I'd address all the points in detail, but obviously that is a waste of time.
So, let's first tackle this one - amortization over 3 years... that wasnt my idea - it was yours - and what way would you suggest other than via credit card? Perhaps you just dont understand the meaning as it applies to a consumer.
As for a video card... ever run Vista on an integrated Intel chipset? Even Microsoft's internal memos suggested against certifying that video chipset for anything Vista - Aero or not. That accounts for a very large amount of HP and Compaq machines - and that doesnt even begin to touch the sub-standard or marginal chipsets they used in numerous of their AMD based systems. Thus, making my point valid and yours ridiculous yet again.
As for "no one being forced to upgrade to Vista" - that too was your premise - not mine. This thread wasnt about people being forced to do anything - it was about your premise which was people upgrading and how little it cost via amortization. Perhaps you should have read your post again before you responded since you obviously forgot what you wrote - or perhaps I should have quoted each section in my original response to help remind you of what you wrote.
As for antivirus, while Symantec and McAfee have been happily updating NAV2006 and McAfee 2006, they haven't been upgrading it. Yet 90% of the later XP machines out there came with one or the other, and numerous people are still running and updating (not upgrading) them.
That aspect aside, once you install Vista, you need to reinstall the AV software anyway... from what disks? Cant use the (virtually non-existant) upgrade to a newer version method either since the qualifying product (the OEM installed version) no longer exists... so yes, someone who upgraded to Vista will in all likelihood be purchasing new AV software.
As for mobos without IDE ports, I have actually very recently purchased quite a few that are either all SATA or have only one IDE port - and if you know anything about computers, you know that you dont want to attach that IDE optical drive on the same cable as that IDE hard drive... ooops! What do you do then? Yeah, you can do it - but with as much as Vista uses the disk for swapping crap in and out of the pagefile, is it really smart?
It is very amazing that various of my responses that you "countered", you pretended that the issue was something I brought up - when you are the one who brought it up (ie: upgrading to Vista, amortization, etc).
The sad thing is, as a technician (and morals aside) I am happy with this situation... it keeps me working. People who upgrade to Vista keep coming in for upgrades for hardware that either doesnt work (no drivers) or doesnt work well enough (lack of memory, crappy video card, etc). I actually feel sad about the situation - but someone is gonna make the money bringing the systems up to date... so I dont turn the customers away - and they leave happier than their experiences with BestBuy and Circuit City (not that that's tough to accomplish) and save some money to boot. Heck, as it is, we get quite a few calls for people who bought out-of-the-box-Vista machines who need upgrades because their systems only came with 512MB or 1GB - or had an onboard Intel video chipset.
Now, lets factor in the new video card to actually use numerous GUI features in Vista Business Edition... oh - but that needs a new motherboard as the one that came in that HP or whatever PC only came with PCI slots and no AGP or PCI-Express (or ancient AGP on a crappy MSI board).
But that also requires a new power supply for the needs of the new board and video card.
Then, if you forgot to ensure the new board didnt come with IDE, you need new SATA drives - and even if you did get an IDE/SATA combo board, will you have enough room after installing Vista Business?
Even if you do, you will definitely need more RAM - unless your machine happened to have been already maxed out (unlike the majority of XP machines I have seen that vary between 256MB and 1.5GB).
Then you will probably need new virus and spyware software - the copy that you have been faithfully paying for updates wont run on Vista - and they wont just give you a free upgrade to the next version that came out when Vista did (gotta remember, it's probably a 2005/2006 AV solution or earlier - not a 2007 one that may entitle you for a Vista version for free).
So, after you add that in... it gets closer to a small fortune.
ok, maybe not. But, it is considerably more than $0
And since we (you) are amortizing the costs over 3 years - then we should actually consider it paid in such fashion - for instance on a credit card - otherwise the costs arent being amortized at all.
OK, now it is definitely a small fortune. Your premise of considering it an amortized cost only works if it actually is going to be - which in this day and age means a credit card where you spend years paying lots of interest and little of the principal. Don't respond with "Well you can pay it all off in 2 months to save on the interest" because then it is no longer being amortized over 3 years.
What this means is someone needs to architect an intelligent loading system. Ideally, it would manage the load on your base load servers (that are on all the time), and when those servers reach 85-95% of capacity (numbers from my ass) other servers should be brought out of low power/sleep mode to start serving.
Of course, if you use Amazon EC2, this is all moot, as they can shift load around to have their cluster run at peak efficiency.
The most insightful part of your post was "(numbers from my ass)"...
No... just kidding... really... actually, seeing that in the middle of an intelligent post gave me my laugh today! Thanks!!!
So... on to a serious reply, I think certain BladeCenter configurations were designed to do this. I also find that on various single box SMP solutions from IBM, a noticeable amount of power is saved when the server is not under load. My power usage will vary as much as 150 watts on my Netfinity M10 7000 (4Way SMP) depending on CPU loads. Theoretically (according to it's Hardware Maintenance Manual and User Guide), the machine could use as much as an additional 300W (due to presumably load) over the peak I have seen.
Under load, some of the added power is going to the CPUs, a very small amount to the hard drives (all 4 always run during actual disk activity as I am using RAID 1E - but mostly data is retrieved from various caches), and some is used by the myriad of fans increasing speed (which coincides with the CPUs doing things for extended times).
