I think the AC that keeps posting these would stop if people would mod him "-1 Redundant" rather than "+1 Informative." How many times do we have to read about Roland?
And, yes, if I were guessing, I'd say it's Roland himself posting an "anti-ad" for his site. But that's just me guessing. I mostly don't care.
I didn't read FF very much in my comic-reading days, but weren't Mr. Fantastic and the Invisible Woman married and in their early forties? I seem to remember him having grey at the temples.
If you read the above-referenced info on openMosix, you'll find a lot of useful information on clustering.
Essentially, traditional clustering gives you the ability to distribute jobs or services across an array of servers. But the code has to be written to accomodate that. Most workstation-based applications (DVD rippers, word processors, etc.) aren't architected this way. Think instead of database servers that, in the event of a hardware failure on one node, fail an instance over to another node and maintain all the transactions that were just written on the failed server. You may lose a session or ten, but most of your data is safe. Also think of distributed processing systems like SETI@Home. Redundant images of calculation code run on a wide variety of servers. One server (the job boss) has the task of distributing calculations to the rest of the systems and collecting the results.
I think the Mac Mini is a great contender for grid computing, except that it's missing a high-speed interconnect. If it had a gigabit Ethernet interface with iSCSI offloading or a Fibre Channel port (neither of which would have any use to the common end user), it would make a good grid node. An expansion slot would have taken care of this, but that adds to the cost, and you have to engineer that into your design.
The point is that you have a nice, compact device (stuff it in your laptop bag if you need to) that goes with you to a site. Plug the KVM ports into a host and the Ethernet port into your laptop, and bingo, you've got console access to the host through your laptop.
$900 is chump change for a tool that gets work done efficiently. If you're looking for a way to get something done with the least expenditure of dollars, I suggest staying out of corporate data centers all together. They'll make you cry.
The best bet is a single user/single server KVM over IP unit, which is essentially a bridge between Ethernet and a Keyboard/Video/Mouse set. Here's one example. Here's another.
Yes, but the problem with that was PC keyboards at the time cost about $25 and a Mac keyboard cost $80. It's one thing to have to go pick up a $25 item to make your new computer work, but $80 seems like spending money you weren't expecting.
Right, but doesn't this collide with one of the Sinful Acts (DMCA, etc.)? As a rebroadcasting listener, wouldn't I be redistributing copyrighted material? Sounds like jailtime to me.
I couldn't find any info on the Tale site about the price of a subscription. Maybe that's part of their subscriber problem; they indicate (by the "free trial" offer) that it costs money but don't tell you how much it is. That should scare off any smart consumer.
Here's a link to FERC. It might help to complain to them.
And, like someone else said, get a generator. Home Depot has them that, when connected through a special breaker box, can be online and running within seconds. I think they'll run on propane or natural gas. Diesel ones are available but more expensive.
Also, consider putting up either solar or wind generation. Our state (Oregon) has a requirement that net positive producers of power, even at the residential level, must be able to sell their extra power back to the power company at the rate they are charged for it. So, if it's fairly sunny or fairly windy where you are (or you have some sort of cheap access to diesel or something), you can get paid by the power company instead of the other way around.
My wife and I went to a seminar once with her father, a fundamentalist Christian. The speaker was supposed to be talking about the coexistence of Christianity and classical science, with discussion on the dinosaurs and the idea that God created the universe about a week before Adam and Eve, which, according to many bible scholars, was about 6500 years ago. This piqued my interest, so I went along.
The speaker started out talking about how there's this difference of opinion among scholars regarding how old the world is, and that "some people" say that, if you look at the biblical account of six days for the creation of the universe, the "days" are just metaphors for some periods of time that were significant to God, and not literal 24-hour periods that Man knows as "days." He continued to say that this line of thinking leads people to say that the dinosaurs could have lived for millions of years on a God-created Earth, and that they lived and died within the "day" described in the bible where God populated the Earth with animals.
I was just settling in, looking forward to an insightful discussion that had the opportunity to create some bridges with my (non Christian) beliefs on this subject. This would please my father-in-law, and we might have a better understanding of one another. But then, like a hammer, this guy brings out the statement, "But none of it's true!"
WTF?? I asked myself, since no one else would've listened.
The guy went into full rant mode, prattling on about how God created the dinosaur bones in the state we found them and buried them where we found them so we would have something to wonder about when we found them. The universe, he said, was created in exactly six days, meaning 24-hour periods, just like the bible says. Question not the word of God!!
Well, after sitting through the rest of this flood of rubbish, I asked my father-in-law what he thought of the whole thing. "Oh, I think he's right on." Now, I know he doesn't really think that way, but he was caught up in the reverie of the whole thing, mezmerized by a charlatan. The seminar probably warmed his heart for weeks. Many years later, I still won't discuss the topic with him. We have something of an armed truce where religious notions are concerned.
