No modern CPU will continue to operate through a catastrophic cooling failure. The P4 will crash when it throttles below 25% (errata), and will completely shutdown if the heatsink is removed. The P3 will burn up without a heatsink, unless the motherboard shuts it down (I don't know of any motherboards that do this). An Athlon XP will be shut down by the motherboard before damage occurs (ideally). Regardless, what possible set of circumstances could occur that would cause your heatsink to come off your processor without destroying it or the motherboard in the process?
THG's infamous video was clearly faked, or at least misleadingly edited. The P3 was shown running at 38C after it crashed, which is lower than it would run WITH A PROPERLY OPERATING COOLER. The P4 was also shown clocking back up to full speed immediately after the heatsink was merely SET on top of the processor, this is completely impossible. The processor would have shutdown due to the temperature it was running at, and regardless it would have taken at least a few seconds for the processor to be cooled enough by the heatsink before it clocked back up, and it wouldn't be cooled at all if the heatsink was merely SITTING ON TOP, unmounted!
This is why it's important to use benchmarks that represent real world tasks, such as games or actual application benchmarks. If it shows the performance that a user could be expected to see in real life, then it's probably a fair benchmark.
Chipsets and memory architecture can also be expected to have a singificant performance impact. I'll bet that a P4-HT 3.06Ghz is going to be significantly faster on an i875P chipset with dual-channel DDR266 than on it's original platform.
The FSB on a P4-C is actually clocked at 200Mhz, but data is transferred four times per clock cycle, boosting the effective bandwidth to equal that of an 800Mhz FSB. Latencies are, however, still equal to that of a 200Mhz FSB.
I believe the problem with your calculation is that you calculated that the bus is 8 bytes wide. 8 bytes is 64 bits, the standard bus width on modern systems.
http://techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/intel_8 00mhz_fsb/pictures/setup1.jpg
The P4-C 3.0Ghz can be expected to consume about 100Watts at full load, which is far more than most processors. Only the P4-HT 3.06Ghz and the original P4 2Ghz came close, also coming in at about 100W. AMD's hottest running processor, the Athlon XP 3200+, consumes 76.8W.
What good is benchmarking the new P4-C processors without comparing them to Athlon XPs, or even older P4s? Really, you can just multiply the performance of a P4-C 3.0Ghz by 0.8 to get a guesstimate of the performance differences within the family; what really matters is how they perform in comparison with the competition.
The issue is that the risks of not patching are projected onto everyone else, much like driving drunk, while the risks of random OS changes affect only one system, much like driving without a seat belt.
You would not BELIEVE the number of compromized Windows systems running DDoS and IRC flood bots I deal with on a daily basis. In many cases, a simple security patch would have prevented the installation of the trojan causing the problem.
Make no mistake, I don't like the idea of MS having control over my system. However, I dislike even more intensely the idea of millions of unpatched Windows installations just waiting to be used to attack my system. As long as it's possible to disable the automatic updating feature, I think that MS has done it's duty to give users the freedom of choice.
Mary User will know what she is doing and disable automatic updating, if necessary. If anything, the MS SQL worm from awhile back shows us that servers should be updated with regularity too.
If you'll actually READ my post, I noted that the owner should have the ability to disable this automatic updating feature. In Alereon's Perfect World, the option is just hidden enough so that no one who doesn't know WTF they're doing can find it, but accessible enough that anyone who's competent can still turn it off if they wish.
Regardless, my right to have my system not get DDoSed most assuredly overrides Joe User's right to run a compromised system. Say it with me: Joe User does not have the right to run a DDoS drone. Unpatched windows systems are a public danger, as it's quite likely that eventually they'll get compromized for some nefarious reason or another. Once that happens, SOMEONE has to go clean up the mess, it's sure as hell not going to be Joe User.
I see this as Microsoft taking a much needed step towards addressing the #1 security problem plaguing the Internet: Joe User.
Joe User doesn't even know what Windows Update is, so never installs any patches for the operating system. Joe User clicks on any E-mail he gets that says "L@@K NEW WINDOWS SECURITY PATCH!" or "ANNA KOURNIKOVA NAKED!!1" As a result, Joe User is running several different trojans, and his system is being used as a DDoS attack drone whenever it is online.