I'd guess that on an SMP system with a decent amount of cores, there should be a way to cut CPU power to "power saver mode" for usages that would be below a certain threshold (ie: below 85% total CPU utilization - number from your ass);-).
That just leaves the really high speed, really heavy spindle, really never stop, SCSI (or that new fake SCSI thingy called SATA2) drives drawing a ton of power.
Amazon EC2 looks like an ideal way to do it using clustering, and some form of "Power Saver" mode on all the machines for when the load isnt shifted to certain parts of the cluster. Thanks for that... couldn't for the life of me find where I'd seen that cluster setup (via an earlier/. post a few months ago), and the name "Amazon" wasnt exactly one of the names I woulda thought of - that and I am terrible with names to begin with.
(IANAL) While I think you correct in most of your summation of this situation, I think this opens up far better, far reaching implications. If the defendant wins their counterclaims, it amounts to finding the RIAA lawyers, "investigators", et al, guilty of numerous wrongdoings. This I think will be far more helpful to others in a similar situation, as well as still earn the RIAA (and gang) penalties. After all, instead of a sanction (or sanctions) we will (hopefully) have a court that finds the RIAA guilty - and then fined (etc) for their actions, leaving a precedent and (hopefully) well thought out decision by the judge as to why (based off the current status of things - as well as whatever new nonsense the RIAA comes up with in their defense). Inotherwords, keep handing the RIAA more rope... if handed enough, it will continue to make their stance even less tenable, and make this case even more important to others in a similar situation.
The end result (to the RIAA) will be the same... but the end result for others the RIAA tries to extort will be potentially immensely better; precedents and all, RIAA/MediaSentry found guilty (in standard court proceedings) of various criminal acts, etc...
If the RIAA/MediaSentry lose, then every similar attempt (at least in Florida - as well as in other states with similar investigatory oversight and laws) will constitute a second violation as well as potentially thumbing their noses at the judiciary (in regards to any rulings made "telling" them they cannot act in such fashion).
Just my understanding, with limited knowledge (ie: gleaned from/.) and no experience in the matter... though of course, even if my understanding is correct, that doesnt mean that all of the courts (or even this one) will ultimately uphold what is correct/legal, or the RIAA wont find a loophole or buy a law that protects them.
So, I'm happy with the way this is going (assuming the RIAA loses against the counterclaims) as I am sure the RIAA will continue to legally misstep and dig themselves into an even deeper hole that no judge or legal team will be able to dig them out of... more shovels anyone?
So yes choosing somebody from the Slashdot crowd would be appropriate.
Well, with the difference being that MacGyver was knowledgeable and intelligent. The typical Slashdotter only thinks they're knowledgeable and intelligent.
I would have modded you "Insightful" - but then I realized that (being a "typical Slashdotter") you are referring to me as well - and I know I think I'm knowledgeable and intelligent!!!;-)
Or perhaps MS theorized that they could take the stock value hit for this little escapade, full knowing that it would drop Yahoo's stock value considerably when this outcome was "decided upon" by Microsoft?
Of course that is just speculation/a possible alternate theory based off what happened. Either way, Microsoft, in one way or another, wins to some extent... either they own Yahoo, or Yahoo becomes "worth" less.
Did you have the right to know Microsoft's future plans 6 months ago?
No... and I for one dont particularly care. This one was obvious, regardless of what Microsoft previously claimed. Either that, or they would be stuck waiting for BR's replacement and playing the same game all over again.
The simple answer to them announcing they are doing this (in relationship to the fact that they previously said they arent) is "Who cares? They are now... whether because they changed their minds or were lying or because one team (marketing) wasnt talking to the other team."
The more appropriate questions are, how will it work? How will it compare to the PS3's BR support? Will it really and truly, fully support BR 2 specs? How will it be integrated into the system? What features or capabilities will it either be lacking or have poorly implemented? What advantages are gained from the BR support? How will it affect current gaming delivery? Will it be fully backwards compatible with all previous releases? Will the changes mean less compatibility with xBox (non-360) releases, more or be irrelevant to that topic?
(I think) there are smarter aspects of this to discuss than "Gee they lied" or "Was it our business/right to know their plans months in advance?"
Yeah, I do think they could have been a little more vague in answering in the past... a simple "We will evaluate the decision on whether to include (or not) BR into future consoles" (or something similar). But then again, it is a good way to drive up stock prices when needed (for instance, in light of them dropping their Yahoo bid)... but that still has less relevance to the more important aspects/questions I outlined above... (at least in my opinion).
Does Microsoft have the right to know yours?
Well, they seem to think so - but that's not relevant to this conversation (and there are tons of threads devoted to their advertising and data mining efforts and patents in that area, so I wont even go into it any further), so I am not sure what it's relationship is to BR and the xBox360...:-)
Indeed correct. The 8086 was considered too expensive in what turned out to be an already expensive investment (buying a PC with an 8088). Also, as IBM had no expectations of it's success at the lower costing 8088 PC's, I am sure that they expected even worse had they went ahead with the 8086.
What's strange is how the customer service peons take the company's side on this kind of stuff--every single time.
People who work for bad companies tend to fit in there.
