AFAIK, 15000 RPM SCSI drives have always had 2.5" platters. At least the early ones did; maybe they went to 3.5" platters later.
2.5" (notebook size) drives are just smaller external packaging with smaller electronics and much smaller motors. You can jam more of them into a the same space but there's no way you'll get better per-drive performance. If you want really high rotation speeds you're better off with small platters in a relatively large enclosure with lots of room for big bearings and motors.
what's to stop everyone affiliating to the party they dislike the most and voting for the most lame duck candidate in the primaries?
A famous liberal troublemaker here in Seattle did just that in 2000. See, he was afraid that if McCain got the nomination then the Republicans might win, because McCain had a chance against Gore. But that incompetent, unelectable boob Bush obviously had no chance, so our troublemaker infiltrated the Republican party and campaigned for Bush in the primaries.
Turns out it's not such a good strategery after all.
1. You do what you enjoy, and get other people to pay for it. The goal is not to make money; making money just lets you keep doing what you enjoy without going broke.
2. You try to make as much money as possible, doing whatever it takes whether you enjoy it or not.
Grandparent poster thinks #2 is a bad way to run a business. That is one opinion, which has some merit from certain points of view.
Parent poster seems to think #2 is the only way to run a business. That is incorrect.
There is a certain air of cluelessness in the parent post about the purpose and nature of the domain name system. DNS is just a distributed database system associating names with data such as IP addresses, text, encryption keys, or other names. The authoritative domain name server for each zone can delegate authority of sub-zones to other servers. The root zone (".") delegates authority of TLDs to the various GTLD servers and country domain servers. Most of those servers are operated by autonomous entities with their own rules for organization and content of their DNS zones. That's really as far as it goes.
If the authority for, say, the "gr" ccTLD wants to sell domain names to non-Greek entities, such as American companies, they are free to do so. If an American company breaks some of the "gr" authority's rules, the authority's only recourse is to delete the ".gr" domain name. The American company is hardly putting itself under Greek jurisdiction as a result -- in no way is it subject to fines or other punitive action beyond loss of the domain name.
There is simply no feasible way to enforce a strong assocation between domain names and geographic location, nor is there any compelling reason to try. If some country domain authority were to craft a clever contract that somehow manages to ensnare all clients into the legal system of that country, or were to place onerous restrictions on what domain names are available or who can get them, then people would simply avoid that TLD and get domains in more liberal zones instead. As long as my ".cx" or ".tv" or ".nl" or whatever domain name resolves to my IP address it'll work for me no matter where I or my servers happen to be located.
Legal jurisdiction is more properly associated with personal, corporate, or server location than with some arbitrary name encoding.
Heck, I have RoadRunner (which is an AOL property), and I can't even send mail to other RoadRunner users because as a RoadRunner user I'm probably sending spam!
I was a RoadRunner customer for two years (until two months ago) and I regularly email other RoadRunner customers (my mother, for example). Next?
He's probably complaining about not being able to run his own MTA on his cable modem. Guess what, 90% of intelligently-run MX hosts won't receive mail direct from cable modems. Looks like RoadRunner is doing something right. Or maybe they're blocking outbound port 25 from their cable customers? That's even better.
I happen to have a 440BX, and I've got a PII in my Intel 440BX right now.
Me too, but that doesn't change the fact that that particular motherboard won't fit a Pentium II no matter how big a hammer you try to pound it in with, because that motherboard has a CPU socket and the Pentium II CPUs were all slot-mounted.
This isn't a huge problem -- there are plenty of Celeron 333-533 MHz CPUs that would work fine in a 440BX Socket370 motherboard. For example: Celeron 366. A 440ZX board would probably even take a more modern "Coppermine" Pentium III or Celeron.
Compatible motherboard Intel 440BX for $10. Lets go with a good 64MB of ram. This one uses EDO, which is $8.
There's no such thing as a 440BX motherboard that uses EDO memory. They all use SDRAM.
