I have 3 fanless desktops and you can build them quite cheaply if 65w cpus are enough for you. You can get a fanless seasonic power supply for 90 usd and use cpu cooler Artic Alpine 12 for 25 USD - the remaining components including the case can be quite standard
The "problem" of using a regular case for totally fanless setup is these cases are designed with a fan-generated air flow in mind. The cases designed for passive operation, like the DB4 try to generate some airflow by convection to compensate.
A setup like the one you describe can be quite OK (specially with modern hardware), but it may run kind of warm-ish due the lack of proper airflow (and heat kind of shortens life of electronic components in the long run). Worst case scenario, you can always install very low RPM fans to this setup.
I was wondering the same thing. His website[1] and the Wikipedia article[2] about him don not mention anything about his interest in network security. But he does seem to closely guard his personal life.
"all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed" -- Preamble of the declaration of independence
It is going to be very difficult to motivate people to change something... until a big part of population is starving I believe...
The problem is that telecom is already a heavy regulated area (for historical and technical reasons). Besides this, connecting to your competitor network is going to be always a rigged game, just a handful of players will connect between them, that leads to monopoly... So I think it is virtually impossible to setup your own new company... I live in France and it is quite interesting to see the raise of the provider Free.fr, quite impressive how they defied all other big companies... (Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with this ISP).
I used to live in France, DSL providers are a joke here. Verizon advertised $30 for single play (no phone, no television). In the end they added "fees" and taxes (what those are not included?), the price was $56 per month. The router is as shitty as it gets too. Now I moved and for $55 I have cable with optimum and it's way better. Still more expensive than Free, and still no tv/phone included.
Free has traffic shaping for anything going through their peering, but in particular apple and google.
Good luck using youtube via free's peering. it's nearly impossible. I don't know many people on free.fr that use youtube at all, because it's too terribly slow (1min load for 3s of video?). It's barely acceptable for things like google play downloads.
Why does Google continue to peer with them then? The whole point of peering vs. transit is that two networks will connect for free to each other to get better service.
I believe that there is a second and more dark intention in this proposal. Today Switzerland is part of EU but they still have quotas for "work permits" depending on the nationality of the worker, this goes against the principles of Schengen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement) and there is lot of pressure for Switzerland to remove these "quotas" (mainly against eastern European countries). The problem is that the wages there are way higher than other Schengen countries, and without the quotas there would be massive immigration to Switzerland that would lower sharply the wages for jobs that don't require higher education. So, IMO, Switzerland wants to give a minimum wage to create a "virtual block" to the poor countries of Schengen... (I am French and I live near the border)
edit to clarify: if you are a Swiss citizen you would earn your wage + state wage, and if you are an immigrant you would earn just your wage... making virtually impossible to afford living there (considering your wage =~ state given wage), only for very well paid jobs that this would make no difference.
Sorry, you are right, Switzerland is only part of Schengen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Area), but still the long term objective of the Schengen Area would be borderless trade, immigration, workforce, etc.
No, this is a separate problem. Free movement of labour is an EEA policy which permits nationals of one EEA country to work in another EEA country on the same conditions as that member state’s own citizens. "Same conditions" includes the right to the same benefits.
If Switzerland accepts the basic income, they would probably have to leave EEA or negotiate some pretty steep exceptions to its membership.
> Free movement of labour is an EEA policy which permits nationals of one EEA country to work in another EEA country on the same conditions as that member state’s own citizens. "Same conditions" includes the right to the same benefits.
Aside from the fact that Switzerland isn't an EEA member, Basic Income is not a condition or benefit of working in the country, it is (like, e.g., voting) a condition of citizenship unconnected with whether or not the citizen is working.
I agree with this in theory... but I know of at least one counter example: if you moved to Denmark, it would took 2 years (working or studying there) for you to considered a "resident" and be eligible to all state benefits as a Danish (at least was this way 7 years ago). I believe that it will be very interesting how they will solve this... they would need to add some barrier otherwise LOT of people will migrate to there... in France the minimum wage is around 1.400 euros for working 35 hours... people would even live in Switzerland and come to work in France or Italy...
