Uh... your complaint is that if the data you give S3 is corrupted, then the data S3 stores will be corrupted? How is that different than any other backup solution?
If one of the distinct copies stored by S3 gets corrupted, they fix it based on the other copies they store. This is better by far than storing two tape backups; if one of them is corrupted in some minor way, you have to manually figure out which is correct.
RAID isn't a replacement for backup, sure (though if you're treating S3 like RAID you're using it wrong). Keep in mind: the reason RAID has as much to do with a relative lack of redundancy and a lack of geographically separate storage as it has to do with the fact that you're editing the filesystem live.
If you're going for backups, you shouldn't use S3 as a live filesystem, so you don't have RAID's weakness; you're going to use S3 to store a snapshot, just like you'd use a tape drive or an extra hard drive to store a snapshot, only S3 also gives you redundant and geographically distinct storage locations.
Complaining that you might give S3 a corrupted file is stupid, because you can give any backup solution a corrupted file. If you put a corrupted file on your tape backup, you're no better off than you were before.
S3 and RAID have some concepts in common, sure, but S3 (used as I've described) has a lot more in common with backup solutions than with RAID. Key points: automatic geographically separate storage, automatic recovery from corruption. Even better, Amazon maintains the hardware and actively maintains the data, so you don't have to pull out a tape drive or whatever to make sure your tapes are still readable.
Again: you don't use S3 as a live filesystem and then pretend you have a backup. You use it as remote storage of your snapshots - at which point you certainly have real backups. Using it that way is better than using tape drives or spare hard drives.
So I ask again: what does S3 do that a backup shouldn't, or what does a "real" backup solution do that S3 shouldn't?
stay away from s3, it's not designed to protect data, despite what AWS fans may say.
Just curious... S3 stores all of your data at multiple, geographically separate data centers. How exactly does that not protect your data? What else would you want it to do in terms of protection? It even gives you md5 sums of your files if you want to verify them (check the ETag attribute of each object).
So, honest question: what do you think they're missing to make S3 really protect data?
Other people offer Apple-approved streaming video programs for the iPhone, including one by CBS which I believe lets you watch (among other things) the original Star Trek series.
The problem is that you're trying to infringe on MY rights over something stupid and irrational.
Infringe on your rights? When did I ever mention banning such words? Even this thing in California was optional.
I fail to see how anything I've said infringes on anyone's rights.
Unless you think that merely sharing my opinion that cursing is stupid infringes on your rights, but that's your problem, not mine.
self-loathing cults like Christianity.
Nothing I've been taught by my church involves self-loathing. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Of course, you might be the type of person who thinks that any sort of self-restraint requires self-loathing, but again, that's your problem, not mine.
The problem is your irrational reaction to these harmless words and concepts.
Harmless? I disagree. The more you use expletives in everyday language, the less you use other words. An increase in expletive usage results in a smaller vocabulary over time. In other words, people who use expletives a lot lose the ability to express themselves without expletives. I've observed this happen to several people.
That, coupled with the tendency of many people to ridicule people with large vocabularies, should show you that expletive use is not exactly harmless.
That said, I wouldn't ask that expletives be outlawed; only that people observe the common courtesy of avoiding offending others. That's hardly too much to ask.
I'm sorry. I didn't realize people would take my post as anything other than my opinion.
The Mormons will make you an honorary member.
No need for that, I'm already a member;)
Don't like it when someone else uses them - change the channel.
Real life doesn't have a remote control... and you can't always just get up and leave the room.
If something offends a large number of people, why should the offended people have to get up and leave the room, especially when the offensive thing is merely a choice of words? Why is it so much to ask that people not use expletives around people they know will be offended?
I thought that was just common courtesy, but I guess you think otherwise.
As for "easily offended"... I think not. Personally I don't find (most) expletives offensive, merely distasteful.
At any rate, wouldn't the world be better off if we all had a large enough vocabulary that nobody found the need to use the f-word as an adjective in every sentence? I think it would, and I don't see why I should shut up about it just because you don't care.
If you are calling yourself a gamer, why don't you just buy a PlayStation or XBox or Wii?
Because I'm a PC gamer, not a console gamer. There's a distinct difference; PC gamers like being able to tweak graphics settings, run dedicated servers, use a keyboard and mouse, and so on.
There's nothing wrong with console gaming, I simply prefer PC gaming.
Computer operating systems are not meant to be a single purpose systems and neither Microsoft promotes Windows as a gaming OS.