It's not so strange... it's called either (a) keeping your job (and they dont have a high retention rate), and/or (b) not knowing much (technically) beyond what the support docs on their screen tell them and thus not even realizing they are facilitating in this.
A perfect example was when I was a tech at CompUSA and we called HP to order a part. No, we didnt call the normal HP support line, we had a "Vendor Only" number.
US: "Hi, I'm calling because we need a new power supply for an HP Pavilion Piece of Crap (I think that was the model). The power supply is dead and not putting out power."
IDIOTS (I mean HP):"OK, what's the error code in PC Doctor."
US: "There is no error code... the power supply is dead and not outputting power, so the machine will not turn on, thus I cannot run PC Doctor and give you an error code. Besides, PC Doctor cannot diagnose a bad power supply."
HP: "Well, I still need an error code. You need to tell me what error PC Doctor has on the screen."
etc, etc, etc...
If you check the job listings in areas where Comcast operates, you will see that there is always demand for entry tech support (ie: the people on their end most of us would speak to)... meaning (my guess is) a high turnover rate. I have a feeling that some of their more tech saavy employees, as well as ones who figured out enough to understand what is going on (or just got fed up with their corporate culture), or those who refuse to act and become like Comcast corporate wants, either quit or get fired.
So, I am not necessarily sure that the "strangeness" applies to the customer service "peons"... I would say it should apply to their networking people though... and I would also use a stronger word than "strange" to describe their willingness to partake in such actions...
Even at 5-10 years away, the current 50% efficiency level still makes gas production through this method (far) cheaper than the current crude->gasoline method.
"Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity of military analysts on the major networks, is a Pentagon information apparatus..."
I never found any appearance of objectivity - at least not from the likes of Fox News and their cohorts. Are there really people who got fooled into thinking Fox and others were being objective? If so, then it is a sad day for the relative IQ of the U.S. populace...
And no, I dont watch Fox News (when I dont have to), but someone in my house does... I keep telling him it's more like the Fox Comedy Channel and that he can get a more accurate portrayal of news events from watching Comedy Central.
As a side node, I'm not a vegan. But B12 deficiency takes *years*, and does not happen overnight because you stopped eating meat. Hell, you can eat termites or even dirt with B12 bacteria and you'll get enough B12.
I prefer dirt... it doesnt squirm like a mouthful of termites.
Actually, there are plenty of methods of using one electric motor coupled to the drive train/shafts. I am not sure why you think it would require 4.
But regardless, there is still the battery issue - which I also will not touch - since someone else covered that nicely.
If you take into account ONE motor (as their concept car has, IIRC), and the battery options Rei noted, then you come out with a car that costs about as much (or slightly more) than Chrysler's current offerings. Do the math off that basis... a current drivetrain in a "conventional" car (transmission, engine) are not cheap... while on the other hand, even high end electric motors needed for such applications are cheap (in comparison)... leaving the difference in the cost of batteries. So, you are talking about a car that may be a few thousand dollars more. Not $170K more like you speculate.
And as for me... if I had the choice of buying a gas burning car for $20K... or an electric, 300 mile/charge car at $25K - or even $30K... I would choose the electric car, knowing I would easily make back up that money on not buying gas, and a far less expensive maintenance regime.
No oil changes, no tune-ups to speak of, no transmission tuneups, no air filter and oxygen sensor changes (checked the price on oxygen sensors for most cars lately?), no worries about EVER failing emissions tests... and of course no gas station stops to buy gas.
An average person who lives near me and commutes to the city 5 days a week (assuming they do nothing else with their car) spends over $4,000 a year on gas - and that's at 25mpg (keep in mind, even though they are getting there on the highways, it is not "highway driving" in the sense used for mpg ratings... they are going and coming during rush hour - which fits more in a vehicle's "city driving" mpg - thus 25mpg is probably high).
Now, figure the cost of recharging a car every 2-3 days... in 3 years (give or take) one would easily offset a $10K price difference... so even if Chrysler comes out heavy on their estimated price, it is still worth it... now factor in the differences in maintenance costs...
Then there are the added "fringe benefits" such as being able to drive in almost any HOV lane - even with no passengers (most states around here on the East Coast, as well as Cali, give out "Clean Pass" stickers so such cars can be driven in the HOV lane with only one occupant).
Exactly. The 0-60 time of any car is the last thing I consider. I need to go from 0-60 *once* in any trip I make. How well it copes with being driven flat out for 300 miles is a far more pressing concern.
I'll start looking at electric cars when they can produce one that takes no more than 60 quid to charge from fully flat, can carry four or five large adults plus their luggage plus at least 200kg of equipment, and can average no less than 100mph for 350 miles on a charge. That would be getting close to being able to replace my ordinary car, assuming it's actually nice to drive and doesn't give me a numb backside.
Chrysler just announced such a car at the Detroit Auto Show (aired on TV a few days ago) - up to 250 miles on a charge, all electric, carries 4 plus luggage. They also claim it will be very inexpensive (normal car price for a car of it's class).
Now, if it IS real, I see it as something finally pushing other car manufacturers to follow suit. I'd see such a product forcing them to - IF (even though they announced a planned release year) it ever sees the light of day (which such "concept cars" never seem to).
