Yes all those Canadian nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers... I am not sure if Canada is the only nuclear capable country that designs and build nuclear reactors that doesn't actually have any nuclear weapons or any sort of nuclear craft of any kind. I wonder if that is unique... and if so perhaps uniquely placed to build those things, if there is no reasonable reason not to. (I am pretty sure reasonable reason is bad English but whatever)
Personally I think we should build some nuclear ice breakers, those are pretty cool. (heh! No pun intended!)
I have had a number of bar owners and bouncers as friends in the past, and in one sense it is a good idea.
I know where I am in Canada a lot of bar owners tried to band together to try and curb violence. There is a subset of people who basically like to go to the bar, get drunk and get in a fight. The idea was if you get banned from one bar you get banned from all participating bars, in this way it keeps these people out, and also perhaps acts as a deterrent. The problem was with the implementation. The only way to do it was to have a "picture book" at the entrance for bouncers to look at. However particularly on busy nights, bouncers don't have the luxury of leafing through a book of photos for each patron that wants in, and as a result the experiment was a failure.
At least this way, a bouncer could easily identify you and your "infractions" and based on that decide or have it flagged that you are allowed in or not. So ideally it is good as it keeps the bad apples out from wreaking everyone Else's fun, not to mention driving up costs for everyone.
The bad and the ugly would be that yes, bar owners with a grudge could simply be jerks and abuse the system. With no appeal process, this would be very unfair.
That all said, I seriously doubt this kind of system would be mandatory, and you as a consumer can choose to support one or the other. Of course this might also breed the fight club VS non fight club type situation. Want to get into fistycuffs go to Larry's, want to have a safe time go to Bob's.
Anyway I am not sure of the whole idea, but I think in an ideal world were owners aren't douchebags and are purely driven by profit (i.e. they want to let in as many people as possible) it might work.
By that assumption one can conceive how to "move" FTL is to create a cosmic anchor, that fixes your position in space, that simply allows "existence" to move past you at FTL. Thus relatively (pardon pun) exceed FTL travel without moving, a la Dune, and last time I check we don't have any Spice....
I don't understand it any better mind you, just pointing out an issue. From my perspective its all really irrelevant unless a magic technology (such as the almighty cosmic anchor) that allows not only for FTL travel, but MUCH more so. As without it, the impossibility of every observing it at all. I also think that in developing such a magic technology, likely the forces involved are such that you as likely to start a new big bang as to travel to x,y,z and maybe t. Press the red button.
This like the whole climate change, Abortions, etc... any big discussion that people have "entrenched" beliefs about I am not really all that fond of arguing about (and I like to argue)... Its like talking to a wall for the most part.
I am not sure what stops their development, there must be a reason. Too closely associated to nukes is what I figured from a PR stand point. It could be that no one is willing to take the technological risk (politically). I know the tech is old, but has a production sized one of these things ever been built? I mean nukes are hugely expensive, but at least a known quantity. If even it only costs half of what a nuke costs at 20 billion or something that's still a lot of money to risk as a "first adopter"... Other than that I can't figure why these don't exist already.
Agree. I am pretty left myself. I had hippie friends that I would argue with in college that no matter what I would say, think nukes are evil. I would destroy every argument they had, yet in the end their minds were set that nukes were bad. I think it is sad. Even political parties like the Greens are against nuke plants, likely because they know their voting base has that idea in their head. However at least they are not stupid enough to spout the usually hippie bs, rather citing expensive initial costs, and long built times as well as maintenance issues. Which when you look at the big picture is utter hogwash as well.
From my experience most environmentalists don't let things like "facts" get in the way. They like making up their own. Not all, but most of the followers.
I would bet that they would throw generation from Thorium into the "Nuke the Nukes" pile (heh no pun intended). By that I mean most would not be bothered to learn what it is, and just lump all that generation in the term "Nukes" and chant that its very bad.