I'm well aware that computers are not single-purpose; I use computers for lots of other things. It's one reason I'm a PC gamer: so I don't have multiple devices to upgrade every few years.
I keep trying to switch to Linux; every year, I try again, and every year, it's still not quite there. This year, the biggest reason is the lack of Netflix support, the second-biggest being gaming (some of my games work in Linux).
It occurs to me that I'm writing this post from Linux, while playing Starcraft via wine in windowed mode, so perhaps that will help show that I'm hardly anti-Linux. (Incidentally, Starcraft works better under wine than it does in Windows 7, at least on my machine. I wish all games followed suit.)
Whether Microsoft advertises Windows as a gaming platform or not is irrelevant; the fact is, if you tend to play lots of new AAA PC game titles, you need Windows.
and screwing someone publicly and permanently in front of the entire world is much worse than one person catching a momentary view of something unintended as they walk down the street.
First of all, an obscure street view photo is hardly "publicly and permanently in front of the entire world".
If they published the photo on the news, or put it on the front page of google.com, then sure, I'd call it publicly and permanently, but to see it you have to deliberately look at Street View at that address.
Second of all, I disagree: if you don't want people to see you, you shouldn't be outdoors. Whether the people seeing you are physically walking by or not is irrelevant (again, in my opinion).
It is not automatically the case that merely going outside forfeits all reasonable expectation of privacy.
I disagree. If you go outdoors, you should assume someone can see you.
In my opinion, if Street View is a violation of privacy, then walking down the street is a violation of privacy.
If you can see something in public, there is absolutely no reason to ban photographing it.
Still no cron, still no real headless operation, still the same old windows crap.
Two things. First, Microsoft is not targeting the tiny percentage of users that find headless operation useful. Second, you don't need Microsoft's approval to run a cron daemon in Windows...
Unfortunately a lot of Linux flavours take their cue from Windows
FTFY. "Queue" means something else entirely.
At any rate, I don't think I'd say Windows sucks any worse than pick-your-own-distro-Linux. Why? Because I use them for entirely different purposes. As long as I'm a PC gamer, neither Linux nor OSX is going to serve my needs; as such I can hardly say Windows "sucks", since it's the only OS that actually does something I really want to do! (And no, wine is not sufficient.)
If you're going to say "Windows is worse than Linux", you really do need to qualify that with what tasks you're talking about; clearly, each OS has its own strengths and weaknesses, and it's silly to pretend one is unilaterally better or worse than the rest.
Do we have evidence that the Google Street View vehicle's camera was any higher than the roof of a typical SUV?
Google has been using small cars to do its Street View image capturing recently, rather than big tall vans. If that was the type of vehicle used to capture the images in question, then the guy's claim to privacy is laughable, because anyone sitting in a typical SUV could have seen over the wall as well.
As far as redistribution goes, if Google had people manually inspecting each image, then no, they should not have published it, but they don't, so it's perfectly excusable for them to have published it in the first place, and a takedown request mechanism is a perfectly adequate solution. As far I know, Google has taken down every such image when requested to do so.
It's absurd to claim Google is violating people's privacy when they're the ones going outdoors naked.
In my opinion, if you are outside, then you have no privacy to invade (as far as photography goes, at any rate).
One possible (likely?) explanation is that my brain is subconsciously sensing the cell phone signal ramping up shortly before I receive a call; this assumes it's possible for the human body to sense the types of signals used by cell phones.
It would be relatively trivial for a person's subconscious to associate that with 'oh, my cell phone is about to ring' after it happens a dozen times.
How many students actually try to talk to the teachers, or the administration, about the situation, specifically mentioning that they wish to preserve the copyright on their papers?
Slashdot Mirror
I always figured the $20 was due to the game's short length, and that management figured it would have a relatively small field of appeal.
That's what I meant. I thought the game was prety innovative too.. it just wasn't $50 worth ;)
It felt more like a polished half-life 2 mod rather than an actual game.
There's a reason it was bundled with The Orange Box and only cost $20 separately...
Technically you're only licensed to use it with the DRM enabled ;)
Er, that second sentence in the third paragraph should read "the reason RAID isn't a good backup solution has as much to do..."
Haven't had my morning caffeine yet...
Uh... your complaint is that if the data you give S3 is corrupted, then the data S3 stores will be corrupted? How is that different than any other backup solution?
If one of the distinct copies stored by S3 gets corrupted, they fix it based on the other copies they store. This is better by far than storing two tape backups; if one of them is corrupted in some minor way, you have to manually figure out which is correct.