Oh, and that motherboard you linked to won't fit a Pentium II, no way, no how. It has a socket and the Pentium II were all slot-mounted.
I'm sure by wasting a few more minutes browsing around Pricewatch or wherever you can fix these minor glitches. Now supply 100 million of these systems to India. Good luck!
A good illustration of the KIIS principle is the allegory of the toaster. Summary: A king wants a toaster so he has a software engineer put to death. Take heed!
You can't possibly get thrown into prison in America for any amount of environmental devastation at all, unless you provably did it with direct intent to harm some specific person. As long as your just "doing business" the worst you can get is a fine, and not a very big one at that.
According chinese traditional astrology, such event is considered very lucky, because of involvment of heaven element. So the guy's reasoning is very rational in paradigm of his culture.
LOL, "astrology" and "rational" back to back.... Generally I like to give each person the benefit of the doubt so I assume the guy's words were mistranslated or taken out of context, that he meant something like, "Things can only get better from here." But maybe you're right, maybe the guy is an idiot just like most people everywhere. Cultural paradigm, man, you crack me up.
I have a buncha PCs here, all a few years old now. The mid-towers with 1GHz Pentium III CPU, GeForce4 video, one IDE drive, take about 60W for the system itself at idle. One particularly big PC server with 10 HDDs, 2 CPUs and lots of fans is about 125W idle. One system with a 2GHz Athlon and a few SCSI drives is about 100W idle. Power consumption goes up about 20-50W when 100% busy, depending on the CPU model. I think that idle-to-busy difference might be approaching 100W now with the latest Pentium 4 CPUs.
I was able to get my router (a PC with several NICs, running Linux) down to 35W idle and near silence by using a passive-cooled 700MHz VIA C3 CPU. The old router was a 27W 160MHz 486, but that one just couldn't quite manage fast-ethernet speed forwarding between the two LANs.
19" CRT monitors are about 80-150W depending on whether the picture is mostly black or mostly white. 17" LCDs are about 40W active, doesn't matter what's on the screen. A monitor in "sleep" mode is 1-5W. An ATX PC in "soft-off" (S5 sleep) takes about 4W.
He's not an idiot, he didn't recommend anything, and he already said he doesn't intend to try any other drugs. He just said that what you have is not self-control, it is fear. He's right. If you had real self-control you wouldn't be so panicky about trying a sip of beer. That is not to say that there's something wrong with you; whatever keeps you out of trouble is good. Self-control in and of itself is nothing to aspire to. If fear does the job just as well, so be it.
Don't twist your hand and foot, move them in a circuit parallel to the floor. That is, attempt to draw a circle in the air with your hand while simultaneously drawing another circle in the air with your foot. Easy if you do them in the same direction, quite difficult (though not impossible) in opposite directions.
Uh, June 2001 was one year after the bubble popped, in case you weren't paying attention. The big run-up was 1998-1999 and almost all the worthless dot-coms went to zero in the first half of 2000. The only ones that lasted into 2001 (Enron, Worldcom) were hardcore organized accounting fraud rackets. If your company survived beyond 2001 then it pretty clearly wasn't a worthless dot-com bubble baby, but an actual sustainable business. Plenty of those managed to survive.
Mod parent up to 11; argent nailed the problem dead center.
Programming is a process of continual invention, or at least application of known techniques to new problems, which according to the patent office is indeed invention. We spend all our time solving problems as efficiently and completely as possible. How could patents possibly be of any help to this process?
I think the original idea of patents was to keep a public archive of inventions, so that we wouldn't need to keep re-inventing the same things over and over, so that truly unique and deeply insightful solutions to problems would not be lost to obscurity. So instead of sitting here burning 100 watts of brainpower trying to solve programming problems, I should be able to pose my problem to the patent database, find an existing solution, pay a licensing fee, integrate the solution into my program and move on to the next problem. And that should be easier than (re)inventing solutions to the problems myself.
