. Short answer is that yes, I would root for them. In fact, I'd root for anybody...
I can see it now: 4 Ask Slashdots in the next week: "I have 67.5TB of online storage, what do you guys use to back up all that data?"
I have to disagree vehemently on this one. Open two word documents (in Office 2002), then two excel documents in Office 2002. Close Word (by clicking the close application button in the top right), then close excel the same way. The behaviour for the two applications is different. One will close the whole application (both documents), the other will close only the active document (can't remember which way around, too lazy to check)! If they can't even manage to get Excel 2002 and Word 2002 to behave the same, how the hell do you expect that they go over different generations??
My bad. I was basing my reply on the other statements that there is only 200W/m2 of insolation. You clearly didn't state this in this post. The bottom line is: bright, sunny day, you will get a minimum of 1000W/m2 of insolation at midday. The total insolation will work out at around 5kWh/m2 per day, or about 1kWh/m2 after conversion to electricity via photovoltaics.
It's just a damn shame the cells (fuel-cells and solar-cells) are so expensive, otherwise I'd put some on my roof in a heartbeat, with a 10kW fuel cell to store/recover the energy.
Yes, the problem is that you don't really get 10 hours of true sunlight. You get more like about 5 hours, 10am through 3pm. This is where you get the majority of your sunlight. The figures were also worst case, so during the summer months you will get more. If you have ever actually *measured* the insolation, you will discover that at midday, on a bright sunny day, you will get much much more that 1000W/m2. Trust me, I have done this.
In a past life I also did a literature search, and found a survey of insolation levels (you know, actually measured, on the ground), for all of Australia. The figure was generally above 1000W/m2 .
You, and others, keep saying this, but this is inaccurate. The average solar energy striking the earth's surface is around 1000W/m2. This is the energy that reaches the ground. On a bright sunny day, you might get up to 1600W/m2, but solar car people work on 1000W/m2 in their calculations.
What the hell were they using these numbers for preiously??
It's not really all that hard, is it folks??
I didn't get any spawned windows. I just closed the tab. (firefox 0.9.2 on XP)
You hit the nail on the head there. Applications kids learn today as far as computers go will NOT be relevent when they get to the workforce in 5-10 years, but the concepts will be. Using a mouse, using a keyboard, basic word processing etc are all a kid should really learn, picking up computing concepts for the future.
Why? From the bash man page:
Bottom line: bash when invoked as #!/bin/sh will behave pretty much the same as sh. Bash invoked as #!/bin/bash behaves much more sanely :-).
Try writing a shell script under linux invoked as #!/bin/sh, then write one invoked as #!/bin/bash. They behave differently, despite /bin/sh being a symlink to /bin/bash.
For sure, but the comment was based more on the PIII-class machine running as what I assume is a fileserver, rather than the memory...