I have a hard time believing that a startup like Tesla is the only company that could figure out how to get such mileage off an all electric car (especially since there are aftermarket kits that can get close to that mileage without all the fancy new technology using existing car structures). Especially considering that the major car companies spend many times the amount of money on R&D.
I am beginning to believe that 250-300 miles/charge isn't that difficult per se... but that the auto manufacturers have too much invested in their current production lines, servicing, distribution, service center training, etc to WANT to make an electric car for anyone other than the hobbyist (ie: 50 or so miles/charge).
And of course, others have speculated about the tie-ins with the oil/gas industry. (not saying I agree - or not)
And additionally, others have speculated on a (our) government not wanting to see affordable, long-range electric cars because of the large decrease in gas tax revenue that would result (and thus bankrupting most states). (not saying I agree - or not)
For whatever reasons, neither the car, oil, coal or other such industries seem to care about such things. That is evidenced by the ridiculous "Coal Initiative" (or whatever it is called) commercials on TV of late touting how great and clean burning coal is.
Or the recent oil ads I've seen in the paper talking about how oil heat in the home is the way to go - even over natural gas - and how clean it burns... (gee, you can vent many natural gas heaters INTO your house - and the only thing you have to worry about is oxygen depletion (thus the internally vented ones come with an oxygen sensor to prevent such)... anyone want to vent an oil furnace into their house?). Maybe some people have coal heaters in their house? I have no idea what they are comparing it to - cleaner than what? In my area, the choices are oil, propane or natural gas (or a fireplace/wood stove setup - which shouldnt even be in consideration in their scenario).
So in my area it would be natural gas, propane, oil, coal (with of course coal not being something used here for home heating... but that is the only way their claims make sense at all).
But the point is, all these commercials & ads - including the car companies talking about all their "green" initiatives (that we have yet to see bear fruition in any usable form) all seem to indicate no desire on actually getting there, while spinning the hell out of the situation to convince the average consumer that they are doing so well on such issues.
b: Most modifications, at least from the client viewpoint (and excluding the exploitable vulnerabilities which were discovered) are benign. 70% of the modifications were client-side proxies, such as personal firewalls, popup blockers, and add-removers.
Them inserting any ads on my web space would not be benign for a couple reasons: (1) I dont know of any bot or script that would do so without damaging the layout (and it took long enough to get some of them to work in the various flavors of IE, and Safari, Firefox and Opera). and since I have my own ads on there, and charge based off the fact that I control the rate, frequency and number of ads displayed at a time, it would also hurt me financially.
Of course, that doesn't apply to most people... and of course I wouldnt be (and am not) using a service such as those (as I expect most serious people who host websites wouldnt).
Good question... though I am sure that they can claim it is an automated, non-selective process which might put things in their favor in such regards.
On a similar note, there was a lawsuit a while back about some ISP doing this (and violating the page owner's copyright - which I think got squashed because it was part of the agreement for the free service)... I wonder how something like that would go through today in this type of circumstance - or if the ISPs are going to start changing their TOS's as needed to cover this.
Hmmm... I think I really need to re-watch my episodes of Star Trek TOS... I know they covered the whole Ion Engine thing in one of them... THEN I can come back and comment intelligently on this topic.
Windows is not to blame for the phishing problem, PEOPLE are. Phishing has been around a lot longer than Windows and Internet Explorer, it was just a lot lower-tech and could not be perpetrated quite as fast.
I am really confused... let's see. Before Windows had "Internet Access" there was OS/2 which beat them out the door with it. Once Windows got Internet access (and before Internet Explorer), there was NetCom, various other dialups and AOL... NetCom and the dialups being one of the few that brought users onto the 'Net...
Then came Netscape (etc)...
...at which time, the Internet was so in it's infancy that phishing (by the definition on Wikipedia and elsewhere) did not exist or barely existed at all. There were less mechanisms for the more complex methods available today, and some mechanisms that existed both then and now (such as email) were in states that did not allow such things at that time.
Then MS bought Internet Explorer... then they eventually included it in Windows.
No matter how you look at it, Windows and Internet Explorer ARE the cause of phishing being as prevalent as it is.
One can blame it on the holes and lack of security in the platform or various versions of Internet Explorer...
Or one can blame it on the fact that it was due to Internet Explorer being integrated in Windows that the popularity of the Internet grew (of course, since Netscape owned the browser market at this time, that wouldnt be true)
Or one can blame it on the fact that the Internet is so popular because of a combination of PCs being so cheap and Windows dominance in the market (ie: mostly non-tech saavy users, who are the main cause of phishing problems/exploits).
Or one can blame it on a combination of 2 or more of the above (and others I havent mentioned) - but no matter how you look at it, phishing was not nearly the problem it is today (IF it even existed in anything we would even equate as the same thing in concept, or in definition).
They've been using the "wire on a rocket" scenario in Florida for quite some time to "experiment" with lightning...
Dunno what they learned from it, or what they are doing now... just know I saw it on some science special (Discovery Channel, or Weather Channel or someplace like that).
Well, the other issue comes from storing that much electricity delivered in such a short period of time...
I think the problem may be the methods being used... I would think it more logical to try to drain such energy from the sky on a slower basis than to try to capture a lightning bolt...