I think your suspicion may well be correct in terms of how the proposal will develop. At present the referendum questions reads "Soll jeder Mensch in diesem Land die finanzielle Grundlage zum Leben bedingungslos erhalten?" (roughly, Should every person in this country be given the financial basis to live decently?), but Switzerland has a fairly strong anti-immigrant lobby, and I would expect to see that interpreted to exclude non-national residents.
Beyond the increase in rents, I would also expect a consequence to be for the tax regime to become less progressive (perhaps a flat tax rate) and more rigorously enforced. This might add up to making Switzerland an unattractive country for people to work who do not intend to take citizenship.
I use VLC in win7 (x64) and in ubuntu (x64). I usually watch my videos from a slow memory card or pendrive, because of this I try always to increase the file caching the in input codecs, first, I don't understand why it is limited to 6999ms, is there a reason (my machines have between 8gb to 32gb of ram, so would be nice to prefetch everything...)? and second, the volume is still with some lag... i guess because you pre-amplify it.. the lag is a real pity because makes it feels a way worse player... still it is my favorite player! so thanks!
IMO, there is some kind of correlation between efficiency in the economy and the inequality in the society. I believe that it is part of the government job to reduce the inequality... but the devil is on the details on how to do it.
Wouldn't inequality make efficiency worse? On an individual level, it would seem that poverty makes your life less efficient -- you end up treating your own time as less valuable, and so you do less productive things, such washing out your paper towels to reuse them, using more energy and water in the process than was used to manufacture them in the first place. When if you had more income, you could, hypothetically, do more productive things? Or would you just around watching Netflix more?
Poverty != inequality, provided poverty refers to a fixed material standard of living (which is how you seem to be using it, since you are referring to specific material goods).
To illustrate the point, consider India and the US. India has little inequality but lots of poverty (if we take the 5'th percentile of the US as the poverty line, then 95% of India is poor). The US has lots of inequality but little poverty.
Poverty is inefficient, sure. But inequality is also inefficient. Paying someone to work private security for example. There are better uses for human labor.
In my opinion there are 2 main issues with Biometrics:
- The first is that it may identify you with precision but it can not tell your will, so basically, you can force someone to use the sensor.
- The second issue is that it does not allow you to give authorization to a third party in exceptional situations.
and third: You can't change whatever attribute of yours is being measured when the data leaks out by accident. And fourth: You always share the same attribute with every service identifying you.
We've already seen password databases being compromised. If that happens, you change your password and move on. If biometric data leaks out, you a) can't change your attribute and b) you will have shared that attribute with other parties.
To me, that seems to suggest that biometrics aren't really passwords (which are private, and authenticate you), so much as they are usernames (which are public, and identify you.)
Just like a username, you can know/have someone else's thumbprint, and "type it in" for the identification phase of login. And just like a username, you need a password in addition, in order to test that you're really who you say you are.
The main difference is that biometrics, unlike usernames, are unique to a person (two people in separate places can't decide to use the same thumbprint without knowing about each-other), so there's no equivalent to trying to log into a machine by using the top 50 most common username+password combinations. In other words, biometrics can always be compromised by HUMINT, and sometimes, given a flawed implementation, by SIGINT--but they're completely immune to MASINT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_and_signature_intel...).
Another way to think about it: fingerprints and the like are pretty much UUIDs you're assigned at birth. Just like a textual UUID, anyone who can read it can replicate it or retransmit it fairly easily. There's no security there. What there is, is collision-prevention. Nobody will be using a UUID you just generated unless they're trying to collide with it, specifically. If they just generate their own UUIDs, they'll never pick yours by coincidence. Much easier to detect and flag malicious logins once you can be sure that there's no chance of accidental collisions (e.g., someone just typing in their username-on-some-other-machine that happens to be already owned by someone else on this one.)
plus your biometric data may change over time. what do you do for those unfortunate edge cases where someone has an eye infection or a skin rash?
plus it costs a lot more to install, maintain and verify.
plus you can 'steal' someones biometric data without their knowledge (eg. from coffee cups, pictures etc.) without any real defense short of never opening your eyes or touching anything without gloves on.
plus they rely on heuristics and this lack of determinism means that either there will be false positives or false negatives. both cause issues.
... but at least it looks cool. biometrics does have that going for it.
