One-sixth of the world’s servers — computers that run web services — are not being used at all, wasting $24.7 billion a year, including $3.8 billion in energy-related costs, according to a new report published Thursday. Researchers at the Alliance to Save Energy, Kelton Research and 1E, a software IT company, found through surveys of server managers and analysis of industry data that out of the world’s 44 million servers, roughly 4.7 million of them are idle and not doing necessary work.

The problem is that most servers are housed in data centers, into which server managers have a hard time peering in order to see which ones are being productive and which ones aren’t. In the meantime, servers that aren’t doing useful work, but are still on, are still sucking power — usually as much as a highly productive server. Without the proper data, server managers are hard-pressed to turn off company servers if there’s a remote chance that they might be needed for something.

Here’s one solution, also brought to you by one of the report sponsors, 1E. It launched on Thursday its power management software for servers, which the company says uses smart algorithms to determine which servers are doing useful work and which ones aren’t, as well as how much energy they’re using and when. IE also says its “NightWatchman Server Edition” can power down servers into a drowsy state, cutting their energy use by 12 percent.

1E has been selling its power management software for PCs for over a decade, and counts among its customers AT&T (s T), Verizon Wireless (s VZ) and HSBC. 1E’s CEO Sumir Karayi even claims the company invented the PC power management sector. Based in London and New York, the company has been bootstrapped since its founding.

Clearly 1E’s tools are just one company’s solution to the idle server problem. Making data centers more green and bringing down the energy costs and carbon footprints of the Internet has emerged as a hot trend (read about green data center design strategies on our subscription research service, GigaOM Pro). Other companies are focusing on virtualization server software, wireless sensor networks in data centers, energy efficient server and storage hardware, and finding low-hanging fruit like using free outside air cooling.

Image courtesy of 1E.

dit is dan je eertse post

kus, mij

Dagen i dag startet med at jeg blei vekt av klokka 0630. Rett etter at telefonen (med alarmen) føk i veggen sovna jeg fredlig videre. Sto opp ikke lenge etter fordi den jævla telefonen telefonen ringte igjen. (Denne gangen fordi noen ringte, rakk den ikke så hvis du ringte, og du ser dette: sorry:P)

Etter en kort tur på byen og litt div. lok bar det rett på jobb. Jobb er kult. VI har endelig fått diabolo! SÅnn rar dings som alle barna bare MÅ fordi en eller annen dude gjorde noe fancy med den i norske talenter. Så løp og kjøp…

Tenkte forresten at jeg ksulle legge til en sak til, siden alle spør:
Ja, seff skal jeg fortsette på Katta til neste år. Tror du klassen min ville klart seg uten meg eller:P Bæ azz..

- Over ut!

Volvemos a la carga,tarjetas simyo por 1€ mas 10€ en llamadas,y si ademas te haces mediante mi codigo 5€ mas para ti y 5€ para mi.Todos ganamos.15€ por 1€ mas gastos de envio

Recibiras 5€ en el momento de la compra.Si eres de prepago recibiras 5€ mas con la primera recarga de al menos 10€.Si eres contrato recibiras 5€ de descuento en tu segunda factura(si supera los 10€).Gastos de envio 3.95,no incluidos 

Disfuta de la tarifa mas competitiva del mercado con llamadas a 0€ entre simyo los 10 primeros minutos solo cobrandote establecimiento

Para conseguir 5€ mas al hacerte simyo lee el primer post o sigue este enlace

Remember when, on some rare occasion, the correct answer to a test question in school was “all of the above”? I happen to believe that much of life outside the confines of a classroom is like that. Each of us perceives an aspect of a given political or social problem on which we base a set of mostly valid observations. What we have less time and patience for are the dots we have yet to connect.

Take California’s special election.

Are powerful interest groups to blame for California’s fiscal pickle? Yes. Are union demands responsible too? Likely. Are state lawmakers responsible for failing to reign in deficit spending, their own salaries among them? Undoubtedly. Are the ballot initiatives proposed as a solution to California’s economic woes anywhere close to ideal? Certainly not! Are there legitimate reasons the state is in the red, among them the foreclosure crisis, which has diminished property tax revenues in the Golden State more so than most? Absolutely.