They would label it dangerous and insist everything be solar, faerie dust, and unicorn whispers. Heck wind is bad because it kills bats and birds, and looks bad on the coast (most don't like them next to their expensive cottages). Hydro has been evil for years now with flooding etc... Don't even talk about Gas/Oil/Coal. Nukes fall somewhere more evil that that for some reason. Geothermal is OK I guess, most probably don't really know what it is anyway.
Talk to anyone in the biz that actually has to provide the electricity and distribution and they will tell you 10 times out of 10 that reaction plants are king. Energy always on (unless a reactor is down for repairs) constant base power that we need and cannot replace with alternatives no matter how much hippies squeeze their palms together and pray for mother sun to supply us all with rainbows and joy.
Well from what I have read, the normal reactor is traditional, only that it doesn't make weapons grade material as a by product. I believe it makes tritium instead (or something like that). The design has a number of advantages such as being able to use a host of different nuke fuel sources (enriched, non-enriched, and two others) . We also have/had a shit ton of uranium in Canadian mines. We also would want to sell reactors to other countries.
Canada did sell them to India back in the day and they modified them to be able to make weapons grade material. They are called CANDU Derivative Reactors. They now have more derivatives now than CANDU, so speaking of stealing of IP.... Of course they were prohibited from doing so, but did anyway, and as a result Canada stopped selling them reactors, not that it did much good.
The main reason Canada doesn't make many domestically is that it has just a bad a PR rap up here as the USA. The Greens have decided that it is evil and have pretty much won the war of hearts and minds in this regard. Also the CANDU designs while flexible and allow for large generation, are also EXPENSIVE and require a lot of maintenance. It takes decades to build them, and dozens of BILLIONS of dollars, so initially the cost is pretty huge. I am not sure when the last one was built in Canada, but I would say a long time ago. Probably in the 70's or 80's in Ontario.
I am sure Bell and Rogers Communications would be quick to point out that everyone of their customers have "UNLIMITED" bandwidth on ALL their accounts, a first in the world! Of course if you go past whatever arbitrary download/upload cap that they agree to offer you, you will have to pay above and beyond what you currently pay at some exorbitant rate that they will set as high as they think the CRTC will let them get away with, which as it turns out, is pretty much anything...
Another cheap easy fix is I know they used to make RAID ATA PCI cards, which you didn't even really have to use the raid, you could just use the extra ports. I have no idea if they make them for SATA or how much they cost, but if they were anything like the ATA ones it wasn't much.
So if you end up being one of the unlucky 5-15% AND the manufacturer refuses to replace (likely past warranty), perhaps you can go out and just buy a 50$ SATA PCI card that doesn't have that problem, and boom, problem solved. Of course you need a free PCI slot to do it, but these days so much crap is integrated in the motherboard, most people don't use all (or any) of their PCI slots anyway.
A quick Google confirms that you can buy a 4 port SATA PCI card for 40-80$ online. Sans Problemo.
I read it could be a timing issue, if triggered sending too much juice too often to the SATA.
From my own experience and common sense, anything to do with "degrading performance" sounds like a heat issue to me. Heat issues happen because of 3 causes: 1) Poor design of heat dissipation/mitigation in that they don't have a heat sink or enough of one to do the job, 2) Overvoltage in that a part is getting too much current, too often, resulting in heat, that is slowly breaking down the performance of the part, 3) Regulation failure, which basically controls the amount of current which results in overvoltage. All three are sort of the same thing really, bits getting too hot when they aren't designed to handle it.
I think it is a good thing that Intel is doing the recall and has notified everyone. My fear would be unscrupulous hardware resellers trying to ditch these components on unsuspecting users. I wouldn't want to be buying a sandybridge pre-assembled in the next year or so. For users who buy their components individual, it is less serious, return your MB for a new one. You might be out a computer a few weeks, but at the same time your getting a new MB and you never know Manufacturers may even throw in a few extra features on the new one. Also the issue is about degrading performance, hopefully it isn't so fast that by the time you get your new one, you were never really effected by the issue in the first place. If your buying a new one, you just have to make sure of the version number of the MB you want to buy. Wait for the problem to get fixed and buy the fixed version 2.0 MB. Just be leary of sales of MB without clarifying version number. Some will likely be taken if they don't know about the issue, which is another reason I think it is good Intel came clean about it.