RAID isn't a replacement for backup, sure (though if you're treating S3 like RAID you're using it wrong). Keep in mind: the reason RAID has as much to do with a relative lack of redundancy and a lack of geographically separate storage as it has to do with the fact that you're editing the filesystem live.
If you're going for backups, you shouldn't use S3 as a live filesystem, so you don't have RAID's weakness; you're going to use S3 to store a snapshot, just like you'd use a tape drive or an extra hard drive to store a snapshot, only S3 also gives you redundant and geographically distinct storage locations.
Complaining that you might give S3 a corrupted file is stupid, because you can give any backup solution a corrupted file. If you put a corrupted file on your tape backup, you're no better off than you were before.
S3 and RAID have some concepts in common, sure, but S3 (used as I've described) has a lot more in common with backup solutions than with RAID. Key points: automatic geographically separate storage, automatic recovery from corruption. Even better, Amazon maintains the hardware and actively maintains the data, so you don't have to pull out a tape drive or whatever to make sure your tapes are still readable.
Again: you don't use S3 as a live filesystem and then pretend you have a backup. You use it as remote storage of your snapshots - at which point you certainly have real backups. Using it that way is better than using tape drives or spare hard drives.
So I ask again: what does S3 do that a backup shouldn't, or what does a "real" backup solution do that S3 shouldn't?
stay away from s3, it's not designed to protect data, despite what AWS fans may say.
Just curious... S3 stores all of your data at multiple, geographically separate data centers. How exactly does that not protect your data? What else would you want it to do in terms of protection? It even gives you md5 sums of your files if you want to verify them (check the ETag attribute of each object).
So, honest question: what do you think they're missing to make S3 really protect data?
Other people offer Apple-approved streaming video programs for the iPhone, including one by CBS which I believe lets you watch (among other things) the original Star Trek series.
The problem is that you're trying to infringe on MY rights over something stupid and irrational.
Infringe on your rights? When did I ever mention banning such words? Even this thing in California was optional.
I fail to see how anything I've said infringes on anyone's rights.
Unless you think that merely sharing my opinion that cursing is stupid infringes on your rights, but that's your problem, not mine.
self-loathing cults like Christianity.
Nothing I've been taught by my church involves self-loathing. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Of course, you might be the type of person who thinks that any sort of self-restraint requires self-loathing, but again, that's your problem, not mine.
The problem is your irrational reaction to these harmless words and concepts.
Harmless? I disagree. The more you use expletives in everyday language, the less you use other words. An increase in expletive usage results in a smaller vocabulary over time. In other words, people who use expletives a lot lose the ability to express themselves without expletives. I've observed this happen to several people.
That, coupled with the tendency of many people to ridicule people with large vocabularies, should show you that expletive use is not exactly harmless.
That said, I wouldn't ask that expletives be outlawed; only that people observe the common courtesy of avoiding offending others. That's hardly too much to ask.
How do we "fix society" if talking about it is taboo? Just look at Slashdot's reaction to an optional curse-free week!
YOU believe people should not use expletives.
I'm sorry. I didn't realize people would take my post as anything other than my opinion.
The Mormons will make you an honorary member.
No need for that, I'm already a member ;)
Don't like it when someone else uses them - change the channel.
Real life doesn't have a remote control... and you can't always just get up and leave the room.
If something offends a large number of people, why should the offended people have to get up and leave the room, especially when the offensive thing is merely a choice of words? Why is it so much to ask that people not use expletives around people they know will be offended?
I thought that was just common courtesy, but I guess you think otherwise.
As for "easily offended"... I think not. Personally I don't find (most) expletives offensive, merely distasteful.
At any rate, wouldn't the world be better off if we all had a large enough vocabulary that nobody found the need to use the f-word as an adjective in every sentence? I think it would, and I don't see why I should shut up about it just because you don't care.
You mean, sex is awesome? I certainly won't disagree with you, but that's completely off-topic :P
Not that I can think of, no.
If you are calling yourself a gamer, why don't you just buy a PlayStation or XBox or Wii?
Because I'm a PC gamer, not a console gamer. There's a distinct difference; PC gamers like being able to tweak graphics settings, run dedicated servers, use a keyboard and mouse, and so on.
There's nothing wrong with console gaming, I simply prefer PC gaming.
Computer operating systems are not meant to be a single purpose systems and neither Microsoft promotes Windows as a gaming OS.