There is a side to this election that has seen comparatively little discussion: Paying the Piper. Some would argue that the notion of settling the books died when old school conservatism began morph into that of the much-beloved former state governor and President Ronald Reagan — a champion of less government and fewer taxes but a less-than-traditional view on deficit spending. If this recession is evidence of anything at all, however, it is the fallacy that the economy will outpace our ability to overextend ourselves. Ask a banker. Ask state lawmakers. Ask a homeowner following a job loss or foreclosure. And next time the opportunity to vote on a great new spending program comes along, ask yourself.

Almost without fail, analysis of any given ballot proposal or bond measure indicates that the ultimate fiscal consequences are “unknown”. Take the so-called three strikes law. Few oppose the idea of keeping violent criminals off the streets. Of course, there are the assorted controversies about locking felons up and throwing away the key when the offenses are of a nonviolent variety. Put all that aside for the moment, though. The California state prison system is in receivership. Why? Because the prisons are so overcrowded, among many other ills fiscal and otherwise, that the state’s ability to maintain such high incarceration rates appears unsustainable. It could be argued that these are exactly the sort of circumstances that create jobs — for prison guards and new prison construction projects, that is — but taxpayers, predictably, are not eager to foot the bill. Consequently, one of the things Gov. Schwarzenegger has threatened to do if the special election fails to yield the desired results is to let out nearly 40,000 prisoners before their sentences are complete.

Now in all fairness, there is plenty of blame to go around. Consider how many bond obligations and propositions California voters have passed over the years. Stem cell research funds. Bills of rights for this group or that. Taxpayer funds that voters allocate to programs politicians are forbidden to touch even in times like these. Ever wonder if part of the reason the state is running a severe deficit might have something to do with the fact that the electorate agreed to spend too much money — in some cases duplicating programs and services already created in some form or fashion via a prior election? Or that lawmakers who seem incapable of cutting the pork out of state budget are in power because voters placed them there?

Californians have an opportunity Tuesday to vote down the offending propositions in the hope the insanity goes away. Will it?

I doubt it.

California’s budget shortfall is so severe in the face of this recession that merely cutting spending or borrowing more money is unlikely to solve the state’s fiscal problems. Simultaneously cutting services and raising taxes is the bitter pill residents are likely swallow whether the ballot initiative pass or not. The real question is whether Californians want to feel the pain in the manner proposed by the propositions vs. the unpredictable and erratic cuts that shall result in the event voters reject them.

So what’s a conscientious citizen to do?

Golden State residents by all means ought turn out at the polls and urge others to do the same. Above all, an informed vote is a necessity. Study the voter information guide closely and read the pros and cons discussed in newspaper articles. Don’t rely exclusively on secondhand opinions from friends and family, televised advertisements or broadcast news segments. Informing a vote in this manner may be tempting and quick but it fails to scratch the surface in a way an important election deserves — this or any other election.

The world’s fifth largest economy depends on California voters’ wisdom at the polls. Clinging to traditional partisanship is the easy part; sober-minded pragmatism a far more challenging step toward economic recovery.

###

References

California Statewide Special Election Official Voter Information Guide

Synopsis:

• Proposition 1A: CHANGES CALIFORNIA BUDGET PROCESS. LIMITS STATE SPENDING. INCREASES “RAINY DAY” BUDGET STABILIZATION FUND.
• Proposition 1B: EDUCATION FUNDING. PAYMENT PLAN.
• Proposition 1C: LOTTERY MODERNIZATION ACT.
• Proposition 1D: PROTECTS CHILDREN’S SERVICES FUNDING. HELPS BALANCE STATE BUDGET.
• Proposition 1E: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FUNDING. TEMPORARY REALLOCATION. HELPS BALANCE STATE BUDGET.
• Proposition 1F: ELECTED OFFICIALS’ SALARIES. PREVENTS PAY INCREASES DURING BUDGET DEFICIT YEARS.