That is one thing that always bugs me is people never look at the total life cycle of this idea. Battery technology is one of the slowest growing out there. Don't expect leaps and bounds just because cars are using them. Temperature can also have an adverse effect as well. Also with cadmium one of the primary components of the batteries you have China producing 1/6 of the total in the world. Also if you think your building the things in North America your on crack. All those jobs and manufacturing will also be located in China regardless of car brand. They are dirty to make, and dirty to recycle or dispose of.
Frankly in the short term it would be better to simply increase the MPG regulations to force companies to develop more efficient gas and diesel. Or even stop companies from cheating the current regulations... Or really invest in public transportation, so that personal vehicles are not so necessary.
I am used to making fun of American politicians on slashdot. WTF is this?
Well I guess a couple non-idiots made it into office, I suppose it is statistically possible. I mean aren't these people supposed to sell out or something, I thought that was their primary job?
If I was a telco i'd be pissed! "What is ma money no good for yous? You tink you bedda than everyone else huh?"
I wish them luck, though I have a premonition that they may have a rough time passing that bill (no matter how much common sense it makes).
I'm all for RIAA bashing, but I think most lawyers would agree that they do the best job they can for whichever client they work for within the boundaries of ethics and the law. They do not make the laws they argue them for the rights of their clients.
So yes the RIAA suing everyone is BS. However it is the system, not the lawyers that enable it. It is the judges that set precedent and the politicians that make laws. Many lawyers have to have dirtbag clients, some (thought I know its hard to believe) are even worse than they jerks at the RIAA etc...
IANAL either! Having one of those sneaky bastards on your side might be a good idea, particularly when involved in the snake pit of politics.
I usually like to call that the "Look like your doing something about the problem when all your really doing is making it a pain in the ass for everybody else."
Very common in government. Makes you look like your competent and doing something about something you care very little about. Makes everyone Else's life just a little bit harder.
When what they could do is, you know, use the laws/policies/etc... that already currently exist to punish the individual people actually involved.
It is usually accompanied with the "Oh god think of the children! We must make sure this never is able to happen again!". Which incidentally, is stupid.
Example: Someone cheats a procurement policy and gives the contract to a buddy. Appropriate response: Fire Someone. Actual Response: Make procurement process so convoluted and arcane that no one can get anything done. Problem Solved!
a) You can break the sticker anytime, all you need is your fingernail. You might not like the fact that you void your warranty, but at least you have that CHOICE. In many cases I as a consumer consider many "warranties" not really worth the paper they are written on, and thus at times am not "afraid" of the sticker. Now if you want to break the sticker, you physically can't. They are basically putting a lock on it, that if you try and circumvent you will likely break your device in the attempt.
b) They are applying this "fix" retroactively. So you could have a device with no lock, then because you need service, even as part of warranty, they will then lock it changing the product you initially bought. Preventing you from doing something you could have done with your device before my adding hardware to it. To use the tried and true Slashdot Auto Analogy (tm), its like if you took your car in for service, because you engine broke, and when you get it back discover those assholes at the Nissan Dealership installed (without your permission) pad locks all over the hood of your car, ever preventing you from opening it without taking a blowtorch to your hood. Sure you probably have no business being in there anyway, as you know fuckall about car engines and your would probably do more harm than good messing about with it, however it's your damn car which they just locked....
Slashdot Mirror
Yes all those Canadian nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers... I am not sure if Canada is the only nuclear capable country that designs and build nuclear reactors that doesn't actually have any nuclear weapons or any sort of nuclear craft of any kind. I wonder if that is unique... and if so perhaps uniquely placed to build those things, if there is no reasonable reason not to. (I am pretty sure reasonable reason is bad English but whatever)
Personally I think we should build some nuclear ice breakers, those are pretty cool. (heh! No pun intended!)