I'm well aware that computers are not single-purpose; I use computers for lots of other things. It's one reason I'm a PC gamer: so I don't have multiple devices to upgrade every few years.
I keep trying to switch to Linux; every year, I try again, and every year, it's still not quite there. This year, the biggest reason is the lack of Netflix support, the second-biggest being gaming (some of my games work in Linux).
It occurs to me that I'm writing this post from Linux, while playing Starcraft via wine in windowed mode, so perhaps that will help show that I'm hardly anti-Linux. (Incidentally, Starcraft works better under wine than it does in Windows 7, at least on my machine. I wish all games followed suit.)
Whether Microsoft advertises Windows as a gaming platform or not is irrelevant; the fact is, if you tend to play lots of new AAA PC game titles, you need Windows.
and screwing someone publicly and permanently in front of the entire world is much worse than one person catching a momentary view of something unintended as they walk down the street.
First of all, an obscure street view photo is hardly "publicly and permanently in front of the entire world".
If they published the photo on the news, or put it on the front page of google.com, then sure, I'd call it publicly and permanently, but to see it you have to deliberately look at Street View at that address.
Second of all, I disagree: if you don't want people to see you, you shouldn't be outdoors. Whether the people seeing you are physically walking by or not is irrelevant (again, in my opinion).
It is not automatically the case that merely going outside forfeits all reasonable expectation of privacy.
I disagree. If you go outdoors, you should assume someone can see you.
In my opinion, if Street View is a violation of privacy, then walking down the street is a violation of privacy.
If you can see something in public, there is absolutely no reason to ban photographing it.
Still no cron, still no real headless operation, still the same old windows crap.
Two things. First, Microsoft is not targeting the tiny percentage of users that find headless operation useful. Second, you don't need Microsoft's approval to run a cron daemon in Windows...
Unfortunately a lot of Linux flavours take their cue from Windows
FTFY. "Queue" means something else entirely.
At any rate, I don't think I'd say Windows sucks any worse than pick-your-own-distro-Linux. Why? Because I use them for entirely different purposes. As long as I'm a PC gamer, neither Linux nor OSX is going to serve my needs; as such I can hardly say Windows "sucks", since it's the only OS that actually does something I really want to do! (And no, wine is not sufficient.)
If you're going to say "Windows is worse than Linux", you really do need to qualify that with what tasks you're talking about; clearly, each OS has its own strengths and weaknesses, and it's silly to pretend one is unilaterally better or worse than the rest.
No, I've known about that for quite some time. It's not the cause :)
Do we have evidence that the Google Street View vehicle's camera was any higher than the roof of a typical SUV?
Google has been using small cars to do its Street View image capturing recently, rather than big tall vans. If that was the type of vehicle used to capture the images in question, then the guy's claim to privacy is laughable, because anyone sitting in a typical SUV could have seen over the wall as well.
As far as redistribution goes, if Google had people manually inspecting each image, then no, they should not have published it, but they don't, so it's perfectly excusable for them to have published it in the first place, and a takedown request mechanism is a perfectly adequate solution. As far I know, Google has taken down every such image when requested to do so.
It's absurd to claim Google is violating people's privacy when they're the ones going outdoors naked.
In my opinion, if you are outside, then you have no privacy to invade (as far as photography goes, at any rate).
Perhaps I should have clarified:
The intent of Street View is not to violate privacy.
I never said I believed it was psychic :P
One possible (likely?) explanation is that my brain is subconsciously sensing the cell phone signal ramping up shortly before I receive a call; this assumes it's possible for the human body to sense the types of signals used by cell phones.
It would be relatively trivial for a person's subconscious to associate that with 'oh, my cell phone is about to ring' after it happens a dozen times.
Respect has to start somewhere. If everyone goes by your own plan - "I'll be nice as soon as everyone else is nice" - then nobody will ever be nice.
That's a pretty simple concept. If you refuse to be a source of respect, then you're just part of the problem.
How many students actually try to talk to the teachers, or the administration, about the situation, specifically mentioning that they wish to preserve the copyright on their papers?
My guess? Nearly zero.
I've speculated about that... perhaps my subconscious brain is sensing the EM increase, and has correlated that with receiving phone calls.
So the question is, has there been any research into whether the signals used by cell phones are actually sense-able by humans?
I don't see how that video explains anything at all ;)
At any rate, it is indeed likely there's some bias or other in the way we remember deja vu-like events.
I'll try to remember to keep track.