Lawmakers are toxic, but voters helped get themselves into this fix, LA Times, May 18, 2009

Synopsis: Over the years California voters have sidelined money politicians can’t touch for everything from stem cell research to redundant/overlapping taxpayer-funded programs created in some form or fashion by a prior election. These funds cannot be redirected, even temporarily, without voter approval. The special election has been called in order to decide whether a specific set of funds should be reallocated to reduce the deficit. The original budget that was passed last year after a protracted legislative fight is no longer sufficient, lawmakers claim, partly because the state has lost too much property tax revenue as a consequence of the foreclosure crisis, among other recession impacts.

Schwarzenegger outlines drastic budget cuts, LA Times, May 15, 2009

Synopsis: If the initiatives do not pass Gov. Schwarzenegger claims the situation will become even uglier: Nearly 40,000 prisoners will be released from jail before their terms are up; $5 billion in cuts will be made to education vs. $3 billion proposed by the props; a property tax surcharge will go into effect; the state will borrow city government funds; historic landmarks will be put up for auction; state parks will increase fees, etc. Sacramento politicians may not agree on how to put the state’s fiscal house in order, but they unanimously agree that the situation is dire.

Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, leading the opposition

Synopsis: Voters are free to reject Proposition 1A and its additional $16 billion in new taxes without inflicting harm on the state’s current fiscal health. The only ballot measures that impact the current budget are 1C, 1D, and 1E. Combined, these propositions would mortgage the state lottery and shift money from segregated accounts for mental health and early childhood development to bolster the general fund.

Tomorrow is a special election in California. The California Dem Party has endorsed Prop 1B, 1C, and 1F.  On the other hand, the Calitics Editorial Board, along with the League of Women Voters, argues, convincingly, that all the propositions suck. Their detailed analysis is worth reading, especially if you haven’t made up your mind.

No doubt, there are serious problems with the California budgeting process, but the crux of the matter, at least under the current system, seems to be the 2/3 (66%), super-majority vote requirement to ratify a budget. Changing the California Constitution requires only a simple majority. These requirements seem bassackwards; shouldn’t the higher burden attach to changing the constitution and the lower burden to approving a budget? No. That would probably make too much sense and be far too simple.

How’d we get here?

Responding to the “excess” spending and declining tax revenues of the Great Depression, in 1933, California voters passed Proposition 1, requiring a 2/3 majority vote of the California legislature to pass any budget that exceeded the prior year’s budget by 5%.

California voters then passed Proposition 16, in 1962, which dropped the 5% budget growth requirement, so that a super-majority of legislative votes were required to pass every budget.

Proposition 13 came along, in 1978, to require a 2/3 majority vote to pass a tax increase. The propaganda at the time, as I recall as a 10 year old, sold Prop 13 as the cure-all for increasing property taxes on private residences, especially the elderly. It also stagnated property tax increases on commercial real estate, so that major businesses remain taxed at rates significantly below fair market and common sense fiscal policy.

In 2004, California’s voters rejected Proposition 56, which would have reduced the majority vote on budgets from 66% to 55%.

There are only two other states, Arkansas and Rhode Island, that require super-majorities to pass state budgets. In the case of Rhode Island, its minuscule size makes this less of an issue and I don’t know what to say (nice, that is) about Arkansas. For a state and economy the size of California, the super-majority budget ratification requirement has, predictably, become a major impediment to function, efficiency, and  coherence.

Democrats have somewhere around a 63% majority in the California legislature, but this falls short of the unattainable 66%, 2/3 vote to pass a reasonable, workable budget.  As a result, the minority party (Republican) has enormous power to hold budgets hostage and leverage away a couple of votes in order to extract policy considerations beneficial only to a small segment of Californians and themselves. The most vulnerable segments of society, the disabled, children, the elderly, and the poor, as well as civil employees, bear the burden of these wrangled concessions and budget impasses.

Hyper-partisanship was, perhaps, less caustic in 1933, but, in 2009, the 2/3 majority on budgets, combined with the lax initiative process and simple majority to alter the constitution, is a toxic environment leading to these ill-developed propositions and perpetual erosion of both civil society and the social safety net.

Senate leader Darrel Steinberg has indicated that, after tomorrow’s special election, legislative efforts to remove the super-majority budget requirement shall commence; and Cal Dem Convention delegates supported a future ballot initiative to repeal the 2/3 budget requirement. But, from a personal perspective, this stuff is moving like molasses in winter…in the Arctic.

