Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Dust and Bugs (Score 1) 252

        Everyone is going off on the humidity - that's the least of your problems. Assuming that it's a non-condensing atmosphere (i.e. fog), the warmth in the box will keep any additional condensation from happening and the box will run fine.

        High temperature may be an issue. I live in Phoenix, and putting a server outside is, well, not the worlds best idea. If you live somewhere where the high temps in summer are less than 90 degrees, you're probably fine from a temperature standpoint.

        Bugs and dust will be the big problems. Solve those, and you'll be good to go.

        I've built boxes before that housed computers in my garage. I made'em out of plywood, made them reasonably airtight, and put muffin fans on one end, pulling outside air through a high-quality air filter (http://www.amazon.com/20x30x1-19-5x29-5-Filter-Furnace-Filters/dp/B00GBJIENE), and put exhausts (wire-covered) on the other side. Worked fine through several summers where the garage got up into the high 90's, didn't have any problems with bugs or dust or component failures.

        The two or 4 disk NAS boxes are a great size for this kind of thing. My current home server is an ancient 4-bay Buffalo Terastation case, that I ripped the motherboard out of and replaced it with a low-power 12-volt motherboard (ASRock Q1900DC-ITX) and installed FreeNas on it. Works great, and something like that would work remarkably well for your needs.

        Good luck, and don't listen to the crybabies.

Comment: Re:Coal kills people in different ways (Score 2) 224

by FrankSchwab (#48955821) Attached to: Nuclear Safety Push To Be Softened After US Objections

Well, a quick Google search shows you wrong - there is well-documented research into the amount of radioactivity in coal plant emissions. As an example, USGS: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html
EPA: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/coalandcoalash.html
and others.

Is it an issue? The released radioactivity from a coal plant is up to 100 times that of a nuclear power plant - but those emissions are so ludicrously low that you can treat it as (100 * 0) = 0. There really isn't a health issue from the emissions.

Mercury, Sulfur, Nitrogen, sure - Radioactivity, not so much.

Comment: Re: Problems with the staff (Score 4, Insightful) 181

by FrankSchwab (#48950031) Attached to: The Pirate Bay Is Back Online, Properly

You have a weird definition of "virus" and "malware".

In my world, Malware includes everything that gets installed on your machine (surreptitiously or not) that does "bad" things ("mal" = (french) bad, evil). That would include worms, viruses, rootkits, unwanted toolbars, home page redirectors, Stuxnet, Cryptolocker, and just about every other form of third-party computer abuse.
Virus is a subset of malware. /frank

Comment: Re:Start menu usage dropped in lieu of what? (Score 2) 269

by FrankSchwab (#48028979) Attached to: Microsoft's Asimov System To Monitor Users' Machines In Real Time

Some people use shortcut keys to launch applications. Some don't.
Some people put icons on the desktop. Some don't.
Some use the menu. Some don't.
Some use the task bar. Some don't.

I don't use shortcut keys.
I put icons on the desktop for apps I use once a week.
I use the start menu for apps I run seldom (like IE).
I pin daily apps to the task bar.

I guess the only point is that people aren't binary - with multiple ways of doing things, different people have different weights that they apply to each method to help them do things the way they work. Many of them don't use exclusively a single approach.

One of the big failings of Windows 8 was ignoring this, and forcing a single, completely different way of working on people.

Comment: Re:I don't get it (Score 1) 79

Someone wanted to deliver content via webserver and then sue people who received this delivery as violating copyright?

Amazing.

They seem to be saying that, in addition to displaying the content on your screen, your browser also writes a copy into its cache, and that's two copies.

I wonder what they'd say of, say, a RAID1 file system, which makes two copies of the cached page, on two different disks. Would that mean two violations of the copyright? And if, after sending it from the screen to your eyes, the information in your brain is a third violation?

It's even worse. From the copy on the screen, each of your eyes makes another copy on its retina.

And on the technical side, all the routers temporarily put the data into a buffer. So it causes one extra copyright infringement for every router the data passes.

Comment: Re:Wait (Score 1) 153

by maxwell demon (#47122371) Attached to: Study: Stop Being So Cynical, You Could Give Yourself Dementia

Less than 1% of the electricity generated in the US is from oil. Solar and Wind only generate electricity.
So well under 1% of all oil is used to generate electrical power. It was less the 2% of all oil in 2004 and has gone down to under 1% of the oil used in the US.

What you say may be true. As non-American I'm not terribly interested in the details of the American energy mix. Indeed, before that post, I couldn't even know which county you are from, so even with perfect knowledge of the American energy mix I could not have decided on the truth of that statement.

But your definition of "stupid" is wrong. "Stupid" is not the same as "uninformed", "misinformed" or "wrong".

And you just flunked your skeptic and critical thinking test.

There was no critical thinking test. I didn't make any statement about the energy situation of the US or any other country. I only made a statement about your use of "stupid".

1. You assumed you knew the truth.

I didn't assume to know the truth of the statement. I did (and still do) assume I know the truth about the meaning of "stupid". And your use of that word doesn't fit that meaning.

2. You failed to question the truth.

OK, I indeed didn't consult a dictionary (but I'm convinced you didn't either). Well, let's do now (I omit the pronounciation and ethymology parts):

stupid I a: slow of mind: obtuse b: given to unwise decisions or actions 2: dulled in feeling or sensation 3: marked by or resulting from dullness: senseless (a stupid mistake) 4: dreary, boring (a stupid plot) [Source: Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary]

None of those fits your use of stupid.

3. spouted off without doing any research.

Yes, I did not do any research on the meaning of "stupid". Nor did you, apparently.

4. You trusted without question those that told you that Solar and Wind would reduce our dependence on foreign oil when it is less than 1% of our oil use.

Does not apply. I didn't make a statement about wind and solar energy, I made a statement about your use of "stupid".

5. I am willing to bet that you are proud of your critical thinking skills and consider yourself an enlightened skeptic yet you showed none of those skills.

While I do think I have some critical thinking skills, I certainly didn't need to use them on your comment. Basic language knowledge was sufficient. In that sense I agree that I didn't show any critical thinking skills in my reply, because there was no critical thinking skill needed or sufficient.

You better think about what your answer says about your critical thinking skills.

There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson

Working...