I don't know about anyone else, but I find it utterly impossible to find anything useful in the patent database. I have no idea how to search for a solution to a given programming problem. It's much easier for me to invent my own solution; that's what I'm paid to do, and I do it pretty well. Even if I somehow did come up with the right keywords to search for, there's no way I could translate from patent language back into compilable code, or even a high level algorithm -- that dialect of English they use (let alone the dialect of German or French or Swedish or whatever they're going to be using in Europe) is utterly incomprehensible to me. Shouldn't they have to be written in a common programming language, or at least a common pseudo-code? "A method for composing a plurality of elements comprising a plurality of..." etc, etc. Huh? I've been a highly-paid expert professional programmer for 20 years -- I know a LOT about programming -- and half the time I have no idea what a given software patent is trying to describe. (The other half of the time it's completely obvious, something I would have "invented" myself in five minutes.) How could they possibly be of any value to the industry in general, for their stated purpose of promoting progress in the useful arts?
The Linux kernel, and various Apache projects, and open source / free software projects in general, are not marketable products, they are raw materials from which marketable products can be constructed. Those products (e.g. Red Hat Linux) are the things that need marketing to make sales, and have enough potential sales revenue to justify marketing.
Where is the Apache marketing budget going to come from? Why does Apache need marketing? To make more "sales"? The software is available for free download! They make no money on "sales"! It seems to me all the Apache projects need is developers, specifically competent developers expert in fields related to the various projects. So those cryptic, obtuse Apache web pages are actually spot on for their purpose, which is to get more developers (who know and understand the issues already, newbies need not apply) involved in the projects.
(To get a real visceral understanding of the difference between "open source project" and "marketable product", try downloading MythTV and setting yourself up a PVR; then try buying a Tivo and plugging it in. I say this not to cast aspersions on the MythTV project -- I am a dedicated hardcore MythTV user and will probably never buy a Tivo -- but to highlight the fact that MythTV is all about TV-recording technology, while Tivo is all about recording TV. Which one needs marketing? The one that records TV, not the one that provides interesting technology.)
Or are you not able to parse the phrase "well-regulated militia"?
That is in fact a somewhat controversial turn of phrase. Some say it that "regulated" in that context means "supervised, controlled, organized" -- in short a formal military body. Others say it means "equipped, outfitted, capable," and that a "militia" is by definition unorganized; thus the ammendment specifically refers to well-armed individuals outside the context of a formal military. Certainly the former interpretation is more consistent with current English usage. Is it what the writers of the Second Ammendment meant? I don't know, do you?
So we should be able to buy RPGs and Kalashnikovs and carry them around the streets? What about small nuclear devices? They're all arms, and there's no distinction in the Constitution as to what kind of arms.
Hmm, let's see what the old Constitution has to say about it: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged." That's pretty crystal clear. Under the Constitution, the government of the United States has no authority to abridge the right to keep and bear arms. The government must not prevent us from owning and carrying around whatever weapons we want, to the extent that we may rightfully do so.
The question in my mind is: exactly what right do we have to carry around weapons, that the Constitution (Bill of Rights) is recognizing in that ammendment? Remember that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights to citizens; it recognizes rights inherent in being human and specifically forbids the government from messing with them. What is the nature of those rights, and in particular the right recognized in the Second Ammendment? Is it the right of self-defense? The right of communal defense? The bit about "well-regulated militia" suggests that the right being recognized involves communal defense, in which case the government is strictly forbidden from interfering with the ability of the people to carry out such defense through the ownership and possession of weapons. That is, any prohibition on having weapons, which would interfere with communal defense, is itself denied.
Many people seem to believe there are other innate human rights related to the possession of deadly weapons, such as self-defense, hunting, recreation, or simple general liberty -- the ability to do whatever the hell we want as long as it doesn't hurt others. Obviously shooting guns at people does not qualify, but simply having the gun could be considered harmless and something any free person should be allowed to do -- not because there's some special relation between guns and liberty, but because there isn't anything special about guns that should interfere with our general liberty.