People seem to find it easy to use emphatically-delivered, easy to understand ideas to model their life on. I personally think that the universe is somewhat more complex than that, and like to apply my somewhat limited brain power to thinking about it. Sometimes, though, you run across gems of simplicity that are basic truths. The idea is to know how to identify them when you see them, I think.
It may be true that, despite the presence of a benign and loving God, the tsunami killed thousands because, well, tsumanis happen. Perhaps God created the universe with a certain set of rules, such as those governing the interaction of subatomic particles and the idea that three plus two equal five, and those rules came together in a culmination wherein a wave of water of some size arbitrarily referred to as large by a people not used to seeing such things caused an environment change referred to by those same people (or at least the ones whose corporeal existences continued) as damage.
Mind you, this is all just speculation on my part...
Just looking for a bit of clairification here: How can one "actively believe in God?" What's the action? I don't mean to troll, I just think that it's bitwise, either on or off. Enlighten me if you see it differently, please.
You think so linearly. Why does one have to come before the other? Furthermore, what about non-observable facts? If I tell you that my socks are blue, do you believe me? If you do, is it a sign of mental illness? How about when your girlfriend tells you she loves you? Okay, how about your mother?
You decry the media scientist as a straw man, but use arbitrary terms to describe the state of affairs.
Brainwashed from birth? What about people who are "born again" or have thought long and hard about their faith and chosen to accept it as is?
The Christian god? What about the god of the Jews, or that of the Muslims, or Hindus? We're in a global community here. Expand your horizons.
...you can now be a truly rational Christian. How does God revealing himself to someone, validating everything in the Bible, give someone the wherewithal to go be a "rational Christian?" In such an event, it's more likely that God would say, "Yeah, that, that and that are all true. That over there, well, anyone that thinks about it can see that it's not true. Something was lost in translation there. Oh, yeah, and on that, too. And that over there..."
God...omnipotence...proof...? How would any omnipotent God prove his omnipotence beyond altering someone's beliefs directly? If he did, what good would that do?
Most people... believe in God [because they were told to]? Really? I haven't taken any polls recently, but I suspect most people who believe in God do so because the want to.
Religion in it's current "one size fits all" mentality? How many different religions, sects of religions, divisions of sects, etc. are there in the world? If it was truly "one for all," we wouldn't have the terms "holy war" or "Jihad."
I'm very open to discussions on this topic, but come back when you've done some serious thinking about it rather than just grabbed whatever half-baked idea came out of your anatomy.
Oh, sorry, this is Slashdot after all. For a minute, I forgot where I was.
Is it just me, or should there be a distinction between "energy source" and "fuel?" If you burn gasoline, hydrogen is still the component providing the energy. So talking about using pure hydrogen versus hydrogen bound up with carbon (and other atoms) is a difference in fuel makeup than the energy source.
You know, chances are he didn't even know just how hard it was going to be when he made that call, but we responded anyway. Those were the days when we did things because we felt the need to do them. Sure, there were political motivations, but they were ones people could understand.
Yeah, I know, there were a lot of bad parts that get washed over in the romantic review of "the good times," but when you listen to John Young talk about where we should be versus where we are, it makes you wonder if we'll ever have "the glory days" of space adventure again.
I'm curious how they plan to "slice it up." The technology for deflecting an asteroid is generally understood, as it's the same that we use to move satellites around. The "docking" or attachment mechanism still needs research, but it doesn't seen insurmountable.
On the other hand, after gracefully flying this big space rock into Earth orbit, then intend to, what, cut on it with high-powered lasers? Try getting any government to allow civilians control of a high-powered laser, meant for cutting through whatever you point it at, to be orbiting the Earth. And, even if they cleared that hurdle, what keeps them from accidentally shooting down some randomly passing communications satellite while they're cutting through an arbitrarily-sized rock?
I laud these people's desire to actually go do something like this, and I'd love to work on a project like this. But the idea of slicing it up and dumping it dirtside seems to be a little bold based on things we know now. How about bagging it, grinding it up, and processing the ore for resources (iron, nickel, oxygen, water, etc.) that can be used in space. Heck, it would be way more amazing to put a package of ground-up asteroid in a tug and deliver it to the space station for examination than it would to wrap it in airbags and deliver it to a bunch of glam junkies down here. And scientists would probably pay more per kilo of ore than consumers would, particularly if it had never come in contact with our atmosphere.
