A wardriver would know how to spoof a MAC. A MAC whitelist would prevent your basic neighborhood internet mooch, but simply setting up a WPA/WPA2 password would be sufficient to prevent this, and much easier to maintain.
This is great if you already have one, but DDR2 was most popular during the Core2 era. If you don't already have a LGA775 DDR3 motherboard, procuring a quality used one will cost you practically as much as a new board.
The caveat to sticking with the Socket 775 platform is DDR2 memory, which is usually going for twice as much as comparable DDR3. What with 2GB being the maximum practical size for a DDR2 DIMM, many boards are limited to a 4 - 8GB maximum.
Some might entertain the notion of going with an AMD AM3+ board. Going from a low end dual-core Intel solution, to a AMD quad-core solution with 8GB of RAM for around $150 - $175 is a nice performance boost. You could put that money towards a Q6600 and some more RAM, but then you have effectively maxed out your system, and the next time you upgrade you will have to rip everything out anyways. If you wanted to jump to Intel's new lineup, then you will be spending $150 - $175 on the CPU alone to see a performance increase.
One could argue that it lowers perceived cost of living by allowing employers to pay non-liveable wages, so the price of products are lower at the cash register.
I think the part also about him faking the loss of this fortune and leaving the USA to avoid a wrongful death lawsuit also suggests that he is not terribly trustworthy.
"Fulton first used instrumented dummies as he prepared for a live pickup. He next used a pig, as pigs have nervous systems close to humans. Lifted off the ground, the pig began to spin as it flew through the air at 125 mph (200 km/h). It arrived on board uninjured but in a disoriented state. Once it recovered, it attacked the crew."
Not all disks in the Google study were highly utilized 24/7. Arguably it might be better to turn a hard drive on and leave it on then to park & re-initialize the heads every day. A controlled data center environment is more likely to be beneficial to a hard drive than sitting on or under someone's desk getting knocked or collecting dust.
I am not doubting that SSDs are still experimental and have failures but the concept that HDD are way more reliable is overblown. Seagate has released many crap firmware updates or drives with bad firmware that tank the performance or brick the drive. Hitachi(previously IBM) was known for the "DeathStar" drive. Some manufacturers try to tell you to only run your drive 6 - 8 hours a day. Warranties are also shrinking.
Jeff Atwoods awesome for creating Stack Overflow, but I am not taking him as the end all be all SSD guru. Again, I could look through NewEgg reviews and give you 40 anecdotal cases of DOA disks or drives that just died. You could probably do the same for SSDs. A blog post has a terrible sample size.
If you look at Intel SSDs then actually you'll find them to be be about 6-8 times more reliable than HDDs and they will blow any hard drive or raid setup out of the water in terms of performance.
If anecdotal evidence on SSDs scares you perhaps you should re-review Google's hard data on hard disk failures. Certain brands of SSDs are already many times more reliable than hard drives if looking at failure rates over time. Hard drives are no more reliable. You will find plenty of anecdotes in NewEgg reviews of people buying x number of hard drives and y number of them arriving DOA or dying in 3 months.
Nuclear is synonymous with "uranium fueled reactor". When someone says "Nuclear" they're really saying "classical uranium based reactor like those currently in operation". Which aren't very economical when you count mining, refining(proprietary fuel rods aren't cheap), reacting, reprocessing, transporting & long-term storage along with safety hazards & initial construction costs. Plus the stigma attached to nuclear isn't helping it's cause.
The only benefit of current nuclear designs have is energy density which is really handy when you're on an aircraft carrier or submarine, but on a massive scale they really aren't that viable when you factor in all the costs associated with them. They do become viable if we have no other option(i.e completely out of fossil fuels & have no alternatives).
Thorium is more abundant, reactors are simpler to build, waste products are less toxic, with half-life as low as 100 years, plus there is less waste material.
Negatives: It's different than the current nuclear reactors, so engineers, businesses & regulatory agencies aren't really well versed or interested in doing a 360 on their current investment. There are no commercial thorium reactors currently available, until then Thorium is just a pipe dream. But the reasons it's not being used don't seem to be technical in nature, but more a mindset that needs to shift. We've tried uranium based reactors for decades now & there have been numerous failures & they really have not panned out as the end-all-be-all to our energy woes.