Slashdot Mirror
I'd address all the points in detail, but obviously that is a waste of time.
So, let's first tackle this one - amortization over 3 years... that wasnt my idea - it was yours - and what way would you suggest other than via credit card? Perhaps you just dont understand the meaning as it applies to a consumer.
As for a video card... ever run Vista on an integrated Intel chipset? Even Microsoft's internal memos suggested against certifying that video chipset for anything Vista - Aero or not. That accounts for a very large amount of HP and Compaq machines - and that doesnt even begin to touch the sub-standard or marginal chipsets they used in numerous of their AMD based systems. Thus, making my point valid and yours ridiculous yet again.
As for "no one being forced to upgrade to Vista" - that too was your premise - not mine. This thread wasnt about people being forced to do anything - it was about your premise which was people upgrading and how little it cost via amortization. Perhaps you should have read your post again before you responded since you obviously forgot what you wrote - or perhaps I should have quoted each section in my original response to help remind you of what you wrote.
As for antivirus, while Symantec and McAfee have been happily updating NAV2006 and McAfee 2006, they haven't been upgrading it. Yet 90% of the later XP machines out there came with one or the other, and numerous people are still running and updating (not upgrading) them.
That aspect aside, once you install Vista, you need to reinstall the AV software anyway... from what disks? Cant use the (virtually non-existant) upgrade to a newer version method either since the qualifying product (the OEM installed version) no longer exists... so yes, someone who upgraded to Vista will in all likelihood be purchasing new AV software.
As for mobos without IDE ports, I have actually very recently purchased quite a few that are either all SATA or have only one IDE port - and if you know anything about computers, you know that you dont want to attach that IDE optical drive on the same cable as that IDE hard drive... ooops! What do you do then? Yeah, you can do it - but with as much as Vista uses the disk for swapping crap in and out of the pagefile, is it really smart?
It is very amazing that various of my responses that you "countered", you pretended that the issue was something I brought up - when you are the one who brought it up (ie: upgrading to Vista, amortization, etc).
The sad thing is, as a technician (and morals aside) I am happy with this situation... it keeps me working. People who upgrade to Vista keep coming in for upgrades for hardware that either doesnt work (no drivers) or doesnt work well enough (lack of memory, crappy video card, etc). I actually feel sad about the situation - but someone is gonna make the money bringing the systems up to date... so I dont turn the customers away - and they leave happier than their experiences with BestBuy and Circuit City (not that that's tough to accomplish) and save some money to boot. Heck, as it is, we get quite a few calls for people who bought out-of-the-box-Vista machines who need upgrades because their systems only came with 512MB or 1GB - or had an onboard Intel video chipset.
Now, lets factor in the new video card to actually use numerous GUI features in Vista Business Edition... oh - but that needs a new motherboard as the one that came in that HP or whatever PC only came with PCI slots and no AGP or PCI-Express (or ancient AGP on a crappy MSI board).
But that also requires a new power supply for the needs of the new board and video card.
Then, if you forgot to ensure the new board didnt come with IDE, you need new SATA drives - and even if you did get an IDE/SATA combo board, will you have enough room after installing Vista Business?
Even if you do, you will definitely need more RAM - unless your machine happened to have been already maxed out (unlike the majority of XP machines I have seen that vary between 256MB and 1.5GB).
Then you will probably need new virus and spyware software - the copy that you have been faithfully paying for updates wont run on Vista - and they wont just give you a free upgrade to the next version that came out when Vista did (gotta remember, it's probably a 2005/2006 AV solution or earlier - not a 2007 one that may entitle you for a Vista version for free).
So, after you add that in... it gets closer to a small fortune.
ok, maybe not. But, it is considerably more than $0
And since we (you) are amortizing the costs over 3 years - then we should actually consider it paid in such fashion - for instance on a credit card - otherwise the costs arent being amortized at all.
OK, now it is definitely a small fortune. Your premise of considering it an amortized cost only works if it actually is going to be - which in this day and age means a credit card where you spend years paying lots of interest and little of the principal. Don't respond with "Well you can pay it all off in 2 months to save on the interest" because then it is no longer being amortized over 3 years.
Just my thoughts...
Of course, if you use Amazon EC2, this is all moot, as they can shift load around to have their cluster run at peak efficiency.
The most insightful part of your post was "(numbers from my ass)"...
No... just kidding... really... actually, seeing that in the middle of an intelligent post gave me my laugh today! Thanks!!!
So... on to a serious reply, I think certain BladeCenter configurations were designed to do this. I also find that on various single box SMP solutions from IBM, a noticeable amount of power is saved when the server is not under load. My power usage will vary as much as 150 watts on my Netfinity M10 7000 (4Way SMP) depending on CPU loads. Theoretically (according to it's Hardware Maintenance Manual and User Guide), the machine could use as much as an additional 300W (due to presumably load) over the peak I have seen.
Under load, some of the added power is going to the CPUs, a very small amount to the hard drives (all 4 always run during actual disk activity as I am using RAID 1E - but mostly data is retrieved from various caches), and some is used by the myriad of fans increasing speed (which coincides with the CPUs doing things for extended times).