Well, Scotty would have just TOLD Kirk that it would take that much time, then done it in the amount of time it would normally take, coming out looking like a hero. I think he explained all this to Geordi in some cross-cast episode.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the AC that keeps posting these would stop if people would mod him "-1 Redundant" rather than "+1 Informative." How many times do we have to read about Roland?
And, yes, if I were guessing, I'd say it's Roland himself posting an "anti-ad" for his site. But that's just me guessing. I mostly don't care.
I didn't read FF very much in my comic-reading days, but weren't Mr. Fantastic and the Invisible Woman married and in their early forties? I seem to remember him having grey at the temples.
Essentially, traditional clustering gives you the ability to distribute jobs or services across an array of servers. But the code has to be written to accomodate that. Most workstation-based applications (DVD rippers, word processors, etc.) aren't architected this way. Think instead of database servers that, in the event of a hardware failure on one node, fail an instance over to another node and maintain all the transactions that were just written on the failed server. You may lose a session or ten, but most of your data is safe. Also think of distributed processing systems like SETI@Home. Redundant images of calculation code run on a wide variety of servers. One server (the job boss) has the task of distributing calculations to the rest of the systems and collecting the results.
I think the Mac Mini is a great contender for grid computing, except that it's missing a high-speed interconnect. If it had a gigabit Ethernet interface with iSCSI offloading or a Fibre Channel port (neither of which would have any use to the common end user), it would make a good grid node. An expansion slot would have taken care of this, but that adds to the cost, and you have to engineer that into your design.
The point is that you have a nice, compact device (stuff it in your laptop bag if you need to) that goes with you to a site. Plug the KVM ports into a host and the Ethernet port into your laptop, and bingo, you've got console access to the host through your laptop.
$900 is chump change for a tool that gets work done efficiently. If you're looking for a way to get something done with the least expenditure of dollars, I suggest staying out of corporate data centers all together. They'll make you cry.
The best bet is a single user/single server KVM over IP unit, which is essentially a bridge between Ethernet and a Keyboard/Video/Mouse set. Here's one example. Here's another.
I believe Compaq (HP) has a similar system named "Remote Insight" or somesuch.
I'm fairly certain that all robots today have values. They're stored in registers, and most of them are integers.
Okay, I'm going to leave now...
Yes, but the problem with that was PC keyboards at the time cost about $25 and a Mac keyboard cost $80. It's one thing to have to go pick up a $25 item to make your new computer work, but $80 seems like spending money you weren't expecting.
Right, but doesn't this collide with one of the Sinful Acts (DMCA, etc.)? As a rebroadcasting listener, wouldn't I be redistributing copyrighted material? Sounds like jailtime to me.
I couldn't find any info on the Tale site about the price of a subscription. Maybe that's part of their subscriber problem; they indicate (by the "free trial" offer) that it costs money but don't tell you how much it is. That should scare off any smart consumer.
Then again, maybe I'm just blind...
And, like someone else said, get a generator. Home Depot has them that, when connected through a special breaker box, can be online and running within seconds. I think they'll run on propane or natural gas. Diesel ones are available but more expensive.
Also, consider putting up either solar or wind generation. Our state (Oregon) has a requirement that net positive producers of power, even at the residential level, must be able to sell their extra power back to the power company at the rate they are charged for it. So, if it's fairly sunny or fairly windy where you are (or you have some sort of cheap access to diesel or something), you can get paid by the power company instead of the other way around.
My wife and I went to a seminar once with her father, a fundamentalist Christian. The speaker was supposed to be talking about the coexistence of Christianity and classical science, with discussion on the dinosaurs and the idea that God created the universe about a week before Adam and Eve, which, according to many bible scholars, was about 6500 years ago. This piqued my interest, so I went along.
The speaker started out talking about how there's this difference of opinion among scholars regarding how old the world is, and that "some people" say that, if you look at the biblical account of six days for the creation of the universe, the "days" are just metaphors for some periods of time that were significant to God, and not literal 24-hour periods that Man knows as "days." He continued to say that this line of thinking leads people to say that the dinosaurs could have lived for millions of years on a God-created Earth, and that they lived and died within the "day" described in the bible where God populated the Earth with animals.
I was just settling in, looking forward to an insightful discussion that had the opportunity to create some bridges with my (non Christian) beliefs on this subject. This would please my father-in-law, and we might have a better understanding of one another. But then, like a hammer, this guy brings out the statement, "But none of it's true!"
WTF?? I asked myself, since no one else would've listened.
The guy went into full rant mode, prattling on about how God created the dinosaur bones in the state we found them and buried them where we found them so we would have something to wonder about when we found them. The universe, he said, was created in exactly six days, meaning 24-hour periods, just like the bible says. Question not the word of God!!