As much as we might decry a percieved invasion of our right to run our own systems, forcing Joe User to keep his system up to date with the latest patches is a good thing for all of us. Fewer packet floods, fewer lamers on compromized hosts, and possibly less spam. It's likely that Joe User doesn't even CARE that Microsoft is installing whatever it wants, whenever it wants, on his box. In the end, as long as those of us who know what we're doing can disable this feature (and those of us who don't CAN'T), I can only see this being a good thing for everyone concerned.
Ooh, resorting to ad hominem attacks. I see you have lost all hope of winning this "argument" by legitimate means. Regardless...
When you purposely and knowingly cause a site to receive so much traffic that you could reasonably expect it to go down, that's a DDoS.
Slashdot links to public Internet sites that have been places on the Internet for the benefit of Slashdot's userbase (among many others). If the site goes down as a result of increased usage, it is the fault, exclusively, of the admin who failed to properly prepare for the traffic. Let us recap: A DDoS is an attack designed to flood a site with non-legitimate data in an attempt to crash it or deny access to it. Slashdot is providing legitimate users with a link to a site in order that they may view the content.
Or are you telling me that I should have to pay for third-party hosting for my web site, which, on average, gets a number of hits per day that can be counted with two digits -- just on the off-chance that some negligent editor at Slashdot happens to find something on it interesting some year?
If you decide to be cheap, you live with your decision. If you want your site to be able to tolerate heavy usage, you buy a dedicated server and put somewhere with a network designed to handle the load. If you don't feel like spending the money to deal with the possibility of traffic beyond your expectations, then you can take the risk of hosting it yourself.
It's one thing to link to a story on CNN. It is quite another for Slashdot to link to some guy's personal web page.
When you place a site on the Internet or make a server Internet accessible, you grant global permission for all entities to link to said site or access it for legitimate purposes. The consequences of this decision that you have made are entirely your responsibility. If you are not prepared to deal with usage of your site/server by the Interner-going public, you should not make your site/server acessible.
You are clearly deluded if you think that Slashdot bears no responsibility for their actions. It's an absurd and ill-informed comment that shows that you know little about the law.
Are you illiterate? The POINT of that post is that it is LEGAL to link to other sites. The author merely suggests that it would be POLITE to ask first. As the author notes, you can sue anyone you want for anything, it doesn't mean you'll win, or that it's morally right.
Everything that exists in this world has an addiction potential, and videogames are no different. I think escapism such as the cases mentioned in the article may not indicate a fundamental problem with games themselves, but instead a dissatisfaction with quality of life that is creating the NEED to escape. Regardless of other psychological causes, you will find people that take ANY activity to the extreme; this does not mean that the activity in-and-of-itself is harmful or dangerous. The media, and possibly the public at large, have lost sight of this.
Are you telling me that, because my ISP will not tolerate infinite amounts of traffic directed at my static IP that I should forego running a web server at all?
Or face the consequences, yes. You put the server up of your own free will, and decided to allow public access. Most ISPs ban servers anyway, so you're doubly responsible. Besides, Slashdotting is not a DDoS. It is the normal functioning of the Internet, and something it is your RESPONSIBILITY to foresee and deal with.
What could you possibly be smoking that would make you think it's Slashdot's job to make sure that the PUBLIC SERVER you are running is adequate to meet the demands that you have placed on it?
Your failure to adequately forsee the amount of traffic that your site will generate is Not Slashdot's Problem(tm). The wrath of the Internet Hordes is well known, and you are negligent if you fail to prepare for it. It is your responsibility to insure that your site either stays up, or fails gracefully (your ISP pulls the plug if you exceed bandwidth limits, instead of just billing you for the overage).
For better or for worse, when you put a website on the Internet, you are making it available to the public. Permission to access and link to your site is granted by the simple fact that it is Internet-accessible. Since Slashdot is a NEWS site it would be simply impossible for Slashdot to wait several hours/days for positive responses from site owners before Slashdotting them. Regardless, when you put your server at the mercy of the Internet hordes, you can't really complain when said horde drops your server like a hot potato.
Bottom line: If you don't plan to use Mt. Rainier yourself, then you probably don't have to worry about reading other people's CD-MRW discs until you're in the market for new burner anyway. Mt. Rainier IS a very usefull and time-saving tech, but only you can decide if you think its worth paying for now.