Russia's ice breaker gap is getting bigger!
I have had a number of bar owners and bouncers as friends in the past, and in one sense it is a good idea.
I know where I am in Canada a lot of bar owners tried to band together to try and curb violence. There is a subset of people who basically like to go to the bar, get drunk and get in a fight. The idea was if you get banned from one bar you get banned from all participating bars, in this way it keeps these people out, and also perhaps acts as a deterrent. The problem was with the implementation. The only way to do it was to have a "picture book" at the entrance for bouncers to look at. However particularly on busy nights, bouncers don't have the luxury of leafing through a book of photos for each patron that wants in, and as a result the experiment was a failure.
At least this way, a bouncer could easily identify you and your "infractions" and based on that decide or have it flagged that you are allowed in or not. So ideally it is good as it keeps the bad apples out from wreaking everyone Else's fun, not to mention driving up costs for everyone.
The bad and the ugly would be that yes, bar owners with a grudge could simply be jerks and abuse the system. With no appeal process, this would be very unfair.
That all said, I seriously doubt this kind of system would be mandatory, and you as a consumer can choose to support one or the other. Of course this might also breed the fight club VS non fight club type situation. Want to get into fistycuffs go to Larry's, want to have a safe time go to Bob's.
Anyway I am not sure of the whole idea, but I think in an ideal world were owners aren't douchebags and are purely driven by profit (i.e. they want to let in as many people as possible) it might work.
My first thought exactly. :) Excellent Dude! *Air Guitar*
I am calling cyclic logic on that one.
By that assumption one can conceive how to "move" FTL is to create a cosmic anchor, that fixes your position in space, that simply allows "existence" to move past you at FTL. Thus relatively (pardon pun) exceed FTL travel without moving, a la Dune, and last time I check we don't have any Spice....
I don't understand it any better mind you, just pointing out an issue. From my perspective its all really irrelevant unless a magic technology (such as the almighty cosmic anchor) that allows not only for FTL travel, but MUCH more so. As without it, the impossibility of every observing it at all. I also think that in developing such a magic technology, likely the forces involved are such that you as likely to start a new big bang as to travel to x,y,z and maybe t. Press the red button.
A little? It was meant to be a lot! :)
This like the whole climate change, Abortions, etc... any big discussion that people have "entrenched" beliefs about I am not really all that fond of arguing about (and I like to argue)... Its like talking to a wall for the most part.
I am not sure what stops their development, there must be a reason. Too closely associated to nukes is what I figured from a PR stand point. It could be that no one is willing to take the technological risk (politically). I know the tech is old, but has a production sized one of these things ever been built? I mean nukes are hugely expensive, but at least a known quantity. If even it only costs half of what a nuke costs at 20 billion or something that's still a lot of money to risk as a "first adopter"... Other than that I can't figure why these don't exist already.
Agree. I am pretty left myself. I had hippie friends that I would argue with in college that no matter what I would say, think nukes are evil. I would destroy every argument they had, yet in the end their minds were set that nukes were bad. I think it is sad. Even political parties like the Greens are against nuke plants, likely because they know their voting base has that idea in their head. However at least they are not stupid enough to spout the usually hippie bs, rather citing expensive initial costs, and long built times as well as maintenance issues. Which when you look at the big picture is utter hogwash as well.
From my experience most environmentalists don't let things like "facts" get in the way. They like making up their own. Not all, but most of the followers.
I would bet that they would throw generation from Thorium into the "Nuke the Nukes" pile (heh no pun intended). By that I mean most would not be bothered to learn what it is, and just lump all that generation in the term "Nukes" and chant that its very bad.
They would label it dangerous and insist everything be solar, faerie dust, and unicorn whispers. Heck wind is bad because it kills bats and birds, and looks bad on the coast (most don't like them next to their expensive cottages). Hydro has been evil for years now with flooding etc... Don't even talk about Gas/Oil/Coal. Nukes fall somewhere more evil that that for some reason. Geothermal is OK I guess, most probably don't really know what it is anyway.
