KCLUG

kclug@kclug.org

4 participants
3291 discussions

Say "Bye-Bye SCO!"
by Julie 20 Sep '07

20 Sep '07

Check this out: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&art… Julie @};- --------------------------------- Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.

7 8

anti-office XML as iso standard petition
by David Nicol 20 Sep '07

20 Sep '07

http://www.noooxml.org/petition

1 0

Linux backup and restore server project- several particulars needed.
by Oren Beck 19 Sep '07

19 Sep '07

Let me start by saying I know there are packages to do much if not all of this already. Concise statement of a non-trivial larger concept is to have a Linux server make timed backups of several windows systems in a zero user interaction format- and be able to remote restore those boxes equally "no user assist" required. Expanding the short concept as : Backups being BOTH data AND drivers etc. Restore as being from a file up to a drive wipe and reload using some image system. The simple explanation is to make supporting windows boxes a bit less painful. The expanded explanation is as "life support" while beginning a migration to Linux. The reason is that having such a system in place also becomes a pre-migration tool. Imagine doing a ms to LNX migrate where the majority of system users would already have server resident current recently checked backups before you arrive onsite? This is one way to make that possible. OR the much more mundane target of being a data resurrection for non geeks Here's where it gets potentially real rewarding. CAN this group we make up work together on making such a beast? My initial project vision is to break it down to baby steps. One bite ones. First bite being a method of scripting the backups and archiving them. That means defining WHAT gets grabbed from where when etc rules and namespace conventions to make admin less painful. Since many windows users are schiziod in their file naming we have to be mindful of that. Second Bite being creating the restore method/s. Ranging from a web menu to ? Third is assembling a crude demo tabletop setup for degubbing. While it's quite psychotic to even joke about- what a mindblower it would be at ITEC if we had a demo going. Just how fast CAN a network "drive image restore" of Ubuntu with the data from a typical windows cubicle farmer's level be run? that's to say - power up with formatted blank drive to fully usable Ubuntu with local copies of files? Showing that we can image up a Ubuntu workstation and have productive work restared faster than one could restore windows would be a kudo for Linux eh? Oren

7 6

SCO meets Karma.
by Oren Beck 17 Sep '07

17 Sep '07

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS7338075434.html

1 0

(no subject)
by Jared Smith 17 Sep '07

17 Sep '07

>Can anybody recommend an easy and simple online voting script? No one is answering, so: Assuming that you are referring to the online voting which is common on web portals, here is a link or two which might help. If not, go to sourceforge or freshmeat and search/browse for entirely free options, or hotscripts.com for some which are free and some which you will pay for. I like hotscripts because they review and rank the entries, and have a comprehensive listing. Good place to start for a request like yours. However, sponsored items show up first when you search; scroll down to see the free software. Haven't seen these work, but they look to be "easy and simple": http://hypersilence.net/silentum_poll.php http://www.stadtaus.com/en/php_scripts/voting_script/ Found these on hotscripts within 120 seconds, whereas sourceforge was a little less fruitful in the same amount of time. . . -Jared :)