Interestingly enough, they have termed this "being wanged." As in: "Wow, that nifty website we just posted on the frontpage got wanged within fifteen minutes!". You can't make this stuff up, people.
I've found that GZIP is able to compress source code written in whitespace by up to 99.9%! This is truly an incredible advance in application development and distribution!
The Vantec Nexus fan controller or similar products are a great idea. (Sorry for linking to an online store, but it was the only site I could find with good pics and info)
This thing is pretty nifty, 4 knobs linked to Pulse Width Modulation controllers to let you dial up or down the RPM, and thus noise and airflow, of your case/CPU fans. Great for turning down the noise overnight, and turning up the cooling when gaming or overclocking. My plan is to buy a few Vantec Tornado 92mm fans and hook them up to the Nexus, allowing me to decide what noise level I feel comfortable with. The blue LEDs also look pretty cool, IMHO.
If the owner if the wireless network didn't want you using their bandwidth, they would have protected it in some fashion. If you had circumvented this protection, you would have been stealing. However, since it was open to public access, you are free to use it as you see fit (standard rules of polite behavior using public media apply). If they decide they don't like that, they are free to restrict access. Instead of feeling guilty, think about how cool the owners were for providing such a public service.
Extended warranties, as well as all insurance, are simply a form of gambling against yourself. You're betting that something bad will happen to you or your purchase within the warranty period that will cost more than the price of the warranty or insurance to fix. The fact that insurance and extended warranties are some of the most profitable industries in the world is proof that this is a losing bet. I'll also note that if the manufacturer is the one providing the service on the extended warranty, its in their best interest to make the product as reliable as feasible, to minimize service calls and maximize profit. Just keep your money, the vast majority of the time you'll end up ahead.
LEDs don't need a reflector. Unlike incandescent bulbs, there's no spillover from the sides, thus nothing for the reflector to reflect. Light pretty much goes where the LED is aimed.
Slashdot Mirror
No modern CPU will continue to operate through a catastrophic cooling failure. The P4 will crash when it throttles below 25% (errata), and will completely shutdown if the heatsink is removed. The P3 will burn up without a heatsink, unless the motherboard shuts it down (I don't know of any motherboards that do this). An Athlon XP will be shut down by the motherboard before damage occurs (ideally). Regardless, what possible set of circumstances could occur that would cause your heatsink to come off your processor without destroying it or the motherboard in the process?
THG's infamous video was clearly faked, or at least misleadingly edited. The P3 was shown running at 38C after it crashed, which is lower than it would run WITH A PROPERLY OPERATING COOLER. The P4 was also shown clocking back up to full speed immediately after the heatsink was merely SET on top of the processor, this is completely impossible. The processor would have shutdown due to the temperature it was running at, and regardless it would have taken at least a few seconds for the processor to be cooled enough by the heatsink before it clocked back up, and it wouldn't be cooled at all if the heatsink was merely SITTING ON TOP, unmounted!
This is why it's important to use benchmarks that represent real world tasks, such as games or actual application benchmarks. If it shows the performance that a user could be expected to see in real life, then it's probably a fair benchmark.
Chipsets and memory architecture can also be expected to have a singificant performance impact. I'll bet that a P4-HT 3.06Ghz is going to be significantly faster on an i875P chipset with dual-channel DDR266 than on it's original platform.
The FSB on a P4-C is actually clocked at 200Mhz, but data is transferred four times per clock cycle, boosting the effective bandwidth to equal that of an 800Mhz FSB. Latencies are, however, still equal to that of a 200Mhz FSB.
I believe the problem with your calculation is that you calculated that the bus is 8 bytes wide. 8 bytes is 64 bits, the standard bus width on modern systems.
http://techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/intel_8 00mhz_fsb/pictures/setup1.jpg
The P4-C 3.0Ghz can be expected to consume about 100Watts at full load, which is far more than most processors. Only the P4-HT 3.06Ghz and the original P4 2Ghz came close, also coming in at about 100W. AMD's hottest running processor, the Athlon XP 3200+, consumes 76.8W.