Before we can elaborate on exactly what the boundaries of the Second Ammendment are, we must decide what rights involving weapons we really do have. If we have no inherent human right to possess "weapons of mass destruction", i.e. weapons useless for self-defense or communal defense, and so dangerous that the freedom of being able to do whatever we want is vastly outweighed by the potential (and rather likely) harm, then the Second Ammendment does not apply and Congress can pass whatever laws are necessary to protect the public welfare, tranquility, justice, etc. I for one would agree with that interpretation, that notwithstanding the Second Ammendment the Congress really does have the authority to interfere with personal possession of WMDs.
As far as "Kalashnikovs" go, I guess the question is, "Do we have a right to own and carry military small arms in general, or automatic rifles in specific?" (Is there a strong correlation between "military small arms" and "automatic rifles"? I'm not a military or gun expert, so I really have no idea if those are the same thing or not.) Once again the "well-regulated militia" phrase comes into play -- apparently "well-regulated" meant "well-equipped" in those days, so it would seem that yes, military small arms useful for communal defense (the purpose of a militia) are in fact covered.
But ultimately, how realistic is the Second Ammendment today, or at any point in history? Is there really any inherent human right to be armed at all? Were the writers of the Constitution living in a fantasy world, or has their thinking become obsolete at some point in the last two hundred years? Do we have any right to be armed at all? Some would say we don't, that the Second Ammendment as written is wrong or meaningless, that Congress should have the power to interfere with weapon ownership or possession in any way necessary to promote the public security and well-being. In that case, it's time to make another Ammendment to the Constitution, repealing or at least clarifying the Second Ammendment so we can get on with restricting gun ownership without any arguments about rights and Constitutionality.
Slashdot Mirror
2.5" (notebook size) drives are just smaller external packaging with smaller electronics and much smaller motors. You can jam more of them into a the same space but there's no way you'll get better per-drive performance. If you want really high rotation speeds you're better off with small platters in a relatively large enclosure with lots of room for big bearings and motors.
Don't forget the toucans. How dare they use the name and image of an animal invented by Kellogg.... er, Kellogg did invent that animal, didn't they?
Turns out it's not such a good strategery after all.
Steel wool isn't all that hard. They could coat the disc with ordinary window glass and a handful of steel wool wouldn't be able to scratch it.
1. You do what you enjoy, and get other people to pay for it. The goal is not to make money; making money just lets you keep doing what you enjoy without going broke.
2. You try to make as much money as possible, doing whatever it takes whether you enjoy it or not.
Grandparent poster thinks #2 is a bad way to run a business. That is one opinion, which has some merit from certain points of view.
Parent poster seems to think #2 is the only way to run a business. That is incorrect.
If the authority for, say, the "gr" ccTLD wants to sell domain names to non-Greek entities, such as American companies, they are free to do so. If an American company breaks some of the "gr" authority's rules, the authority's only recourse is to delete the ".gr" domain name. The American company is hardly putting itself under Greek jurisdiction as a result -- in no way is it subject to fines or other punitive action beyond loss of the domain name.
There is simply no feasible way to enforce a strong assocation between domain names and geographic location, nor is there any compelling reason to try. If some country domain authority were to craft a clever contract that somehow manages to ensnare all clients into the legal system of that country, or were to place onerous restrictions on what domain names are available or who can get them, then people would simply avoid that TLD and get domains in more liberal zones instead. As long as my ".cx" or ".tv" or ".nl" or whatever domain name resolves to my IP address it'll work for me no matter where I or my servers happen to be located.
Legal jurisdiction is more properly associated with personal, corporate, or server location than with some arbitrary name encoding.
This isn't a huge problem -- there are plenty of Celeron 333-533 MHz CPUs that would work fine in a 440BX Socket370 motherboard. For example: Celeron 366. A 440ZX board would probably even take a more modern "Coppermine" Pentium III or Celeron.
Oh, and that motherboard you linked to won't fit a Pentium II, no way, no how. It has a socket and the Pentium II were all slot-mounted.