Talk to anyone in the biz that actually has to provide the electricity and distribution and they will tell you 10 times out of 10 that reaction plants are king. Energy always on (unless a reactor is down for repairs) constant base power that we need and cannot replace with alternatives no matter how much hippies squeeze their palms together and pray for mother sun to supply us all with rainbows and joy.
Well from what I have read, the normal reactor is traditional, only that it doesn't make weapons grade material as a by product. I believe it makes tritium instead (or something like that). The design has a number of advantages such as being able to use a host of different nuke fuel sources (enriched, non-enriched, and two others) . We also have/had a shit ton of uranium in Canadian mines. We also would want to sell reactors to other countries.
Canada did sell them to India back in the day and they modified them to be able to make weapons grade material. They are called CANDU Derivative Reactors. They now have more derivatives now than CANDU, so speaking of stealing of IP.... Of course they were prohibited from doing so, but did anyway, and as a result Canada stopped selling them reactors, not that it did much good.
The main reason Canada doesn't make many domestically is that it has just a bad a PR rap up here as the USA. The Greens have decided that it is evil and have pretty much won the war of hearts and minds in this regard. Also the CANDU designs while flexible and allow for large generation, are also EXPENSIVE and require a lot of maintenance. It takes decades to build them, and dozens of BILLIONS of dollars, so initially the cost is pretty huge. I am not sure when the last one was built in Canada, but I would say a long time ago. Probably in the 70's or 80's in Ontario.
I am sure Bell and Rogers Communications would be quick to point out that everyone of their customers have "UNLIMITED" bandwidth on ALL their accounts, a first in the world! Of course if you go past whatever arbitrary download/upload cap that they agree to offer you, you will have to pay above and beyond what you currently pay at some exorbitant rate that they will set as high as they think the CRTC will let them get away with, which as it turns out, is pretty much anything...
Another cheap easy fix is I know they used to make RAID ATA PCI cards, which you didn't even really have to use the raid, you could just use the extra ports. I have no idea if they make them for SATA or how much they cost, but if they were anything like the ATA ones it wasn't much.
So if you end up being one of the unlucky 5-15% AND the manufacturer refuses to replace (likely past warranty), perhaps you can go out and just buy a 50$ SATA PCI card that doesn't have that problem, and boom, problem solved. Of course you need a free PCI slot to do it, but these days so much crap is integrated in the motherboard, most people don't use all (or any) of their PCI slots anyway.
A quick Google confirms that you can buy a 4 port SATA PCI card for 40-80$ online. Sans Problemo.
I read it could be a timing issue, if triggered sending too much juice too often to the SATA.
From my own experience and common sense, anything to do with "degrading performance" sounds like a heat issue to me. Heat issues happen because of 3 causes: 1) Poor design of heat dissipation/mitigation in that they don't have a heat sink or enough of one to do the job, 2) Overvoltage in that a part is getting too much current, too often, resulting in heat, that is slowly breaking down the performance of the part, 3) Regulation failure, which basically controls the amount of current which results in overvoltage. All three are sort of the same thing really, bits getting too hot when they aren't designed to handle it.
I think it is a good thing that Intel is doing the recall and has notified everyone. My fear would be unscrupulous hardware resellers trying to ditch these components on unsuspecting users. I wouldn't want to be buying a sandybridge pre-assembled in the next year or so. For users who buy their components individual, it is less serious, return your MB for a new one. You might be out a computer a few weeks, but at the same time your getting a new MB and you never know Manufacturers may even throw in a few extra features on the new one. Also the issue is about degrading performance, hopefully it isn't so fast that by the time you get your new one, you were never really effected by the issue in the first place. If your buying a new one, you just have to make sure of the version number of the MB you want to buy. Wait for the problem to get fixed and buy the fixed version 2.0 MB. Just be leary of sales of MB without clarifying version number. Some will likely be taken if they don't know about the issue, which is another reason I think it is good Intel came clean about it.