Everyone jazzed about Nuclear should hop on the Thorium bandwagon as it seems more viable & perhaps won't have as much stigma attached to it as "nuclear" does.
I don't know why you need a universal way to "display & save subtitle preferences", though.
This would be out of convenience. If there was a unified way to send subtitle data to the TV, the TV could save things like font, color, position, drop shadow...etc... Then that might be useful, since you'd configure it once on your TV & then any device will have consistent subtitling so long as they output a proper text stream.
It's just subtitles & closed captioning are often an after thought by the movie studios, which is why they probably don't get the attention some people would like.
Yes, multiple streams as in audio/video together on the same cable. That is a big deal. Component video + stereo requires 5 different connectors. SCART sounds pretty nifty for it's time, but yeah, it was never here in the USA.
Could they do compression & multiple video streams now? Possibly. Is it worth the hassle? No. Lossless at best would probably get you 2:1 compression ratio. It'd require new ICs that can handle realtime decompression of multiple HD(or greater) video streams, adding cost & complexity. It would only benefit displays that supported the new standard & given that these requests aren't really required for Joe Bob to sit in front of a TV and watch a movie, most likely they wouldn't be implemented in most consumer TVs.
We're lucky we have a standard 1920x1080 resolution, even if OTA broadcasts have to do it in 60i.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the actual term for someone who uses Twitter rumors for stock trading is "twit".
A wardriver would know how to spoof a MAC. A MAC whitelist would prevent your basic neighborhood internet mooch, but simply setting up a WPA/WPA2 password would be sufficient to prevent this, and much easier to maintain.
This is great if you already have one, but DDR2 was most popular during the Core2 era. If you don't already have a LGA775 DDR3 motherboard, procuring a quality used one will cost you practically as much as a new board.
The caveat to sticking with the Socket 775 platform is DDR2 memory, which is usually going for twice as much as comparable DDR3. What with 2GB being the maximum practical size for a DDR2 DIMM, many boards are limited to a 4 - 8GB maximum.
Some might entertain the notion of going with an AMD AM3+ board. Going from a low end dual-core Intel solution, to a AMD quad-core solution with 8GB of RAM for around $150 - $175 is a nice performance boost. You could put that money towards a Q6600 and some more RAM, but then you have effectively maxed out your system, and the next time you upgrade you will have to rip everything out anyways. If you wanted to jump to Intel's new lineup, then you will be spending $150 - $175 on the CPU alone to see a performance increase.
One could argue that it lowers perceived cost of living by allowing employers to pay non-liveable wages, so the price of products are lower at the cash register.
I think the part also about him faking the loss of this fortune and leaving the USA to avoid a wrongful death lawsuit also suggests that he is not terribly trustworthy.
Is there anything more recent? Six years is a long time ago for graphics cards.
Which has nothing to do with the point the person you're replying to was stating.
He is in Australia, something could be said about exchange rates and cost of living...
This is a great quote from the wiki:
"Fulton first used instrumented dummies as he prepared for a live pickup. He next used a pig, as pigs have nervous systems close to humans. Lifted off the ground, the pig began to spin as it flew through the air at 125 mph (200 km/h). It arrived on board uninjured but in a disoriented state. Once it recovered, it attacked the crew."
I don't know about that...
Me:What are the names of team rocket?
Cleverbot: Sufian Stevens and Elvis Prestly.
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
It didn't just stop in the 1950s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqgate
Not all disks in the Google study were highly utilized 24/7. Arguably it might be better to turn a hard drive on and leave it on then to park & re-initialize the heads every day. A controlled data center environment is more likely to be beneficial to a hard drive than sitting on or under someone's desk getting knocked or collecting dust.
I am not doubting that SSDs are still experimental and have failures but the concept that HDD are way more reliable is overblown. Seagate has released many crap firmware updates or drives with bad firmware that tank the performance or brick the drive. Hitachi(previously IBM) was known for the "DeathStar" drive. Some manufacturers try to tell you to only run your drive 6 - 8 hours a day. Warranties are also shrinking.