1 0

Re: Have you seen this!?! Burning saltwater
by Joe Fish 15 Sep '07

15 Sep '07

Not saying it's impossible, BUT, as a friend of mine on this list often used to say to me, I'm from Missouri. Ya gotta show me. I do *hope* this is a viable solution, though the reality is (notwithstanding claims from people trying to sell you on the idea of something they want to sell you someday) hydrogen in gaseous form is KNOWN to leak from WHATEVER container it's put in at a somewhat-alarming rate -- and this site doesn't even MENTION anything about leakage, at least not that I found in a quick perusal. Car companies think plugging your car in is too much hassle for Americans? How do they think we'll react, then to letting it sit for 3 days and coming back to find a full tank half-emtpy? I think if there's a solution to be had, its in storing hydrogen in the vehicle in some chemical form in which its far easier to separate out than it is in water. There's been some progress in research on this front, storing the hydrogen in some sort of solid (?!?) pellets (maybe combined with magnesium somehow? I forget, but you can Google and find it, I'm sure.). But its still just that ... RESEARCH. The other problem is that the site doesn't go into how much detail about just how many solar panels you're gonna need to create enough electrical power to electrolyze enough hydrogen to power a SINGLE one-family car, much less to think of doing for hydrogen as some sort of large-scale infrastructural solution. The fact that they're NOT talking about this HUGE stumbling block to their "near-zero-cost" transportation energy solution makes me a bit skeptical of their other claims ... to say the least. I forget the number, but you can look up the square footage for the Honda FCX one-family pilot project in California -- I think its something like 1700 square feet (!) of solar panels to create enough hydrogen to power that one family's car (they fill up about once a week). This isn't a function of how you store it or any of that crap, its simply that it takes a HUGE amount of electrical power to electrolyze a quantity of hydrogen sufficient for pushing a 2000-pound car around for a week using fuel cells -- power that could be put on the grid and stored in batteries much more efficiently, at least with technology available TODAY. If the tech from the OP greatly reduces the amount of energy required for this process, then maybe we're onto something, though we STILL have the problems of infrastructure (platinum for fuel cells is a biggie) and storage. The point is, like the saying goes, this stuff has all been 30 years away from being viable for the last 30 years, kinda like computer AI ... except a longer time period. My opinion is that, in the short-to-near term, our only viable big-ticket-item solution that stands ANY chance of getting us through this go-around of the energy crunch is CONSERVATION, much as we Americans (and our over-inflated senses of entitlement) might not like to think about what that entails. JOE On 9/12/07, Geoffrion, Ron P [IT] <Ron.Geoffrion(a)sprint.com> wrote: > > >> And don't even get me STARTED on how impractical hydrogen-as-a-fuel is > in terms of STORAGE losses ... > > Umm...from http://unitednuclear.com/ Research and Devlopment site. > > http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm > > Quoting the site: > May 22nd, 2007: > > > Our Hydrogen Fuel System is not yet available for sale. There are legal > problems with several components of the unit which is preventing its sale. > Until the legal proceedings are complete, we won't be moving forward > the system. > Thank you all for your emails & support. The legal action is due to the > actions of the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) attempting to > remove the necessary chemicals used in this system from public use. > > > > > "Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve > neither security nor liberty." > > -Benjamin Franklin > > Unquote. > > > > Thanks, > > Ron Geoffrion > 913.488.7664 > > > > >

5 8

Job Opp rnd 2
by Phoenician 14 Sep '07

14 Sep '07

Hey guys, If you responded to my original post in regards to a job opportunity and you did NOT get a response from me please respond with a subject line of 'Job Opportunity'. For whatever, reason ASSP felt some of you were spammers. ;) Also please include your resume. I place more value on real world experience than on certifications (but they do help). I will accept words, PDF, text and Open Office formats. Basic Info: I am in need of people that are comfortable work on Windows Servers, desktops, networks. Due to the nature of the job customer service and communication skills are almost as important as the server knowledge. Just about every day will be a new challenge - We get called to make miracles happen (at least once a week). The job also requires traveling around the metro, the bulk of it is north of the river and downtown KC. I would also like to take advantage of any *nix experience as well. Cool Points - Knowledge of sendmail and/or equiv MTA, Knowledge of DNS, and any Cisco experience. Thank you, Michienne Dixon