I'd guess that on an SMP system with a decent amount of cores, there should be a way to cut CPU power to "power saver mode" for usages that would be below a certain threshold (ie: below 85% total CPU utilization - number from your ass) ;-).
That just leaves the really high speed, really heavy spindle, really never stop, SCSI (or that new fake SCSI thingy called SATA2) drives drawing a ton of power.
Amazon EC2 looks like an ideal way to do it using clustering, and some form of "Power Saver" mode on all the machines for when the load isnt shifted to certain parts of the cluster. Thanks for that... couldn't for the life of me find where I'd seen that cluster setup (via an earlier /. post a few months ago), and the name "Amazon" wasnt exactly one of the names I woulda thought of - that and I am terrible with names to begin with.
Me too.
Does that make us guilty of schadenfreude?
LoL! combined with a dose of common sense and an expectation of fair outcome of these trials...
ok... YES! I enjoy this! (who in their right mind wouldn't?) Every slap in the RIAA's face makes me smile!!!
Now I just await the (figurative) kick in their teeth... :-)
Thanks for keeping me smiling!!!
Give them three pirated Britney Spears albums. Apparently that's worth about $110 million according to the RIAA.
I'd be willing to pay them that much if I never had to hear about her again or hear her music again...
(IANAL) While I think you correct in most of your summation of this situation, I think this opens up far better, far reaching implications. If the defendant wins their counterclaims, it amounts to finding the RIAA lawyers, "investigators", et al, guilty of numerous wrongdoings. This I think will be far more helpful to others in a similar situation, as well as still earn the RIAA (and gang) penalties. After all, instead of a sanction (or sanctions) we will (hopefully) have a court that finds the RIAA guilty - and then fined (etc) for their actions, leaving a precedent and (hopefully) well thought out decision by the judge as to why (based off the current status of things - as well as whatever new nonsense the RIAA comes up with in their defense). Inotherwords, keep handing the RIAA more rope... if handed enough, it will continue to make their stance even less tenable, and make this case even more important to others in a similar situation.
The end result (to the RIAA) will be the same... but the end result for others the RIAA tries to extort will be potentially immensely better; precedents and all, RIAA/MediaSentry found guilty (in standard court proceedings) of various criminal acts, etc...
If the RIAA/MediaSentry lose, then every similar attempt (at least in Florida - as well as in other states with similar investigatory oversight and laws) will constitute a second violation as well as potentially thumbing their noses at the judiciary (in regards to any rulings made "telling" them they cannot act in such fashion).
Just my understanding, with limited knowledge (ie: gleaned from /.) and no experience in the matter... though of course, even if my understanding is correct, that doesnt mean that all of the courts (or even this one) will ultimately uphold what is correct/legal, or the RIAA wont find a loophole or buy a law that protects them.
So, I'm happy with the way this is going (assuming the RIAA loses against the counterclaims) as I am sure the RIAA will continue to legally misstep and dig themselves into an even deeper hole that no judge or legal team will be able to dig them out of... more shovels anyone?
twitter, is that you? Do we all need to add yet another name to the "twitter alias list"?
:-)
So yes choosing somebody from the Slashdot crowd would be appropriate.
Well, with the difference being that MacGyver was knowledgeable and intelligent. The typical Slashdotter only thinks they're knowledgeable and intelligent.
I would have modded you "Insightful" - but then I realized that (being a "typical Slashdotter") you are referring to me as well - and I know I think I'm knowledgeable and intelligent!!! ;-)
Or perhaps MS theorized that they could take the stock value hit for this little escapade, full knowing that it would drop Yahoo's stock value considerably when this outcome was "decided upon" by Microsoft?
Of course that is just speculation/a possible alternate theory based off what happened. Either way, Microsoft, in one way or another, wins to some extent... either they own Yahoo, or Yahoo becomes "worth" less.
No... and I for one dont particularly care. This one was obvious, regardless of what Microsoft previously claimed. Either that, or they would be stuck waiting for BR's replacement and playing the same game all over again.
The simple answer to them announcing they are doing this (in relationship to the fact that they previously said they arent) is "Who cares? They are now... whether because they changed their minds or were lying or because one team (marketing) wasnt talking to the other team."
The more appropriate questions are, how will it work? How will it compare to the PS3's BR support? Will it really and truly, fully support BR 2 specs? How will it be integrated into the system? What features or capabilities will it either be lacking or have poorly implemented? What advantages are gained from the BR support? How will it affect current gaming delivery? Will it be fully backwards compatible with all previous releases? Will the changes mean less compatibility with xBox (non-360) releases, more or be irrelevant to that topic?
(I think) there are smarter aspects of this to discuss than "Gee they lied" or "Was it our business/right to know their plans months in advance?"
Yeah, I do think they could have been a little more vague in answering in the past... a simple "We will evaluate the decision on whether to include (or not) BR into future consoles" (or something similar). But then again, it is a good way to drive up stock prices when needed (for instance, in light of them dropping their Yahoo bid)... but that still has less relevance to the more important aspects/questions I outlined above... (at least in my opinion).