Even if someone manages to scrounge up an initiative, there’s no guarantee, in fact, given past behavior, it looks unlikely, that California voters would repeal the super-majority on budgets, even when it runs against the interests of the majority of them.

The most expedient remedy is to grab that 66% majority and enact wide-spread reform on majority requirements for budgeting, taxes, and constitutional changes; unfortunately, the gerrymandering of districts tends to reseat incumbents. Rapid change is mostly a dream I harbor and drag out when viable options have evaporated. You know how that one works.

Can “no” votes on tomorrow’s proposition force changes, as some have suggested? Again, probably not, for the aforementioned reasons and then some.  The American system was studiously designed to be resistant to popular majority opinions, to protect property rights, and the minority (read: rich).

It would require wholesale revisions to the essential structure of American government, including, but not limited to, adoption of popular, direct democracy, with a multi-party parliamentary system (as opposed to the current winner-take-all, representational republic), along with total separation of the offices and powers of the Chief Executive and the Commander-In-Chief, to achieve any meaningful changes. I somehow doubt I’ll live to see such changes, but I can still dream.

Since this entry has surpassed the limits of readability anyway, I’m going for the gold: it’s been almost 85 years since Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act, which allowed American Indians to vote:

BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and house of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all non citizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided That the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.”

Before 1924, the Fourteenth Amendment, section I, extended citizenship to those born or naturalized within the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” but since Indian Country (any reservation) wasn’t considered part of the U.S., Indians remained ineligible to vote. Section II of the 14th Amendment goes on to apportion representatives to states, but excludes untaxed Indians in the count.

Along came Amendment 15, in 1870, proscribing denial or abridgment of voting rights in the U.S. or the several states based on race, color, or prior servitude; and, in 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment extending voting rights to women. But not Indians.

Given the tenor of the Declaration of Independence, decrying “Indian Savages,” it doesn’t take a genius to anticipate why the Indian vote was not  deemed worthy of an actual constitutional amendment. (Yes, I’m still chafing over that one.)

While tribal governance, surely, has its quirks, most tribal governments have practically, procedurally, and substantively exceeded the American system,  in terms of implementing systems much closer to direct and social democracies (read: social democracy/democratic socialism).  Looking at tribal mechanisms and services versus state and federal, tribal wins–no contest.

But, all that aside, I’m still heading out to the state polls tomorrow, without leaving the rez even, and voting no on all those propositions, even though I think the existing system of governance is a crock of crap.

I’m going to dream my happy little dream of Americans eventually kicking this representational republic system of governance to the curb, in favor of direct, popular, social, multi-party parliamentary democracy, even as I participate in a process with which I diasagree and that seems broken beyond repair.

So this has nothing to do with food, although it does have to do with community, which I believe (hope) this whole food-ism is really about. I was listening to discussions of the propositions coming up on the May 19th special election. WTF!  Seems like the only way state government can think to bail itself out is pull the rug out from under kids (prop 1D takes 1.7B from early childhood education)and sick people (1E takes $460M from mental health services). It’s not only heartless, but myopic and short sighted. Kicking a mentally ill person out of a program that costs $10,000/yr, just to throw them on the street, where they will eventually get arrested, and end up costing the state $100,000/yr, on top of the fact that their life is immeasurably worse, doesn’t make sense. I’m sick of hearing that the state government doesn’t have any money, and that the only option is to take away even more services from the most vulnerable populations.  I dont see why don’t we don’t increase taxes on the rich… 50-60-70%. Why not?  If the state government of CA, one of the most wealthy states in the most wealthy country in the world, is actually staring down the abyss into true financial meltdown, if basic services are actually going to stop functioning in six weeks, if the sewers will overflow and there will be anarchy in the streets of a city without cops,  why don’t we take some money from the millionaires? Maybe instead of getting the deluxe home theatre they’ll only get a 74 inch plasma screen TV, maybe nix the imported italian leather seats in their new lexus.  I realize this is a simplistic argument, but really, why do the people that are least able to afford it always end up paying? why don’t you ever see rich people giving bums money?  Why are we all so damned selfish?  crazy world.