Well, after sitting through the rest of this flood of rubbish, I asked my father-in-law what he thought of the whole thing. "Oh, I think he's right on." Now, I know he doesn't really think that way, but he was caught up in the reverie of the whole thing, mezmerized by a charlatan. The seminar probably warmed his heart for weeks. Many years later, I still won't discuss the topic with him. We have something of an armed truce where religious notions are concerned.
People seem to find it easy to use emphatically-delivered, easy to understand ideas to model their life on. I personally think that the universe is somewhat more complex than that, and like to apply my somewhat limited brain power to thinking about it. Sometimes, though, you run across gems of simplicity that are basic truths. The idea is to know how to identify them when you see them, I think.
Cheers.
JD
It may be true that, despite the presence of a benign and loving God, the tsunami killed thousands because, well, tsumanis happen. Perhaps God created the universe with a certain set of rules, such as those governing the interaction of subatomic particles and the idea that three plus two equal five, and those rules came together in a culmination wherein a wave of water of some size arbitrarily referred to as large by a people not used to seeing such things caused an environment change referred to by those same people (or at least the ones whose corporeal existences continued) as damage.
Mind you, this is all just speculation on my part...
I think you mean to say that religion says "we have all the answers we need." It's untrue, of course, but that's the basic doctrine of many religions.
Just looking for a bit of clairification here: How can one "actively believe in God?" What's the action? I don't mean to troll, I just think that it's bitwise, either on or off. Enlighten me if you see it differently, please.
You think so linearly. Why does one have to come before the other? Furthermore, what about non-observable facts? If I tell you that my socks are blue, do you believe me? If you do, is it a sign of mental illness? How about when your girlfriend tells you she loves you? Okay, how about your mother?
Brainwashed from birth? What about people who are "born again" or have thought long and hard about their faith and chosen to accept it as is?
The Christian god? What about the god of the Jews, or that of the Muslims, or Hindus? We're in a global community here. Expand your horizons.
God...omnipotence...proof...? How would any omnipotent God prove his omnipotence beyond altering someone's beliefs directly? If he did, what good would that do?
Most people... believe in God [because they were told to]? Really? I haven't taken any polls recently, but I suspect most people who believe in God do so because the want to.
Religion in it's current "one size fits all" mentality? How many different religions, sects of religions, divisions of sects, etc. are there in the world? If it was truly "one for all," we wouldn't have the terms "holy war" or "Jihad."
I'm very open to discussions on this topic, but come back when you've done some serious thinking about it rather than just grabbed whatever half-baked idea came out of your anatomy.
Oh, sorry, this is Slashdot after all. For a minute, I forgot where I was.
Yup.
Is it just me, or should there be a distinction between "energy source" and "fuel?" If you burn gasoline, hydrogen is still the component providing the energy. So talking about using pure hydrogen versus hydrogen bound up with carbon (and other atoms) is a difference in fuel makeup than the energy source.
Or so it seems to me...
Yeah, I know, there were a lot of bad parts that get washed over in the romantic review of "the good times," but when you listen to John Young talk about where we should be versus where we are, it makes you wonder if we'll ever have "the glory days" of space adventure again.
(Diet?) Pepsi.
I'm curious how they plan to "slice it up." The technology for deflecting an asteroid is generally understood, as it's the same that we use to move satellites around. The "docking" or attachment mechanism still needs research, but it doesn't seen insurmountable.
On the other hand, after gracefully flying this big space rock into Earth orbit, then intend to, what, cut on it with high-powered lasers? Try getting any government to allow civilians control of a high-powered laser, meant for cutting through whatever you point it at, to be orbiting the Earth. And, even if they cleared that hurdle, what keeps them from accidentally shooting down some randomly passing communications satellite while they're cutting through an arbitrarily-sized rock?
I laud these people's desire to actually go do something like this, and I'd love to work on a project like this. But the idea of slicing it up and dumping it dirtside seems to be a little bold based on things we know now. How about bagging it, grinding it up, and processing the ore for resources (iron, nickel, oxygen, water, etc.) that can be used in space. Heck, it would be way more amazing to put a package of ground-up asteroid in a tug and deliver it to the space station for examination than it would to wrap it in airbags and deliver it to a bunch of glam junkies down here. And scientists would probably pay more per kilo of ore than consumers would, particularly if it had never come in contact with our atmosphere.
The ultimate high ground, from a military perspective.
Nah, I think it's ePoop. The name iPoop would be reserved for robots connected to the Internet.
Well, Scotty would have just TOLD Kirk that it would take that much time, then done it in the amount of time it would normally take, coming out looking like a hero. I think he explained all this to Geordi in some cross-cast episode.