Do yourself a favor and order a Shuttle DS437, I bought one myself and cannot think of a better little box for playing with embedded systems. Here's why:
- Its small -- about the size of a 5.25" disk drive.
- Its low-power -- not as low as you'd like -- but less than 20watts under load for the system. Its passively cooled.
- It takes a 12v barrel-plug from a standard 65watt laptop power adapter (included) -- easy to replace anywhere in the world. Also good if the impetus for your low-power requirement is an exotic wish, like being able to run the system from battery or solar.
- Its relatively inexpensive -- about $200 from Amazon.com, and qualifies for Prime shipping. You'll need to add storage and RAM, but maybet have some DDR3 so-dimms and a spare 2.5" drive kicking around from an old laptop.
- Its got two DB9 Serial ports, right on the front. Handy!
- Its a modern system: 64bit, dual-core, Ivy Bridge, SSE 4.2, supports up to 16GB ram.
- Connectivity: VGA/HDMI, USB 3.0, USB 2.0, dual gigabit NICs, Wireless N WiFi
- Storage options: you've got one mSata slot and one 2.5" sata drive. I've got a 128GB SSD in the mSata slot, and a 500GB magnetic drive installed
- It took Ubuntu 14.04 without any significant fuss. Most things worked out of the box. I'm not a linux super expert, but got the rest working within an hour or so.
It's "only" 1.8Ghz, but we're talking Ivy Bridge here, not some wimpy Atom or ARM core. Plus, in my experience you really want x86 for your host machine. Not every compiler or tool you might want to use is going to be supported on, say, a lower-powered ARM system.
I considered a lot of exotic ARM boards as my development host, including BeagleBone, Jetson-K1, and a handful of others. I think the D437 leads by a wide margin, but for what its worth I considered the Jetson-K1 board a distant runner-up.
I'm not one to roll over to this sort of fraud myself, but I have little faith that identity wouldn't simply shift the solution to the 'problem' of the people's will in a different, and likely violent, direction.
But I think there's another way that doesn't necessitate full-on-disillusion. Its not just that government interests are spread so widely, its that they have *so many* (sometimes localized) interests spread far and wide. The government is like four bakers stretching a pizza dough overhead at arms length from each other, then insisting that the pizza *needs* 50lbs of toppings to make everyone happy. One could give up and have the four bakers each make their own pizza for a different demographic. Or, one might simply not put 50lbs of shit on one big-ass pizza.
A federal government with a much lighter footprint than what we have today could serve the *actual* common interest of the 50 states well. That was the original idea, after all, and it did reasonably well for approaching 200 years. Then the feds started seizing more power from the states, and the states did nothing about it because they're dependent on big-daddy government's pocket-book. I agree wholeheartedly that a return of power to the states, with a corresponding shrink in the size of the federal government is needed. I think if that happens, it actually would solve the problems we see today, obviating the need to dissolve the federation, and leave the federation of states (Remember people, that's what "Federal Government" means: A federation of the states!) to perform the functions it was meant to.
In my mind, it would be evil for Google to tell me I can't serve up or consume certain kind of (legal) content or to degrade my service while I am, but its not evil for them to not want me serving up 75TB/mo on my residential-class fiber connection that costs me 39.99/mo. Granted, if they sell me a package that's billed as "unlimited" then that's on them and they can stick it, but if they offer a limited, cheaper service for the masses, and a more-expensive, less-restrictive plan for those that want to pay for it, then its reasonable for them to want to get paid for it.
Offer unlimited downstream bandwidth, and a reasonable, loosely-enforced upstream cap that won't raise a flag for normal usage. When a user consistently goes over, call them up and find out what's what, then just raise their cap because they actually are just doing a lot of something reasonable, or bump their cap for a fee if they're doing something that needs to be done under a different plan. Problem solved.
Anyone who doubts the authenticity of Snowden's information, or the level of access he had in his position, need only look at the effort being expended by this government to reel him in to cast all doubt aside.
I would at least applaud them for being internally-consistent, if it weren't for the fact that they're only consistent against the ideals this country is supposed to hold dear.
Mother Theresa would 3D print destitite people suffering from horrible diseases, so that she could lock them away in 'hospice' where they will be denied medical care, pain management, and be denied visitors -- even their 3D printed family.
Ghandi would print naked, pre-pubescent girls to sleep with, so that he can 'prove his piety'.
Come on Slashdot, what's with the softball questions?
You know what, I want to live in a society without the outsize effect that Texas has on science textbooks throughout the country. I don't always get what I want either. So stop pretending that you moralists are so damn persecuted. At the end of the day, we might just have to agree to disagree, and get on with our own lives.