What good is benchmarking the new P4-C processors without comparing them to Athlon XPs, or even older P4s? Really, you can just multiply the performance of a P4-C 3.0Ghz by 0.8 to get a guesstimate of the performance differences within the family; what really matters is how they perform in comparison with the competition.
The issue is that the risks of not patching are projected onto everyone else, much like driving drunk, while the risks of random OS changes affect only one system, much like driving without a seat belt.
You would not BELIEVE the number of compromized Windows systems running DDoS and IRC flood bots I deal with on a daily basis. In many cases, a simple security patch would have prevented the installation of the trojan causing the problem.
Make no mistake, I don't like the idea of MS having control over my system. However, I dislike even more intensely the idea of millions of unpatched Windows installations just waiting to be used to attack my system. As long as it's possible to disable the automatic updating feature, I think that MS has done it's duty to give users the freedom of choice.
Mary User will know what she is doing and disable automatic updating, if necessary. If anything, the MS SQL worm from awhile back shows us that servers should be updated with regularity too.
If you'll actually READ my post, I noted that the owner should have the ability to disable this automatic updating feature. In Alereon's Perfect World, the option is just hidden enough so that no one who doesn't know WTF they're doing can find it, but accessible enough that anyone who's competent can still turn it off if they wish.
Regardless, my right to have my system not get DDoSed most assuredly overrides Joe User's right to run a compromised system. Say it with me: Joe User does not have the right to run a DDoS drone. Unpatched windows systems are a public danger, as it's quite likely that eventually they'll get compromized for some nefarious reason or another. Once that happens, SOMEONE has to go clean up the mess, it's sure as hell not going to be Joe User.
I see this as Microsoft taking a much needed step towards addressing the #1 security problem plaguing the Internet: Joe User.
Joe User doesn't even know what Windows Update is, so never installs any patches for the operating system. Joe User clicks on any E-mail he gets that says "L@@K NEW WINDOWS SECURITY PATCH!" or "ANNA KOURNIKOVA NAKED!!1" As a result, Joe User is running several different trojans, and his system is being used as a DDoS attack drone whenever it is online.
As much as we might decry a percieved invasion of our right to run our own systems, forcing Joe User to keep his system up to date with the latest patches is a good thing for all of us. Fewer packet floods, fewer lamers on compromized hosts, and possibly less spam. It's likely that Joe User doesn't even CARE that Microsoft is installing whatever it wants, whenever it wants, on his box. In the end, as long as those of us who know what we're doing can disable this feature (and those of us who don't CAN'T), I can only see this being a good thing for everyone concerned.
Ooh, resorting to ad hominem attacks. I see you have lost all hope of winning this "argument" by legitimate means. Regardless...
When you purposely and knowingly cause a site to receive so much traffic that you could reasonably expect it to go down, that's a DDoS.
Slashdot links to public Internet sites that have been places on the Internet for the benefit of Slashdot's userbase (among many others). If the site goes down as a result of increased usage, it is the fault, exclusively, of the admin who failed to properly prepare for the traffic. Let us recap: A DDoS is an attack designed to flood a site with non-legitimate data in an attempt to crash it or deny access to it. Slashdot is providing legitimate users with a link to a site in order that they may view the content.
Or are you telling me that I should have to pay for third-party hosting for my web site, which, on average, gets a number of hits per day that can be counted with two digits -- just on the off-chance that some negligent editor at Slashdot happens to find something on it interesting some year?
If you decide to be cheap, you live with your decision. If you want your site to be able to tolerate heavy usage, you buy a dedicated server and put somewhere with a network designed to handle the load. If you don't feel like spending the money to deal with the possibility of traffic beyond your expectations, then you can take the risk of hosting it yourself.
It's one thing to link to a story on CNN. It is quite another for Slashdot to link to some guy's personal web page.
When you place a site on the Internet or make a server Internet accessible, you grant global permission for all entities to link to said site or access it for legitimate purposes. The consequences of this decision that you have made are entirely your responsibility. If you are not prepared to deal with usage of your site/server by the Interner-going public, you should not make your site/server acessible.
You are clearly deluded if you think that Slashdot bears no responsibility for their actions. It's an absurd and ill-informed comment that shows that you know little about the law.