1 0

(no subject)
by jared＠hatwhite.com 13 Sep '07

13 Sep '07

>Its called EROEI -- Energy Returned On Energy Invested .... Invested, not >Input -- if it were INPUT, all fuels would have EROEI's of less than 1. As >it turns out, using current techniques and technologies, EROEI for hydrogen >is FAR LESS than 1, while oil is probably more like in the range of 30 to >100 (depending mainly on the grade of oil, depth, and extraction method). >Now, in terms of EROEI, there are several things that have greater-than-one >values that are NOT fuels, such as windmills and solar panels and wave >generators -- we can make these on a relatively "cheap" energy budget, then >use them to HARVEST energy that WE (humans) don't have to invest ... >because it comes from the sun, or from gravitational forces, in the case of >wave energy. This is an important statement because you are showing how, by shifting to another domain, energy becomes "free" (EROEI > 1). It's not actually free, but it appears so because we're utilizing a resource which replenishes without any significant material effort of our own. Now take this same principle, and shift the domain to THE ONE IMMEDIATELY GREATER THAN THIS ONE. It has no name, because we just created it, and it is theoretical at this point. That means that all basic assumptions can be refactored, because the thought experiment is entirely theoretical, and anything can happen. Just as changing a single axiom of Euclidean geometry changes EVERYTHING, we can do the same for this mess of assumptions we have inherited. And we can do so "six times before breakfast," as the saying goes. For example, the assumption that there is no such thing as overunity is really just an extremely well established assumption, so well established that it is assumed a "law" but in fact, it is nothing more than a very well accepted assumption. Go:del proved in mathematics that _any_ well-developed system cannot prove some of its own assumptions, and therefore they must be accepted without proof, meaning that we accept them on a basis which is really quite similar to "faith." Once this enters the thought experiment anything is possible. And yet all of this is entirely logical so far. Once anything is possible, then it is easy to shift into the domain immediately greater than the present one (which everyone 'assumes' is the one and only true one, until someone like Copernicus comes along and says "well actually we're all entirely wrong..."). Thus by using plain and simple logic and the ability to apply principles in different domains, we can create the appearance of a system where E > mc2. Within our current set of assumptions, it will appear that we can acquire greater energy than mass times the speed of light squared. But within the greater set of assumptions, E is still operating as we currently understand it. Remember this is all theoretical so far. I hope at least one person is following the logic, because by using this line of thinking, we can: 1. Realize that our current concept of light is flawed, and it is actually a gas in a larger system. 2. See that whatever is a gas can become a liquid, and whatever is a liquid can become a solid. 3. Wonder what happens when light becomes a solid (instead of gaseous "particles" which behave in a wave pattern by some measurements) -- a completely solid block of light. Like a quark star? Maybe. Who knows. 4. Begin experimenting with ways to achieve a solid light state, and thus create (or find) a resource which has so vastly much more energy than we can comprehend now, that it might as well be considered "infinite" for all our ability to measure it. 5. Convert a tiny amount of this "infinite" supply of energy into supplying the entire grid capacity of the planet earth, and do away with those pesky oil zealots using entirely peaceful means. Kind of like refrigerators did away with the ice zealots... or, manufacture a "suitcase" variety, selling it cheaply to the masses, and become richer than Bill Gates squared. Hmmm. Cubed. The basic idea is that, instead of working within the limitations of our current system, which we can call "linear and categorical" for its obvious inability to go beyond its own crude limitations -- break out of the box, and look at things holographically, that is, from all directions at once. Then we don't have to put up with one Einstein per century, we can handle fifty or sixty of them per decade. Or of course, you can stay within your inherited assumptions, never questioning them, and forcing everyone who questions them into belief by cursing, insulting, and pounding on the table. -Jared

7 9

Re:
by Joe Fish 13 Sep '07

13 Sep '07

No, I can't, that was my point. I've read that there is conjecture that there may be conditions where it does not -- such as before the big bang, during a "Big Crunch". In other words, assuming the Universe existed before The Big Bang, there had to exist some means of getting the universe to the state it was at the beginning of The Big Crunch -- and if the universe that existed sometime before that event was like ours (ie, always INCREASING in entropy), then there are those that philosophize that there must be some conditions in which that "old" universe went from a state of higher entropy (like our universe now) to a state of lower entropy, or higher "order", ie, the perfectly-ordered universe that consisted of all matter and energy at on millionth of a pinpoint spot and the rest of all space-time consisting of utter nothingness. As I said, this is more a matter for quantum physicists and philosophers (I sometime wonder if there is a difference ... ;^) than it is for me. As an engineer, I consider the 2nd Law to be just that ... a LAW. JOE On 9/12/07, Billy Crook <billycrook(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > can you name a situation where the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not > apply? > >

3 2

ultracapacitors are off-topic
by David Nicol 13 Sep '07

13 Sep '07

it is my understanding that recharge rate for lead-acid batteries is largely limited by cable size, and that practical quick-charge stations have been built which charge a stationary back-up pack, which is connected to an equivalent-voltage pack in the hobbyist's wheels, allowing a rapid recharge as the packs equalize. Useful if you're delivering pizza in an EV or something like that. yawn an ev fueling station obviously has to have some kind of local store and pull a leveled load from the grid. Jared may have been referring to genuine research in his ternary way http://www.google.com/search?q=stopping+light -- The Wisconsin Employees' right to know law regarding toxic substances specifically exempts Lutefisk -- Wikipedia

2 1

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

KCLUG