Don't be any stupider than you have to be. Wars happen. You don't have to start a war to be in one.
Wars may become less likely because economies become interdependent. But they may not. If someone decides they can get even more favorable situations by defeating their rivals and wringing concessions out of them, that someone may still start a war.
Top Gear is absolute garbage. It is a stupid, mass entertainment piece of shit. If you trust Top Gear for worthwhile information, you deserve the skull full of mush they will try to give you.
You're very tactful. I would have said RAID0 is only for saps and idiots. RAID5 is only a tiny step better. I don't even really trust RAID1. RAID1 gives you no protection against rm. Rm and other user errors are instantly and faithfully propagated across RAID1. My redundancy is between complete duplicate boxes, using rsync scripts. That way *I* can control what is mirrored and when it is mirrored. And, short of ZFS or BTRFS, there is no substitute for SHA1SUM'ing everything, checking that the rsyncs are not corrupting anything.
I assume you're joking. Do you have any idea of the amount of energy locked up in surface water in the form of hydrogen-water bonds? Compared to annual energy usage by humans, times, say, one million?
Yes; the (R) and (D) for the most part is just a big conspiracy to block any meaningful change. Of course you only mentioned one "side" which is no better than the other. In truth both "sides" are evil.
The real battle is between the establishment and the outsiders - people who actually have independent critical thought.
Yeah, because we really believe the word of an anonymous coward with no evidence. The proposition is simply not believable and has been debunked elsewhere.
The ENTIRE reason? I seem to remember there was a tyrannical king involved, one who refused to assent to laws "most wholesome and necessary to public good;" one who purposely "called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant." One who arbitrarily dissolved Representative Houses because he didn't like their results, and refused to allow others to be elected. And other affronts, such as restraint of trade, and withholding the right to trial by a jury of peers.
You go on about "rich guys," but it was far from a bunch of foppish gentry. These founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the desperate cause of a final redress against tyranny. Some lost those lives; many lost those fortunes; but damn few lost their honor. I can't say the same about their oppressors, who called down the wrath of the world's greatest power against them, resorting to mercenaries in an assault whose triumph most of the world considered to be a forgone conclusion.
You're not being realistic. You must realize that there will be plenty of people without the means to be reasonably expected to pay for their health insurance. Not the way things are now, and not magically the way things are going to be, either. You can't humanely or effectively charge somebody a penalty if they do not have the means to pay the penalty.
In the present system, the insured pay for the uninsured by being overcharged in order to pay for subsidizing the emergency room. In the pending system, the insured will pay for the insurance of those who can't pay for it themselves, by having their payment adjusted. Exactly what is the difference? Either way, X number of people will use services without being able to arrange payment, and those same X number of people will nonetheless receive care. OK, the new way, the care will perhaps be rendered in more appropriate and efficient settings than the emergency room. But you can't just will or force everybody to have skin in the game.
The most honest and efficient approach is to raise sufficient taxes for all needs, and some of those needs are a free "floor" for basic health care, nutrition, and housing for everyone. If you want to label what that approach is, feel free. I'm not bothered by labels.
Bingo. It gets just out of control. Looks like the overhead of having so much goddam memory in use gets to be too much for some housekeeping task. I have had 3.6 GB of resident memory sucked up by Firefox, another 1.4 GB by Thunderbird, another 1 GB by Chrome, and the entire desktop goes comatose for seconds at a time - no mouse, no keyboard. There is NO excuse for that.
(3) Please substantiate this claim. The issue that the battery will wear out over time even absent cycling is of course granted, but the issue that cycling is not a consequential contribute to wear-out need substantiation.
(4) Memory effect was a real and crippling defect in nickel cadmiums. They are literally useless in the real world, and it drives me crazy that they still ship them in cordless phones. Within a few months to a year that phone will be down to 10% of its original run time, but when I swap the crap Nicads for lithium metal hydrides they are good for years with little degradation.
What are you going on about? Rare earth is used in electric motors, not batteries. I won't even attempt to pretend I know where the rest of your post is going.
Battery University is one of the prime suspects in the crap information category. For lithium ions they claim 10% is lost in THE FIRST DAY and after that 10% a month. It's complete bullshit of course. However, since we're talking cars here, a lot of electric cars and hybrids still use nickel metal hydride, which is notorious for high self discharge. A typical nickel metal hydride does lose about 30% in 6 months. Newer low-self-discharge designs (Sanyo Eneloop) lose only 10% in 6 months.