Jeff Atwoods awesome for creating Stack Overflow, but I am not taking him as the end all be all SSD guru. Again, I could look through NewEgg reviews and give you 40 anecdotal cases of DOA disks or drives that just died. You could probably do the same for SSDs. A blog post has a terrible sample size.
If you look at Intel SSDs then actually you'll find them to be be about 6-8 times more reliable than HDDs and they will blow any hard drive or raid setup out of the water in terms of performance.
If anecdotal evidence on SSDs scares you perhaps you should re-review Google's hard data on hard disk failures. Certain brands of SSDs are already many times more reliable than hard drives if looking at failure rates over time. Hard drives are no more reliable. You will find plenty of anecdotes in NewEgg reviews of people buying x number of hard drives and y number of them arriving DOA or dying in 3 months.
http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/en/us/archive/disk_failures.pdf
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-reliability-failure-rate,2923-6.html
Moneyball the movie was based off Moneyball the book. The concepts in Moneyball are real & have been implemented by most of Major League Baseball.
This must be why companies just randomly price their goods and never do market research to find out what price would net them the most profit.
It was early & my brain wasn't thinking.
Nuclear is synonymous with "uranium fueled reactor". When someone says "Nuclear" they're really saying "classical uranium based reactor like those currently in operation". Which aren't very economical when you count mining, refining(proprietary fuel rods aren't cheap), reacting, reprocessing, transporting & long-term storage along with safety hazards & initial construction costs. Plus the stigma attached to nuclear isn't helping it's cause.
The only benefit of current nuclear designs have is energy density which is really handy when you're on an aircraft carrier or submarine, but on a massive scale they really aren't that viable when you factor in all the costs associated with them. They do become viable if we have no other option(i.e completely out of fossil fuels & have no alternatives).
Thorium is more abundant, reactors are simpler to build, waste products are less toxic, with half-life as low as 100 years, plus there is less waste material.
Negatives: It's different than the current nuclear reactors, so engineers, businesses & regulatory agencies aren't really well versed or interested in doing a 360 on their current investment. There are no commercial thorium reactors currently available, until then Thorium is just a pipe dream. But the reasons it's not being used don't seem to be technical in nature, but more a mindset that needs to shift. We've tried uranium based reactors for decades now & there have been numerous failures & they really have not panned out as the end-all-be-all to our energy woes.
Everyone jazzed about Nuclear should hop on the Thorium bandwagon as it seems more viable & perhaps won't have as much stigma attached to it as "nuclear" does.
You can see the videos for more details.
Yes, I am aware that Thorium is just a different fuel & uses technique for nuclear reaction.
Nuclear is a waste of time, too complicated & too costly. Thorium is where it's at baby.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LeM-Dyuk6g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl5DiTPw3dk
Operatives within the free market would never buy government off & make the market less free?
Sure you're not actually using WooshTorrent?
I don't know why you need a universal way to "display & save subtitle preferences", though.
This would be out of convenience. If there was a unified way to send subtitle data to the TV, the TV could save things like font, color, position, drop shadow...etc... Then that might be useful, since you'd configure it once on your TV & then any device will have consistent subtitling so long as they output a proper text stream.
It's just subtitles & closed captioning are often an after thought by the movie studios, which is why they probably don't get the attention some people would like.
Yes, multiple streams as in audio/video together on the same cable. That is a big deal. Component video + stereo requires 5 different connectors. SCART sounds pretty nifty for it's time, but yeah, it was never here in the USA.
Could they do compression & multiple video streams now? Possibly. Is it worth the hassle? No. Lossless at best would probably get you 2:1 compression ratio. It'd require new ICs that can handle realtime decompression of multiple HD(or greater) video streams, adding cost & complexity. It would only benefit displays that supported the new standard & given that these requests aren't really required for Joe Bob to sit in front of a TV and watch a movie, most likely they wouldn't be implemented in most consumer TVs.
We're lucky we have a standard 1920x1080 resolution, even if OTA broadcasts have to do it in 60i.