I'm sure by wasting a few more minutes browsing around Pricewatch or wherever you can fix these minor glitches. Now supply 100 million of these systems to India. Good luck!
A good illustration of the KIIS principle is the allegory of the toaster. Summary: A king wants a toaster so he has a software engineer put to death. Take heed!
You can't possibly get thrown into prison in America for any amount of environmental devastation at all, unless you provably did it with direct intent to harm some specific person. As long as your just "doing business" the worst you can get is a fine, and not a very big one at that.
I just pick any old random USERAGENT from my web server's access log. Here's one for example: "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.23; Mac_PowerPC)"
There's probably some simple pattern that would fool Google, like anything with "Mozilla" in it.
I wrote a little one-liner csh script that'll wget just the relevant images from any GooglePrint page given the URL. Hint: grep -o '("http://[^"]*")'
0wn3d!!!1
I was able to get my router (a PC with several NICs, running Linux) down to 35W idle and near silence by using a passive-cooled 700MHz VIA C3 CPU. The old router was a 27W 160MHz 486, but that one just couldn't quite manage fast-ethernet speed forwarding between the two LANs.
19" CRT monitors are about 80-150W depending on whether the picture is mostly black or mostly white. 17" LCDs are about 40W active, doesn't matter what's on the screen. A monitor in "sleep" mode is 1-5W. An ATX PC in "soft-off" (S5 sleep) takes about 4W.
I use a pass-through watt meter to measure this stuff.
He's not an idiot, he didn't recommend anything, and he already said he doesn't intend to try any other drugs. He just said that what you have is not self-control, it is fear. He's right. If you had real self-control you wouldn't be so panicky about trying a sip of beer. That is not to say that there's something wrong with you; whatever keeps you out of trouble is good. Self-control in and of itself is nothing to aspire to. If fear does the job just as well, so be it.
Don't twist your hand and foot, move them in a circuit parallel to the floor. That is, attempt to draw a circle in the air with your hand while simultaneously drawing another circle in the air with your foot. Easy if you do them in the same direction, quite difficult (though not impossible) in opposite directions.
Uh, June 2001 was one year after the bubble popped, in case you weren't paying attention. The big run-up was 1998-1999 and almost all the worthless dot-coms went to zero in the first half of 2000. The only ones that lasted into 2001 (Enron, Worldcom) were hardcore organized accounting fraud rackets. If your company survived beyond 2001 then it pretty clearly wasn't a worthless dot-com bubble baby, but an actual sustainable business. Plenty of those managed to survive.
Programming is a process of continual invention, or at least application of known techniques to new problems, which according to the patent office is indeed invention. We spend all our time solving problems as efficiently and completely as possible. How could patents possibly be of any help to this process?
I think the original idea of patents was to keep a public archive of inventions, so that we wouldn't need to keep re-inventing the same things over and over, so that truly unique and deeply insightful solutions to problems would not be lost to obscurity. So instead of sitting here burning 100 watts of brainpower trying to solve programming problems, I should be able to pose my problem to the patent database, find an existing solution, pay a licensing fee, integrate the solution into my program and move on to the next problem. And that should be easier than (re)inventing solutions to the problems myself.
I don't know about anyone else, but I find it utterly impossible to find anything useful in the patent database. I have no idea how to search for a solution to a given programming problem. It's much easier for me to invent my own solution; that's what I'm paid to do, and I do it pretty well. Even if I somehow did come up with the right keywords to search for, there's no way I could translate from patent language back into compilable code, or even a high level algorithm -- that dialect of English they use (let alone the dialect of German or French or Swedish or whatever they're going to be using in Europe) is utterly incomprehensible to me. Shouldn't they have to be written in a common programming language, or at least a common pseudo-code? "A method for composing a plurality of elements comprising a plurality of..." etc, etc. Huh? I've been a highly-paid expert professional programmer for 20 years -- I know a LOT about programming -- and half the time I have no idea what a given software patent is trying to describe. (The other half of the time it's completely obvious, something I would have "invented" myself in five minutes.) How could they possibly be of any value to the industry in general, for their stated purpose of promoting progress in the useful arts?