Memory effect is however not mythical at all. Nickel cadmium batteries are crippled by it. They are basically completely unusable in real life applications. Nickel metal hydride and lithium ion do not have memory effect.
Dude, most people could care less if some database contains information on where their car has gone (and potentially when it has gone there). I certainly don't care in my case. Murderers, thieves, and such, on the other hand, have a very damn good reason to care. It's simple enough.
And no, I don't claim everyone who removes tracking equipment is engaged in illegal activity, and I don't question their motives. I just think as a point of interesting speculation (and it is impossible to prove) that most who do so are so engaged.
Don't get me wrong; it's good that somebody's trying, and we need a LOT more people trying, but jeeze. Looks like a two big giant misses to me.
The desktop has HDMI yet it can only display 1280x768? WTF man!!! There is no conceivable excuse whatsoever for no 1080p. No gigabit ethernet? WTF! Only 2 USB ports? WTF! OK, if it was like $50 all that might be acceptable, but not for $129. Not even close.
The notebook is only 1024x600. That's completely unacceptable to me, but hey, there are plenty of other Netbooks that get by with that much, so I'm in the minority. So... battery life is 6 hr (claimed). WTF! You can get any kind of crappy x86 netbook with a claimed battery life of 6 hr. And for not much more money either. So what the hell is the point of this thing? If the battery life was 24 hr claimed, or let's say AT LEAST 16 hr in REAL LIFE actual use, it would have my attention, but as it is, it's just one more piece of junk.
You have inaccurate knowledge of how caching works. Normally, write calls return as soon as the data is written to RAM, which is VERY quick. Writing back to hard drive then occurs in the background. Isn't multi-tasking great? You have to take special measures in your file I/O calls if what you want is to not have the system return until the data reaches the hard drive. That is very seldom appropriate or necessary, though you can do it.
It will never be necessary to wait an hour for writeback because the cache is writing back all the time in the background. Do you really think your apps are going to get 64GB ahead of writeback?
Your use case may make a mess of a STUPID cache, but there is no reason why a cache needs to be that stupid. In fact in the case described, those files should be stored on a partition with no caching at all, or only very minimal caching.
Who uses 2GB sticks to get 64GB anyway? You can get a 4GB high quality stick for $21.99 at Newegg. That's $351.84 for 16 of them. That's £227 at today's exchange rate. You're right about the ratio, though. It's about 3:1 for price of RAM to SSD.
And you know what? I'd take the RAM in a heartbeat. It would have at least 10:1 better read rate, and even more advantage in write rate. It never wears out. And you can use it for anything; not just a hard drive cache. In fact, I'd say the sweet spot for a hard drive cache is maybe 8GB, not 64GB, if you optimize what it caches. Now you're down to $44, and there are reasonably priced desktop motherboards that will hold this much more than you want to have for other purposes. On my desktop system,/bin,/lib,/usr/bin,/usr/lib, and/etc put together in their entirety total no more than 1.3GB. If you put all that and other well selected stuff in RAM drives and mount them, just about all programs will load essentially instantly. Just stick with the hard drive with existing linux RAM caching for the data (all other partitions).
Nonsense. If the explanation as summarized is accurate you could use a permanent magnet. Let it attract an iron object on a string wound around a generator. As the object is attracted, the generator produces electricity. Normally, you have to EXPEND just as much energy to pry the object away from the magnet again. But if instead you introduce this "magic shield" between the magnet and the object just before they touch, you can pull the object away again for almost no energy expenditure. Rinse, lather, and repeat over and over again and you produce an infinite number of surges of electricity for next to no energy input. Even a generator of 5% efficiency would be plenty to provide perpetual motion plus energy coming out to run you TV (after being suitably converted, filtered and leveled).
Of course a real device would be much more sophisticated than the above mind exercise, but the above is enough to show that it breaks the law of conservation of energy.
So no, I do not think the summary as given is accurate, because I believe in the law of conservation of energy.
People who think they can convey sarcasm in printed text usually do not have the talent to carry it off. It is almost impossible to do in a brief post. People who think sarcasm is clever are not that clever. People who say "you missed the sarcasm" in such a case are merely tiresome.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be any stupider than you have to be. Wars happen. You don't have to start a war to be in one.
Wars may become less likely because economies become interdependent. But they may not. If someone decides they can get even more favorable situations by defeating their rivals and wringing concessions out of them, that someone may still start a war.