I wouldn't pay...
That is one thing that always bugs me is people never look at the total life cycle of this idea. Battery technology is one of the slowest growing out there. Don't expect leaps and bounds just because cars are using them. Temperature can also have an adverse effect as well. Also with cadmium one of the primary components of the batteries you have China producing 1/6 of the total in the world. Also if you think your building the things in North America your on crack. All those jobs and manufacturing will also be located in China regardless of car brand. They are dirty to make, and dirty to recycle or dispose of.
Frankly in the short term it would be better to simply increase the MPG regulations to force companies to develop more efficient gas and diesel. Or even stop companies from cheating the current regulations... Or really invest in public transportation, so that personal vehicles are not so necessary.
It's cute that you think there isn't one.
Just live someplace no one is likely to bother bombing...
It's probably a lot cheaper.
I am used to making fun of American politicians on slashdot. WTF is this?
Well I guess a couple non-idiots made it into office, I suppose it is statistically possible. I mean aren't these people supposed to sell out or something, I thought that was their primary job?
If I was a telco i'd be pissed! "What is ma money no good for yous? You tink you bedda than everyone else huh?"
I wish them luck, though I have a premonition that they may have a rough time passing that bill (no matter how much common sense it makes).
I'm all for RIAA bashing, but I think most lawyers would agree that they do the best job they can for whichever client they work for within the boundaries of ethics and the law. They do not make the laws they argue them for the rights of their clients.
So yes the RIAA suing everyone is BS. However it is the system, not the lawyers that enable it. It is the judges that set precedent and the politicians that make laws. Many lawyers have to have dirtbag clients, some (thought I know its hard to believe) are even worse than they jerks at the RIAA etc...
IANAL either! Having one of those sneaky bastards on your side might be a good idea, particularly when involved in the snake pit of politics.
You should take a printout of your post and send it to them... "SEE!" :)
YES! After extensive study and plumbing the depths of knowlege I have discovered the arcane secret to transmute gold to lead! ...
Wait... Oh DAMMIT!
I mean don't they all wear them all the time?
I usually like to call that the "Look like your doing something about the problem when all your really doing is making it a pain in the ass for everybody else."
Very common in government. Makes you look like your competent and doing something about something you care very little about. Makes everyone Else's life just a little bit harder.
When what they could do is, you know, use the laws/policies/etc... that already currently exist to punish the individual people actually involved.
It is usually accompanied with the "Oh god think of the children! We must make sure this never is able to happen again!". Which incidentally, is stupid.
Example: Someone cheats a procurement policy and gives the contract to a buddy. Appropriate response: Fire Someone. Actual Response: Make procurement process so convoluted and arcane that no one can get anything done. Problem Solved!
Yes. It's literally like that exactly. I think you just proved his point.
My CPU is a neural net processor; a learning computer.
I bet it made everything in his freezer taste better though!
Its more insidious however, as
a) You can break the sticker anytime, all you need is your fingernail. You might not like the fact that you void your warranty, but at least you have that CHOICE. In many cases I as a consumer consider many "warranties" not really worth the paper they are written on, and thus at times am not "afraid" of the sticker. Now if you want to break the sticker, you physically can't. They are basically putting a lock on it, that if you try and circumvent you will likely break your device in the attempt.
b) They are applying this "fix" retroactively. So you could have a device with no lock, then because you need service, even as part of warranty, they will then lock it changing the product you initially bought. Preventing you from doing something you could have done with your device before my adding hardware to it. To use the tried and true Slashdot Auto Analogy (tm), its like if you took your car in for service, because you engine broke, and when you get it back discover those assholes at the Nissan Dealership installed (without your permission) pad locks all over the hood of your car, ever preventing you from opening it without taking a blowtorch to your hood. Sure you probably have no business being in there anyway, as you know fuckall about car engines and your would probably do more harm than good messing about with it, however it's your damn car which they just locked....
Christ what an asshole.