I used very raw estimation (which is not well correct but dont make too much
of errors) - to remive 1 KW out of building, yiou spend extra 1 KW.
But anyway, 450,000 servers have a great power consumption - you can use
river or a lake to cool them, but you still need 45,000 KW of power to make
Apologies if this has been brought up before.
Being as I'm not a network administrator myself (although I do filter
some stuff using pf and ipfw on my severs), I'm curious what NAs
think of the following technology:
http://tor.eff.org/overview.html.en
The problem I see is that this technology
The problem I see is that this technology will be used (literally,
not ideally) solely for harassment (especially via IRC). I do not
see any other practical use for this technology other than that.
The whole right to privacy/anonymity argument is legitimate, but I
do not see people using*
On Jun 17, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
Apologies if this has been brought up before.
Being as I'm not a network administrator myself (although I do filter
some stuff using pf and ipfw on my severs), I'm curious what NAs
think of the following technology:
On 6/17/06, Jeremy Chadwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem I see is that this technology will be used (literally,
not ideally) solely for harassment (especially via IRC). I do not
see any other practical use for this technology other than that.
The whole right to privacy/anonymity
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Chris Kuethe wrote:
As for an attempt at a technical control, maybe set up a box with Tor
on it, get a list of exit servers and null-route them automagically.
The TOR abuse FAQ is here:
http://tor.eff.org/faq-abuse.html.en
They provide a script to track TOR exit
On Jun 17, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Gwendolynn ferch Elydyr wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Chris Kuethe wrote:
As for an attempt at a technical control, maybe set up a box with Tor
on it, get a list of exit servers and null-route them automagically.
The TOR abuse FAQ is here:
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 06:29:02 PDT, Jeremy Chadwick said:
A colleague of mine stated his opinion of my opinion: Your problem
with Tor is that you can't control it, isn't it? And he's right --
that's the exact problem I have with it.
Comments/concerns?
You're complaining about a network of
On Jun 17, 2006, at 6:29 AM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
Apologies if this has been brought up before.
Being as I'm not a network administrator myself (although I do filter
some stuff using pf and ipfw on my severs), I'm curious what NAs
think of the following technology:
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
who insist on perpetuating that most medieval of units... the BTU.
Well, if you do away with that you can continue with the mile as well,
then lose the pounds and yards and gallons while you're at it.
Great! Let's get
Mecahnical work converts to heat in the very end. Not _mostly 100%_ but
_absolutely 100%_.
Except if it is cell station which inducts energy into the radio wawes, and
minus some light coming out of the building (which removes energy as well).
- Original Message -
From: David Lesher
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
The problem I see is that this technology will be used (literally,
not ideally) solely for harassment (especially via IRC). I do not
see any other practical use for this technology other than that.
The whole right to privacy/anonymity argument is
12 matches
Mail list logo