Top Gear is absolute garbage. It is a stupid, mass entertainment piece of shit. If you trust Top Gear for worthwhile information, you deserve the skull full of mush they will try to give you.
I think we're all in agreement here.
Adversus solem ne loquitor.
Kleine Siege gefeiert werden sollte.
Good point. I new that abortion of a clause was in there for a reason.
+1. Somebody who gets it.
You're very tactful. I would have said RAID0 is only for saps and idiots. RAID5 is only a tiny step better. I don't even really trust RAID1. RAID1 gives you no protection against rm. Rm and other user errors are instantly and faithfully propagated across RAID1. My redundancy is between complete duplicate boxes, using rsync scripts. That way *I* can control what is mirrored and when it is mirrored. And, short of ZFS or BTRFS, there is no substitute for SHA1SUM'ing everything, checking that the rsyncs are not corrupting anything.
I assume you're joking. Do you have any idea of the amount of energy locked up in surface water in the form of hydrogen-water bonds? Compared to annual energy usage by humans, times, say, one million?
Yes; the (R) and (D) for the most part is just a big conspiracy to block any meaningful change. Of course you only mentioned one "side" which is no better than the other. In truth both "sides" are evil.
The real battle is between the establishment and the outsiders - people who actually have independent critical thought.
Yeah, because we really believe the word of an anonymous coward with no evidence. The proposition is simply not believable and has been debunked elsewhere.
The ENTIRE reason? I seem to remember there was a tyrannical king involved, one who refused to assent to laws "most wholesome and necessary to public good;" one who purposely "called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant." One who arbitrarily dissolved Representative Houses because he didn't like their results, and refused to allow others to be elected. And other affronts, such as restraint of trade, and withholding the right to trial by a jury of peers.
You go on about "rich guys," but it was far from a bunch of foppish gentry. These founders pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the desperate cause of a final redress against tyranny. Some lost those lives; many lost those fortunes; but damn few lost their honor. I can't say the same about their oppressors, who called down the wrath of the world's greatest power against them, resorting to mercenaries in an assault whose triumph most of the world considered to be a forgone conclusion.
Do they take any money off for those who already subscribe to Prime?
That was my question, too. Is there ANY Amazon user who does NOT have Prime?
You're not being realistic. You must realize that there will be plenty of people without the means to be reasonably expected to pay for their health insurance. Not the way things are now, and not magically the way things are going to be, either. You can't humanely or effectively charge somebody a penalty if they do not have the means to pay the penalty.
In the present system, the insured pay for the uninsured by being overcharged in order to pay for subsidizing the emergency room. In the pending system, the insured will pay for the insurance of those who can't pay for it themselves, by having their payment adjusted. Exactly what is the difference? Either way, X number of people will use services without being able to arrange payment, and those same X number of people will nonetheless receive care. OK, the new way, the care will perhaps be rendered in more appropriate and efficient settings than the emergency room. But you can't just will or force everybody to have skin in the game.
The most honest and efficient approach is to raise sufficient taxes for all needs, and some of those needs are a free "floor" for basic health care, nutrition, and housing for everyone. If you want to label what that approach is, feel free. I'm not bothered by labels.
Bingo. It gets just out of control. Looks like the overhead of having so much goddam memory in use gets to be too much for some housekeeping task. I have had 3.6 GB of resident memory sucked up by Firefox, another 1.4 GB by Thunderbird, another 1 GB by Chrome, and the entire desktop goes comatose for seconds at a time - no mouse, no keyboard. There is NO excuse for that.
Oh. And I have 16 GB of RAM installed.
(3) Please substantiate this claim. The issue that the battery will wear out over time even absent cycling is of course granted, but the issue that cycling is not a consequential contribute to wear-out need substantiation.
(4) Memory effect was a real and crippling defect in nickel cadmiums. They are literally useless in the real world, and it drives me crazy that they still ship them in cordless phones. Within a few months to a year that phone will be down to 10% of its original run time, but when I swap the crap Nicads for lithium metal hydrides they are good for years with little degradation.
What are you going on about? Rare earth is used in electric motors, not batteries. I won't even attempt to pretend I know where the rest of your post is going.
Battery University is one of the prime suspects in the crap information category. For lithium ions they claim 10% is lost in THE FIRST DAY and after that 10% a month. It's complete bullshit of course. However, since we're talking cars here, a lot of electric cars and hybrids still use nickel metal hydride, which is notorious for high self discharge. A typical nickel metal hydride does lose about 30% in 6 months. Newer low-self-discharge designs (Sanyo Eneloop) lose only 10% in 6 months.