Does Microsoft have the right to know yours?Well, they seem to think so - but that's not relevant to this conversation (and there are tons of threads devoted to their advertising and data mining efforts and patents in that area, so I wont even go into it any further), so I am not sure what it's relationship is to BR and the xBox360... :-)
Indeed correct. The 8086 was considered too expensive in what turned out to be an already expensive investment (buying a PC with an 8088). Also, as IBM had no expectations of it's success at the lower costing 8088 PC's, I am sure that they expected even worse had they went ahead with the 8086.
You're (kinda) right... MS used to have others make (and brand in their name) good mice and keyboards for them (some were Logitechs, btw).
Of course, MS also "made" the xBox... just depends on the definition of the word "make"...
However, the new Microsoft mice and keyboards that I've tried out are not that good, really.I wonder who is making them these days - or if MS finally took over that chore?
People who work for bad companies tend to fit in there.
It's not so strange... it's called either (a) keeping your job (and they dont have a high retention rate), and/or (b) not knowing much (technically) beyond what the support docs on their screen tell them and thus not even realizing they are facilitating in this.
A perfect example was when I was a tech at CompUSA and we called HP to order a part. No, we didnt call the normal HP support line, we had a "Vendor Only" number.
US: "Hi, I'm calling because we need a new power supply for an HP Pavilion Piece of Crap (I think that was the model). The power supply is dead and not putting out power."
IDIOTS (I mean HP):"OK, what's the error code in PC Doctor."
US: "There is no error code... the power supply is dead and not outputting power, so the machine will not turn on, thus I cannot run PC Doctor and give you an error code. Besides, PC Doctor cannot diagnose a bad power supply."
HP: "Well, I still need an error code. You need to tell me what error PC Doctor has on the screen."
etc, etc, etc...
If you check the job listings in areas where Comcast operates, you will see that there is always demand for entry tech support (ie: the people on their end most of us would speak to)... meaning (my guess is) a high turnover rate. I have a feeling that some of their more tech saavy employees, as well as ones who figured out enough to understand what is going on (or just got fed up with their corporate culture), or those who refuse to act and become like Comcast corporate wants, either quit or get fired.
So, I am not necessarily sure that the "strangeness" applies to the customer service "peons"... I would say it should apply to their networking people though... and I would also use a stronger word than "strange" to describe their willingness to partake in such actions...
:-)
Even at 5-10 years away, the current 50% efficiency level still makes gas production through this method (far) cheaper than the current crude->gasoline method.
I never found any appearance of objectivity - at least not from the likes of Fox News and their cohorts. Are there really people who got fooled into thinking Fox and others were being objective? If so, then it is a sad day for the relative IQ of the U.S. populace...
And no, I dont watch Fox News (when I dont have to), but someone in my house does... I keep telling him it's more like the Fox Comedy Channel and that he can get a more accurate portrayal of news events from watching Comedy Central.
I prefer dirt... it doesnt squirm like a mouthful of termites.
Actually, there are plenty of methods of using one electric motor coupled to the drive train/shafts. I am not sure why you think it would require 4.
But regardless, there is still the battery issue - which I also will not touch - since someone else covered that nicely.
If you take into account ONE motor (as their concept car has, IIRC), and the battery options Rei noted, then you come out with a car that costs about as much (or slightly more) than Chrysler's current offerings. Do the math off that basis... a current drivetrain in a "conventional" car (transmission, engine) are not cheap... while on the other hand, even high end electric motors needed for such applications are cheap (in comparison)... leaving the difference in the cost of batteries. So, you are talking about a car that may be a few thousand dollars more. Not $170K more like you speculate.
And as for me... if I had the choice of buying a gas burning car for $20K... or an electric, 300 mile/charge car at $25K - or even $30K... I would choose the electric car, knowing I would easily make back up that money on not buying gas, and a far less expensive maintenance regime.
No oil changes, no tune-ups to speak of, no transmission tuneups, no air filter and oxygen sensor changes (checked the price on oxygen sensors for most cars lately?), no worries about EVER failing emissions tests... and of course no gas station stops to buy gas.
An average person who lives near me and commutes to the city 5 days a week (assuming they do nothing else with their car) spends over $4,000 a year on gas - and that's at 25mpg (keep in mind, even though they are getting there on the highways, it is not "highway driving" in the sense used for mpg ratings... they are going and coming during rush hour - which fits more in a vehicle's "city driving" mpg - thus 25mpg is probably high).
Now, figure the cost of recharging a car every 2-3 days... in 3 years (give or take) one would easily offset a $10K price difference... so even if Chrysler comes out heavy on their estimated price, it is still worth it... now factor in the differences in maintenance costs...
Then there are the added "fringe benefits" such as being able to drive in almost any HOV lane - even with no passengers (most states around here on the East Coast, as well as Cali, give out "Clean Pass" stickers so such cars can be driven in the HOV lane with only one occupant).
I'll start looking at electric cars when they can produce one that takes no more than 60 quid to charge from fully flat, can carry four or five large adults plus their luggage plus at least 200kg of equipment, and can average no less than 100mph for 350 miles on a charge. That would be getting close to being able to replace my ordinary car, assuming it's actually nice to drive and doesn't give me a numb backside.
Chrysler just announced such a car at the Detroit Auto Show (aired on TV a few days ago) - up to 250 miles on a charge, all electric, carries 4 plus luggage. They also claim it will be very inexpensive (normal car price for a car of it's class).
