IANAEE but I'm pretty sure that power usage goes up with transistor count as well. Last time we looked at boards, we'd have been quite happy with an x86 CPU but there were simply no solutions which didn't need a case fan. Since we didn't want moving parts, that meant no x86 - which I feel kind of implies the x86 parts use more power.
I could have phrased it better - there don't seem to be any equivalent x86 solutions to ARM in the low power arena. Yes, I know about Atom, but I've had a whole ARM board that drew 3 Watts.
ARM kicks the crap out of Intel/AMD when it comes to performance per Watt. That makes it great for embedded work (10bn, yes 10e9 CPUs shipped) and looks like it might be starting to migrate into netbooks.
The problem for ARM: lacking support from Microsoft for Windows; the applications it runs for the PC have to do so under Linux.
Not a problem for everyone. I've already got an ARM-based Linux running on a NSLU32 NAS head - 32Mb RAM, 32 Mb flash. If I could get a lightweight laptop with a modern ARM chip, I would be over the moon.
If you're worried about your servers being physically stolen, I suggest physical security is the first thing on your TODO list, not Full Disk Encryption.
No-one in science calls themselves a Darwinist anyway, they'd say they were an evolutionary biologist. They do believe in natural selection obviously, since you can't make predictions (hence, do any science at all) from ID. I have appeared as co-author on a paper in Molecular Biology and Evolution, so I know whereof I speak.
OK, it wouldn't hurt to stop calling it Darwinism, in the same way that we don't talk about Feynmannism (QED), or Einsteinism (relativity). But that's just a name.
If I'm reading that study correctly, the list of potential respondents was drawn only from academic institutions and government agencies, and from that list,
Er, yes. Who else is doing (paleo)climatology or atmospheric science? What big research group got missed?
There is a trap here, however. To be published in a peer reviewed journal, your peers have to agree to it.
I've had stuff published in a peer-reviewed journal (MBE) and this is bollocks. Your peers must not be able to find obvious flaws in your methodology. How many papers have you had rejected because the reviewers didn't like your well-reasoned conclusions which followed from observed data? I'm guessing a bit fat zero.
Actually what happened here is that the UK government is concerned that the US might withdraw cooperation if the evidence makes it to court.
That's what the UK government says. They've repeatedly misled the public about the whole war-on-terror thing, so you'll excuse us (British citizens) for not taking their word for it. (cf. SFO investigation into BAE being dropped after the Saudis complained.)
1995 called - it said you fail history. "JavaScript was first introduced and deployed in the Netscape browser version 2.0B3 in December 1995." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript
It wasn't widely deployed for a while either, because I was still making sure websites worked with Mosaic, IE and lynx in '96/'97.
If you think that large parts of critical UK infrastructure are not already running on BIND, postfix, sendmail and apache then you are a bit behind the times.
gah! Is the Non-Proliferation Treaty bad for the same reasons? This looks the same again but for space-based weapons. The NPT hasn't resulted in signatories being nuked by non-signatories.
Yeah, ever since the ban on the use of chemical and biological weapons, the US has been attacked over and over with them. Where as the US hasn't banned landmines and thus is able to use them on its own soil in self-defence. Phew!
Your network is not the hallowed ground you think it is.
And hasn't been for a long time. Code Red/Nimda/Slammer were the proof of this, Blaster was merely an after-the-fact "fuck you" to anyone who hadn't been paying attention.
Things like relativity and plate tectonics have taken a while to be accepted because so many people thought they were crazy to start with.
However, it's better to have papers checked than not checked. The reviewers don't necessarily have to agree with the conclusions, but they do have to make sure the study's methodology is sound.
Other people will then go and do similar studies to see if they can reproduce or disprove the results.
1. "Reverse engineering software or hardware systems which is done for the purposes of interoperability (for example, to support undocumented file formats or undocumented hardware peripherals) is mostly believed to be legal" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering
Slashdot Mirror
Oooh, now I want a Toughbook :)
Probably over budget though for our application.
IANAEE but I'm pretty sure that power usage goes up with transistor count as well. Last time we looked at boards, we'd have been quite happy with an x86 CPU but there were simply no solutions which didn't need a case fan. Since we didn't want moving parts, that meant no x86 - which I feel kind of implies the x86 parts use more power.