Memory effect is however not mythical at all. Nickel cadmium batteries are crippled by it. They are basically completely unusable in real life applications. Nickel metal hydride and lithium ion do not have memory effect.
Dude, most people could care less if some database contains information on where their car has gone (and potentially when it has gone there). I certainly don't care in my case. Murderers, thieves, and such, on the other hand, have a very damn good reason to care. It's simple enough.
And no, I don't claim everyone who removes tracking equipment is engaged in illegal activity, and I don't question their motives. I just think as a point of interesting speculation (and it is impossible to prove) that most who do so are so engaged.
Yep, from the review, it's crap plain and simple.
Don't get me wrong; it's good that somebody's trying, and we need a LOT more people trying, but jeeze. Looks like a two big giant misses to me.
The desktop has HDMI yet it can only display 1280x768? WTF man!!! There is no conceivable excuse whatsoever for no 1080p. No gigabit ethernet? WTF! Only 2 USB ports? WTF! OK, if it was like $50 all that might be acceptable, but not for $129. Not even close.
The notebook is only 1024x600. That's completely unacceptable to me, but hey, there are plenty of other Netbooks that get by with that much, so I'm in the minority. So ... battery life is 6 hr (claimed). WTF! You can get any kind of crappy x86 netbook with a claimed battery life of 6 hr. And for not much more money either. So what the hell is the point of this thing? If the battery life was 24 hr claimed, or let's say AT LEAST 16 hr in REAL LIFE actual use, it would have my attention, but as it is, it's just one more piece of junk.
You have inaccurate knowledge of how caching works. Normally, write calls return as soon as the data is written to RAM, which is VERY quick. Writing back to hard drive then occurs in the background. Isn't multi-tasking great? You have to take special measures in your file I/O calls if what you want is to not have the system return until the data reaches the hard drive. That is very seldom appropriate or necessary, though you can do it.
It will never be necessary to wait an hour for writeback because the cache is writing back all the time in the background. Do you really think your apps are going to get 64GB ahead of writeback?
Your use case may make a mess of a STUPID cache, but there is no reason why a cache needs to be that stupid. In fact in the case described, those files should be stored on a partition with no caching at all, or only very minimal caching.
Maybe you could join the 21st century sometime. 64GB of RAM costs 16x$21.99=$351.84, not $2000.
Who uses 2GB sticks to get 64GB anyway? You can get a 4GB high quality stick for $21.99 at Newegg. That's $351.84 for 16 of them. That's £227 at today's exchange rate. You're right about the ratio, though. It's about 3:1 for price of RAM to SSD.
And you know what? I'd take the RAM in a heartbeat. It would have at least 10:1 better read rate, and even more advantage in write rate. It never wears out. And you can use it for anything; not just a hard drive cache. In fact, I'd say the sweet spot for a hard drive cache is maybe 8GB, not 64GB, if you optimize what it caches. Now you're down to $44, and there are reasonably priced desktop motherboards that will hold this much more than you want to have for other purposes. On my desktop system, /bin, /lib, /usr/bin, /usr/lib, and /etc put together in their entirety total no more than 1.3GB. If you put all that and other well selected stuff in RAM drives and mount them, just about all programs will load essentially instantly. Just stick with the hard drive with existing linux RAM caching for the data (all other partitions).
Nonsense. If the explanation as summarized is accurate you could use a permanent magnet. Let it attract an iron object on a string wound around a generator. As the object is attracted, the generator produces electricity. Normally, you have to EXPEND just as much energy to pry the object away from the magnet again. But if instead you introduce this "magic shield" between the magnet and the object just before they touch, you can pull the object away again for almost no energy expenditure. Rinse, lather, and repeat over and over again and you produce an infinite number of surges of electricity for next to no energy input. Even a generator of 5% efficiency would be plenty to provide perpetual motion plus energy coming out to run you TV (after being suitably converted, filtered and leveled).
Of course a real device would be much more sophisticated than the above mind exercise, but the above is enough to show that it breaks the law of conservation of energy.
So no, I do not think the summary as given is accurate, because I believe in the law of conservation of energy.
People who think they can convey sarcasm in printed text usually do not have the talent to carry it off. It is almost impossible to do in a brief post. People who think sarcasm is clever are not that clever. People who say "you missed the sarcasm" in such a case are merely tiresome.
I imagine the catalyst would be recycled just as as it is from millions of automobile catalytic converters per year.