And really? You're jumping to kiddie porn and nazi comparisons? Congratulations, you've stooped to the same level as those who want to ban gay marriage because, obviously, making that legal will inevitably lead to polygamy, child brides, and bestiality.
We don't outlaw child porn because of its "negative effects on society" -- we outlaw it because of the negative effects on the child. We've decided that minors don't have the capacity to understand the consequences of engaging in that activity and that they are subject to coercion into such acts. If we do not believe the can participate of their own informed free will, then the only other option for production of such material is sexual assault of some form. Therefore, its outlawed. There's also the social stigma aspect, leading to decisions in courts such as that computer-simulated child porn is still, legally, child porn, but at its core it is stigma and *fear* that legalizing it would encourage people to engage in child sexual abuse, but that is not a proven link -- there's little research, and its far from conclusive.
Here's another little something that will blow your mind -- in a handful of states it is legal for 16-year-olds to perform in strip clubs. I don't particularly think that's a good thing either, but there's no evidence that child sexual abuse is any greater in those states, much less any causal link between the two.
As for holocaust, et al, fine, we agree, Nazis = BAD. I encourage you in your crusade against Nazis and naked girl-bits. In America you have the freedom and liberty to voice your opinion, make your case, and possibly influence policy, and all the while you're free to postulate, bitch, and whine about The Bad Thing, and even tell the rest of us what horrible, ignorant people we must be to not see it--But you damn certain don't get to just magic away our exercise of free will and infantilize us all. Under the German regime and the propaganda-induced fervor over ever-simmering anti-semitism, not enough Germans came out an opposed what was going on, or ignored it for fear of retribution or death. I've got a Hitler comparison of my own though--one of the things he did first to grab power and hold influence, was to persecute people for exercising their freedom of speech. When you give those with power the ability to determine what speech is protected, they will invariably use that power to persecute dissent--that is why it's so critical to preserve this freedom in the utmost, even when people use it to express unpopular or negative views. The constitution affirms us many rights, but the right to not be offended is not among them.
If you want things to change, stand in front of a mirror somewhere, give yourself a good BraveHeart speech, and go campaign for change. Battling your points on in internet forum will get you nowhere -- but know that I and millions of other Americans will gladly meet you on the battlefield of public policy, and I'd wager you'll face much longer odds than old William Wallace ever did.
What does that contribute?
No my friend, you can't just turn the tables here when you get backed into a corner. If you would seek to take something away from me and a couple hundred million other Americans, the onus is on you to prove that thing is harmful--the onus does not fall to us to justify our own personal choices. That very notion is the crux of true freedom and true liberty.
So, name the harm, prove it, quantify it, prove it is universal, and then justify that taking it away is the only way to curb these negative effects you claim, because simple regulation wouldn't do so. I await your case.
>> If I want to live in a porn-free society, that's my only option. Are you OK with that?
[sarcasm]If your unporn is that important to you, it's a small sacrifice.[/sarcasm]
Do you see just how fucking ridiculous of a suggestion relocation is, now?
But I honestly don't expect this kind of reasoning to go anywhere, since the argument began with your suggestion that free speech should be protected by limiting it.
If you don't like the way the majority sees things, you just move? And that's perfectly reasonable? If other things, like my family, friends, job, and the life I've built are *so important* to me, I should willingly give up other less-important but perfectly harmless things, because you and some other fools don't like it? What if your job were outsourced and you had trouble finding work that was as satisfying? No problem, right? You should just accept it and move to Mexico?
I'm not making a direct comparison here, because those are two different things, but I would argue that I've got more inherent right to enjoy porn if I want to, than for you to have security in a job that you enjoy. I'm just trying to get you to think about how ridiculous of a suggestion it is that someone should-not choose, but be forced to (a very important distinction)-relocate to in order to maintain some aspect of their life that's harmless.
Windows 8 is hands down a better OS than Windows 7. It's faster, it's lighter, it has better security, it manages memory better, it has some great features that same-level Windows 7 doesn't--like BitLocker and Storage Spaces-- hell, gamers are even seeing small performance gains (~4%, but good for an extra frame or two per second.)
Plus, if you *really* still hate the Start Screen, there's software from StarDock and others that add a very good start menu back to the classic desktop, and very-nearly transform Win8 into a Win7 doppelganger.
I just mean that if you aren't philosophically opposed to Windows as a whole, then foregoing Windows 8 is akin to buying last year's model of your preferred automobile just because you don't like the paint on this year's model -- You're giving up enhanced functionality for what is essentially aesthetics.