Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - Core i7 5960X + X99 Motherboards Start Mysteriously Burning Up->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: Intel's Haswell-E Eight-Core CPU and X99 motherboards just debuted but it looks like there may be some early adoption troubles leading to the new, ultra-expensive X99 motherboards and processors burning up. Phoronix first ran a story about their X99 motherboard having a small flame and smoke when powering up for the first time and then Legit Reviews also ran an article about their motherboard going up in smoke for reasons unknown. The RAM, X99 motherboards, and power supplies were different in these two cases. Manufacturers are now investigating and in at least the case of LR their Core i7-5960X also fried in the process.
Link to Original Source

Comment: This was a good idea... in theory (Score 1) 364

by Kilo Kilo (#47420669) Attached to: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane To Nowhere
Having all the branches use the same plane should have been a cost saver. Only develop one plane, same parts, same training, etc. Except the different branches need different planes for different jobs. So we're going to take one plane and then alter it into a few different models.

I used to design fire engines. I learned a lot of really good lessons about designs and specifications. You have to define the roles for your machine. If it is going to do more than one task, which task is more important? We had a lot of customers that were combining two old trucks into one new one. That was fine as long as they understood that it wouldn't do either job as well as a truck that was specifically built for one task. We usually saw this with small towns who couldn't afford to keep running two trucks because of a limited budget. The US Govt, is not a small town. They definitely had enough money to keep their fighters, ground attack and other warplanes as different models, especially since there wasn't a whole lot wrong with them.

Flawed concept aside, this program has been horribly managed, that's where the real problems come in. Lockheed didn't even finish designing and testing the planes before they started production. Then they start jacking the price up and soon we come to our current situation.

Now I work for a place that actually makes parts for the F-35. As far as the "save all the jobs" part of Lockheed's argument, we'd be just fine without it. In fact, most of the surrounding community doesn't even know what we make or care how much we get paid for it.

Comment: Re:Ellsberg got a fair trial (Score 1) 519

This entire discussion is about the fact that he won't get a fair trial. He would definitely get a trial if he came back and he would most certainly be convicted because as you pointed out, he's confessed to his crimes. He would be arrested and held until the trial, then held until his appeal. If he loses his appeal, then he will likely be in prison for the rest of his life. No one really wants to put themselves through all that especially since there is nothing to gain from his imprisonment.

The issue here is that the law differs from what is morally wrong. Therefore, the law should be changed. We don't need to cause suffering to people for pointing out wrongdoings solely on the argument of "the law is the law."

Also, your possible positive outcomes are extremely unlikely with our current government.

Comment: Re:Wait... (Score 1) 255

by Kilo Kilo (#47100267) Attached to: Chelsea Clinton At NCWIT: More PE, Less Zuckerberg

I'm saddened to say I agree with you.

I'll second this. The Republicans can't put up anyone decent, so the Dems really don't have to try. I live in NY and I was shocked that she was elected as a Senator since she never lived here before deciding to run for the seat. She literally just walked in and said, "I'll represent this state that I don't live in," and won. This was some weird combination of the Republicans running a moron and people saying, "Bill Clinton did such a good job, his wife will do a good job too." The same thing could happen for his daughter.

Comment: Re:Two things... (Score 2) 107

by Kilo Kilo (#46950493) Attached to: ACLU and EFF Endorse Weaker USA Freedom Act Passed By Committee
He was making a generalization, but there is a valid point in there. Most people will blindly reelect their congressman because they bring home pork for their district even if they voted for the Kill Puppies, Spy on Americans and Piss in the Drinking Water Act. Your congressman seems to be an exception because he actually cares about stuff like this.

Comment: Re:A firearm that depends on a battery? (Score 1) 1374

by Kilo Kilo (#46890045) Attached to: "Smart" Gun Seller Gets the Wrong Kind of Online Attention
I see what you're getting at, but they're not really the same thing, although in either case if the battery dies, you might too. The difference is that the pacemaker is on all the time and the gun isn't. When the battery dies in the pacemaker, you know right away. If the battery dies in the gun, you might not notice it until you go to use it.

And most people aren't very good about checking the condition of their batteries. There's a good story from the next town over where the Fire Dept went to a heart attack and grabbed the AED only to find out that the battery died. These events might only happen once in a lifetime, but people would prefer to avoid taking the chance by simply removing the electronics from the equation.

I'm sorry, I forgot that we were talking about guns. This is no place for logical arguments.

Comment: Re:This is more than a little bit naive. (Score 2, Insightful) 712

The article is a summary of a larger proposal. Even in the article, they state that power generation will be transitioned to other fuels / sources, workers retrained, etc.

There's no mention of how they plan on doing this.

What are you going to retrain the workers to do? How are you going to "create job opportunities and prosperity for coal-based communities" ? There's nothing substantial in this article. These people think that they can replace coal overnight with unicorn farts and sunshine.

The coal industry is bad for the environment. Yeah, we get it. However, it's a major part of the economy and one of the leading producers of electricity. While trying to transition from coal is a noble intent, there's nothing of value in this article. There isn't any plan, there isn't even a good premise.

The article starts by saying "Would you make a one time $50 (£31) investment to save $100-500 each year?" Then it goes on to talk about the "benefits" that buying out the coal industry has. This isn't a good comparison. If I make an investment, I want a return on that investment, not some intangible benefits. If I want intangible benefits like a warm fuzzy feeling, it's called charity. Now, there's nothing wrong with charity, but TFA starts out talking about investments so now they're just misleading the reader.

They go on to talk about coal's "dark future" and how it's a "dead end industry." Ok, so let it die. There's no need to blow $50B on a "dead end industry."

Time to take stock. Go home with some office supplies.

Working...