I could have phrased it better - there don't seem to be any equivalent x86 solutions to ARM in the low power arena. Yes, I know about Atom, but I've had a whole ARM board that drew 3 Watts.
ARM kicks the crap out of Intel/AMD when it comes to performance per Watt. That makes it great for embedded work (10bn, yes 10e9 CPUs shipped) and looks like it might be starting to migrate into netbooks.
Not a problem for everyone. I've already got an ARM-based Linux running on a NSLU32 NAS head - 32Mb RAM, 32 Mb flash. If I could get a lightweight laptop with a modern ARM chip, I would be over the moon.
If you're worried about your servers being physically stolen, I suggest physical security is the first thing on your TODO list, not Full Disk Encryption.
over wireless!
Hah! We know you're lying because HR employees do not possess any vitally important information. (Or any useful information, come to that.)
You beat me to it.
No-one in science calls themselves a Darwinist anyway, they'd say they were an evolutionary biologist. They do believe in natural selection obviously, since you can't make predictions (hence, do any science at all) from ID. I have appeared as co-author on a paper in Molecular Biology and Evolution, so I know whereof I speak.
OK, it wouldn't hurt to stop calling it Darwinism, in the same way that we don't talk about Feynmannism (QED), or Einsteinism (relativity). But that's just a name.
Er, yes. Who else is doing (paleo)climatology or atmospheric science? What big research group got missed?
I've had stuff published in a peer-reviewed journal (MBE) and this is bollocks. Your peers must not be able to find obvious flaws in your methodology. How many papers have you had rejected because the reviewers didn't like your well-reasoned conclusions which followed from observed data? I'm guessing a bit fat zero.
That's what the UK government says. They've repeatedly misled the public about the whole war-on-terror thing, so you'll excuse us (British citizens) for not taking their word for it. (cf. SFO investigation into BAE being dropped after the Saudis complained.)
<= 3.2% ABV is NOT beer.
1995 called - it said you fail history. "JavaScript was first introduced and deployed in the Netscape browser version 2.0B3 in December 1995." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JavaScript
It wasn't widely deployed for a while either, because I was still making sure websites worked with Mosaic, IE and lynx in '96/'97.
The point of OSS is that you can do your own security fixes, and not have to wait 7 years for a patch.
If you think that large parts of critical UK infrastructure are not already running on BIND, postfix, sendmail and apache then you are a bit behind the times.
gah! Is the Non-Proliferation Treaty bad for the same reasons? This looks the same again but for space-based weapons. The NPT hasn't resulted in signatories being nuked by non-signatories.
Yeah, ever since the ban on the use of chemical and biological weapons, the US has been attacked over and over with them. Where as the US hasn't banned landmines and thus is able to use them on its own soil in self-defence. Phew!
The Act is really good, and you can tell that because it is annoying the fuck out of the present government.
http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=viola&btnG=Search+Products
And hasn't been for a long time. Code Red/Nimda/Slammer were the proof of this, Blaster was merely an after-the-fact "fuck you" to anyone who hadn't been paying attention.
ITYM "MS screwed over everyone who bought into Alpha/NT naively thinking it was a long-term commitment".
Proper Alpha boxes are more desk than desktop though.
Things like relativity and plate tectonics have taken a while to be accepted because so many people thought they were crazy to start with.
However, it's better to have papers checked than not checked. The reviewers don't necessarily have to agree with the conclusions, but they do have to make sure the study's methodology is sound.
Other people will then go and do similar studies to see if they can reproduce or disprove the results.
I don't like heights.
Or, come to that, hard work. Why do you think I'm a programmer?
Don't worry, they'll probably only go after people that supplied their enemies with weapons.
PS. D'oh!
1. "Reverse engineering software or hardware systems which is done for the purposes of interoperability (for example, to support undocumented file formats or undocumented hardware peripherals) is mostly believed to be legal" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering
2. But anyway, PDF is published as an international standard - ISO 32000-1:2008 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format
% dig domain.com axfr
I've adminned at a university with 6000-odd network devices. CNAMEs are a must. (Oh, and AXFR is turned off for the outside world.)