Hasta el 11 de mayo tienes la oportunidad de comprar la tarjeta sim por 1€ mas gastos de envio(3.95€) con 10€ en llamadas(5€ al principio y 5 mas al recargar al menos 10€ en tu primera recarga).Parece mentira pero no lo es.

Si ademas la compras mediante este enlace o metiendo 34644251880 en el ultimo paso de la compra como codigo de promocion,conseguiras 5€ extra;vamos por unos 5€ vas a tener 15€ en llamadas.Asi de facil.

Aprovechar el chollo que se acaba

Répondant au doux nom de “Hello”, l’ordinateur à 1€ de Orange est désormais au catalogue du fournisseur d’accès à internet. L’achat du PC est naturellement lié à un abonnement internet à 39,90€ par mois avec un engagement de 24 mois.

Hello est un PC à l’interface ultra-simplifié destiné à une clientèle peu habituée aux nouvelles technologies. On pense évidemment aux séniors pour qui Hello peut être un bon moyen de rester en contact avec leur famille et… l’information.

Toutes les détails de l’offre et du PC sont sur cette page.

Plus d’infos dans l’article de Clubic (2 min de lecture)

Ya tenia tiempo sin salir un miércoles a los 100 Montaditos. Esta cadena de comida rápida española, principalmente vende montaditos que son como bocadillos pero en pequeño. Ideales para poder degustar varios sabores y platillos. Los miércoles estos lugares tienen una promoción en la que todo cuesta un euro. Montaditos, jarras de cerveza, vino tinto, tinto de verano. Todo a un euro 1€. Así que es normal que estos lugares cuenten con mucha concurrencia este día, dependiendo la ubicación puede o no estar llenos de estudiantes erasmus, turistas y en los menos céntricos mas gente local. Y a veces esta el lugar a reventar, pero el lugar lo vale, ya que la relación cantidad precio sobrepasa las expectativas. Pueden consultar las múltiples ubicaciones de esta franquicia en la pagina de Internet. Como recomendación, pidan los montaditos “etiqueta negra” que son los que tienen ingredientes más elaborados y por lo tanto son mas caros en el menú tradicional. En la mayoría de estos sitios es obligatorio ordenar un montadito por cada jarra de cerveza o tinto. Así que considera ir comiendo y bebiendo a la par. Les recomiendo el montadito de gambas con salmón, o el típico de jamón ibérico con queso curado. En fin ya sea en miércoles u otro día los montaditos es algo que ver en Madrid.

Oggi ho visto il prezzo del gasolio per auto a 0,999€/litro.

I’ve actually spent a fair amount of time lately looking at old D&D stuff, including things like Planescape, Dark Sun, AD&D 1st Edition, and some old modules like Temple of Elemental Evil. While reading through T1, something in the text jumped out at me. Specifically, in the Dungeon Master’s section, this passage occurs amid a brief discussion the players’ power level:

You should sharply limit the amount of gear and treasure they can bring to the village (as you will understand when you read the adventure). If your group of players has had exceptional luck, simply engineer a minor encounter or two along the way—light-fingered leprechauns, a thief or two, or perhaps some brigands—to rid them of a few of those cumbersome gems, coins, and magical items.

Good times, eh?

As much as I love some of the old D&D stuff, this sort of thing reminds me of how far we’ve come (despite the overall decline of the industry, perceived or otherwise). The relationship between rules, the DM, and the players have evolved quite a bit since then, and this is one example.

All right, so what should you do instead? I don’t want to get too much into this. I’m guessing this scenario is somewhat less likely these days, though perhaps this reveals something about the assumed style of play. These days, I would probably create a new character, but my impression is that people tended to stick with their character. It makes a certain amount of sense, and I’ve thought a bit about a similar structure of play. More on that later, perhaps!

So, assuming someone wants to bring an existing, over-leveled character with them, instead of taking stuff away, I would probably just ask them to play something else and try to relate this person to their character somehow. Maybe they’re a relative or acquaintance. Alternatively, they could power down their PC and play this like it’s in the PC’s past (though most likely without whatever accumulated wealth and magic items the over-leveled character had).