Grandparent is refering to safety-critical systems, not mission-critical systems.
What's my mission? My mission is to win a game of Doom 3. For me, a good video accelerator is mission-critical.
Where is the Apache marketing budget going to come from? Why does Apache need marketing? To make more "sales"? The software is available for free download! They make no money on "sales"! It seems to me all the Apache projects need is developers, specifically competent developers expert in fields related to the various projects. So those cryptic, obtuse Apache web pages are actually spot on for their purpose, which is to get more developers (who know and understand the issues already, newbies need not apply) involved in the projects.
(To get a real visceral understanding of the difference between "open source project" and "marketable product", try downloading MythTV and setting yourself up a PVR; then try buying a Tivo and plugging it in. I say this not to cast aspersions on the MythTV project -- I am a dedicated hardcore MythTV user and will probably never buy a Tivo -- but to highlight the fact that MythTV is all about TV-recording technology, while Tivo is all about recording TV. Which one needs marketing? The one that records TV, not the one that provides interesting technology.)
The question in my mind is: exactly what right do we have to carry around weapons, that the Constitution (Bill of Rights) is recognizing in that ammendment? Remember that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights to citizens; it recognizes rights inherent in being human and specifically forbids the government from messing with them. What is the nature of those rights, and in particular the right recognized in the Second Ammendment? Is it the right of self-defense? The right of communal defense? The bit about "well-regulated militia" suggests that the right being recognized involves communal defense, in which case the government is strictly forbidden from interfering with the ability of the people to carry out such defense through the ownership and possession of weapons. That is, any prohibition on having weapons, which would interfere with communal defense, is itself denied.
Many people seem to believe there are other innate human rights related to the possession of deadly weapons, such as self-defense, hunting, recreation, or simple general liberty -- the ability to do whatever the hell we want as long as it doesn't hurt others. Obviously shooting guns at people does not qualify, but simply having the gun could be considered harmless and something any free person should be allowed to do -- not because there's some special relation between guns and liberty, but because there isn't anything special about guns that should interfere with our general liberty.
Before we can elaborate on exactly what the boundaries of the Second Ammendment are, we must decide what rights involving weapons we really do have. If we have no inherent human right to possess "weapons of mass destruction", i.e. weapons useless for self-defense or communal defense, and so dangerous that the freedom of being able to do whatever we want is vastly outweighed by the potential (and rather likely) harm, then the Second Ammendment does not apply and Congress can pass whatever laws are necessary to protect the public welfare, tranquility, justice, etc. I for one would agree with that interpretation, that notwithstanding the Second Ammendment the Congress really does have the authority to interfere with personal possession of WMDs.
As far as "Kalashnikovs" go, I guess the question is, "Do we have a right to own and carry military small arms in general, or automatic rifles in specific?" (Is there a strong correlation between "military small arms" and "automatic rifles"? I'm not a military or gun expert, so I really have no idea if those are the same thing or not.) Once again the "well-regulated militia" phrase comes into play -- apparently "well-regulated" meant "well-equipped" in those days, so it would seem that yes, military small arms useful for communal defense (the purpose of a militia) are in fact covered.
But ultimately, how realistic is the Second Ammendment today, or at any point in history? Is there really any inherent human right to be armed at all? Were the writers of the Constitution living in a fantasy world, or has their thinking become obsolete at some point in the last two hundred years? Do we have any right to be armed at all? Some would say we don't, that the Second Ammendment as written is wrong or meaningless, that Congress should have the power to interfere with weapon ownership or possession in any way necessary to promote the public security and well-being. In that case, it's time to make another Ammendment to the Constitution, repealing or at least clarifying the Second Ammendment so we can get on with restricting gun ownership without any arguments about rights and Constitutionality.
If it's too much trouble to buy a bike that's not worth stealing, why not just steal one?