Now, if it IS real, I see it as something finally pushing other car manufacturers to follow suit. I'd see such a product forcing them to - IF (even though they announced a planned release year) it ever sees the light of day (which such "concept cars" never seem to).
I have a hard time believing that a startup like Tesla is the only company that could figure out how to get such mileage off an all electric car (especially since there are aftermarket kits that can get close to that mileage without all the fancy new technology using existing car structures). Especially considering that the major car companies spend many times the amount of money on R&D.
I am beginning to believe that 250-300 miles/charge isn't that difficult per se... but that the auto manufacturers have too much invested in their current production lines, servicing, distribution, service center training, etc to WANT to make an electric car for anyone other than the hobbyist (ie: 50 or so miles/charge).
And of course, others have speculated about the tie-ins with the oil/gas industry. (not saying I agree - or not)
And additionally, others have speculated on a (our) government not wanting to see affordable, long-range electric cars because of the large decrease in gas tax revenue that would result (and thus bankrupting most states). (not saying I agree - or not)
For whatever reasons, neither the car, oil, coal or other such industries seem to care about such things. That is evidenced by the ridiculous "Coal Initiative" (or whatever it is called) commercials on TV of late touting how great and clean burning coal is.
Or the recent oil ads I've seen in the paper talking about how oil heat in the home is the way to go - even over natural gas - and how clean it burns... (gee, you can vent many natural gas heaters INTO your house - and the only thing you have to worry about is oxygen depletion (thus the internally vented ones come with an oxygen sensor to prevent such)... anyone want to vent an oil furnace into their house?). Maybe some people have coal heaters in their house? I have no idea what they are comparing it to - cleaner than what? In my area, the choices are oil, propane or natural gas (or a fireplace/wood stove setup - which shouldnt even be in consideration in their scenario).
So in my area it would be natural gas, propane, oil, coal (with of course coal not being something used here for home heating... but that is the only way their claims make sense at all).
But the point is, all these commercials & ads - including the car companies talking about all their "green" initiatives (that we have yet to see bear fruition in any usable form) all seem to indicate no desire on actually getting there, while spinning the hell out of the situation to convince the average consumer that they are doing so well on such issues.
Them inserting any ads on my web space would not be benign for a couple reasons: (1) I dont know of any bot or script that would do so without damaging the layout (and it took long enough to get some of them to work in the various flavors of IE, and Safari, Firefox and Opera). and since I have my own ads on there, and charge based off the fact that I control the rate, frequency and number of ads displayed at a time, it would also hurt me financially.
Of course, that doesn't apply to most people... and of course I wouldnt be (and am not) using a service such as those (as I expect most serious people who host websites wouldnt).
So, yeah, you got a point...
Good question... though I am sure that they can claim it is an automated, non-selective process which might put things in their favor in such regards.
On a similar note, there was a lawsuit a while back about some ISP doing this (and violating the page owner's copyright - which I think got squashed because it was part of the agreement for the free service)... I wonder how something like that would go through today in this type of circumstance - or if the ISPs are going to start changing their TOS's as needed to cover this.
Hmmm... I think I really need to re-watch my episodes of Star Trek TOS... I know they covered the whole Ion Engine thing in one of them... THEN I can come back and comment intelligently on this topic.
I am really confused... let's see. Before Windows had "Internet Access" there was OS/2 which beat them out the door with it. Once Windows got Internet access (and before Internet Explorer), there was NetCom, various other dialups and AOL... NetCom and the dialups being one of the few that brought users onto the 'Net...
Then came Netscape (etc)...
...at which time, the Internet was so in it's infancy that phishing (by the definition on Wikipedia and elsewhere) did not exist or barely existed at all. There were less mechanisms for the more complex methods available today, and some mechanisms that existed both then and now (such as email) were in states that did not allow such things at that time.
Then MS bought Internet Explorer... then they eventually included it in Windows.
No matter how you look at it, Windows and Internet Explorer ARE the cause of phishing being as prevalent as it is.
One can blame it on the holes and lack of security in the platform or various versions of Internet Explorer...
Or one can blame it on the fact that it was due to Internet Explorer being integrated in Windows that the popularity of the Internet grew (of course, since Netscape owned the browser market at this time, that wouldnt be true)
Or one can blame it on the fact that the Internet is so popular because of a combination of PCs being so cheap and Windows dominance in the market (ie: mostly non-tech saavy users, who are the main cause of phishing problems/exploits).
Or one can blame it on a combination of 2 or more of the above (and others I havent mentioned) - but no matter how you look at it, phishing was not nearly the problem it is today (IF it even existed in anything we would even equate as the same thing in concept, or in definition).
Did you have a particular country in mind? :-)
I'd rather not say what country I would have in mind - if I were so inclined, that is... which I am not... really.
They've been using the "wire on a rocket" scenario in Florida for quite some time to "experiment" with lightning...
Dunno what they learned from it, or what they are doing now... just know I saw it on some science special (Discovery Channel, or Weather Channel or someplace like that).
Well, the other issue comes from storing that much electricity delivered in such a short period of time...
I think the problem may be the methods being used... I would think it more logical to try to drain such energy from the sky on a slower basis than to try to capture a lightning bolt...
But then again, I am no scientist...