Are you illiterate? The POINT of that post is that it is LEGAL to link to other sites. The author merely suggests that it would be POLITE to ask first. As the author notes, you can sue anyone you want for anything, it doesn't mean you'll win, or that it's morally right.
Everything that exists in this world has an addiction potential, and videogames are no different. I think escapism such as the cases mentioned in the article may not indicate a fundamental problem with games themselves, but instead a dissatisfaction with quality of life that is creating the NEED to escape. Regardless of other psychological causes, you will find people that take ANY activity to the extreme; this does not mean that the activity in-and-of-itself is harmful or dangerous. The media, and possibly the public at large, have lost sight of this.
Are you telling me that, because my ISP will not tolerate infinite amounts of traffic directed at my static IP that I should forego running a web server at all?
Or face the consequences, yes. You put the server up of your own free will, and decided to allow public access. Most ISPs ban servers anyway, so you're doubly responsible. Besides, Slashdotting is not a DDoS. It is the normal functioning of the Internet, and something it is your RESPONSIBILITY to foresee and deal with.
What could you possibly be smoking that would make you think it's Slashdot's job to make sure that the PUBLIC SERVER you are running is adequate to meet the demands that you have placed on it?
Your failure to adequately forsee the amount of traffic that your site will generate is Not Slashdot's Problem(tm). The wrath of the Internet Hordes is well known, and you are negligent if you fail to prepare for it. It is your responsibility to insure that your site either stays up, or fails gracefully (your ISP pulls the plug if you exceed bandwidth limits, instead of just billing you for the overage).
For better or for worse, when you put a website on the Internet, you are making it available to the public. Permission to access and link to your site is granted by the simple fact that it is Internet-accessible. Since Slashdot is a NEWS site it would be simply impossible for Slashdot to wait several hours/days for positive responses from site owners before Slashdotting them. Regardless, when you put your server at the mercy of the Internet hordes, you can't really complain when said horde drops your server like a hot potato.
Bottom line: If you don't plan to use Mt. Rainier yourself, then you probably don't have to worry about reading other people's CD-MRW discs until you're in the market for new burner anyway. Mt. Rainier IS a very usefull and time-saving tech, but only you can decide if you think its worth paying for now.
It's a poorly-hidden link to cheats4us, an outwar-style site where users get paid to spam links with a referral code embedded.
Interestingly enough, they have termed this "being wanged." As in: "Wow, that nifty website we just posted on the frontpage got wanged within fifteen minutes!". You can't make this stuff up, people.
Anyone else want to step up to the plate? We're taking all comers!
I've found that GZIP is able to compress source code written in whitespace by up to 99.9%! This is truly an incredible advance in application development and distribution!
The Vantec Nexus fan controller or similar products are a great idea. (Sorry for linking to an online store, but it was the only site I could find with good pics and info)
This thing is pretty nifty, 4 knobs linked to Pulse Width Modulation controllers to let you dial up or down the RPM, and thus noise and airflow, of your case/CPU fans. Great for turning down the noise overnight, and turning up the cooling when gaming or overclocking. My plan is to buy a few Vantec Tornado 92mm fans and hook them up to the Nexus, allowing me to decide what noise level I feel comfortable with. The blue LEDs also look pretty cool, IMHO.
If the owner if the wireless network didn't want you using their bandwidth, they would have protected it in some fashion. If you had circumvented this protection, you would have been stealing. However, since it was open to public access, you are free to use it as you see fit (standard rules of polite behavior using public media apply). If they decide they don't like that, they are free to restrict access. Instead of feeling guilty, think about how cool the owners were for providing such a public service.
Extended warranties, as well as all insurance, are simply a form of gambling against yourself. You're betting that something bad will happen to you or your purchase within the warranty period that will cost more than the price of the warranty or insurance to fix. The fact that insurance and extended warranties are some of the most profitable industries in the world is proof that this is a losing bet. I'll also note that if the manufacturer is the one providing the service on the extended warranty, its in their best interest to make the product as reliable as feasible, to minimize service calls and maximize profit. Just keep your money, the vast majority of the time you'll end up ahead.
LEDs don't need a reflector. Unlike incandescent bulbs, there's no spillover from the sides, thus nothing for the reflector to reflect. Light pretty much goes where the LED is aimed.