No technical reason Apple couldn't address those issues. It's their OS and their device and they can put any filesystem they want on the card and use any management technique they care to including union directories so it doesn't matter where the photo is stored. They clearly just didn't want to.
My (old) Android phone just defaults to putting pictures and video on the SD card since that's nearly always the right thing.
I don't know what phone you had, but my old but still in use Android offers to move applications to the SD card (or back to main flash). I'm sure Apple could have figured it out if they wanted to.
There is value in reducing accidents and in particular, fatalities. It may be that lowering the speed limit in some places contributes to that. However, zero tolerance (read: zero intelligent thought) is not likely the answer. That will only create disrespect for the law in general eventually.
Every speed limit has to be set based on some likely condition. It can be the most optimistic possible, but that wouldn't be safe most of the time. It can be the most pessimistic possible, but somehow it seems wrong to ticket someone driving in daylight on a dry road with no traffic for going faster than would be safe in a hailstorm at rush hour.
All of that aside, the fact is that the entire human brain is wired to deal well with speeds under 20 MPH and even then, it makes errors. Absolute safety won't happen (as you recognized) so it's a matter of deciding how unsafe is too unsafe and making sure to warn motorists of any hazards that are ahead without crying wolf so people will actually heed the warnings.
Some may have physical disabilities that preclude conventional military training. Others simply aren't willing to do it. I'm fairly sure that with adequate training you could be stuffed into a tutu and and placed in the role of prima donna but if I want you for your IT skills I suspect I would need to re-evaluate the mandatory nature of that training.
Same applies here. They want the talent, they may need to re-evaluate what training is mandatory for people otherwise willing to provide it.
And that has what to do with the science of setting speed limits or the way that most people drive at a safe speed? Are you claiming that MOST people rear end someone?
How about they reserve that kind of bullshit for the really dangerous criminals and use the savings to fund doing it right.
Of course, a lot of it isn't a matter of funding, it's a matter of being conscientious and not creating situations where things tend to go dreadfully wrong. There is no excuse for shooting a 7 year old at the wrong address during a raid when they honestly could have just knocked on the door to deliver the warrant like they used to.
Interestingly, doing it right could easily also be cheaper and safer for everyone involved, it just wouldn't be any 'fun'.
Fun fact, David Koresh went jogging every day at the same time along public roads (they knew this because they had been staking out the compound for a while). He could have been arrested quietly any day by a single deputy and brought in for questioning.
It doesn't much matter if your odds of connecting in the first place are thousands to one against.
If you do something like penalizing packets with the syn flag set, the ddos guys will just flood with RST packets or data packets that look like they're part of a stream, or switch to UDP.
Remember, by the time the packets get to a router you control to tailor the rules, it's too late. Your uplink is flooded. So, any rules that might be applied have to work well for everyone out there.
I can't think of a single good reason why spoofed packets should be allowed out at all. I would say they should filter them by default. IF someone comes up with an actual good reason they need to send such packets, perhaps it could be considered on a case by case basis but I really doubt any such exception requests will prove reasonable.
Note that in dual homing it might be reasonable to send packets out with source addresses from a particular range not assigned by the ISP but that range can be validated and configured.
It's not a matter of cost, it's a matter of coming up with a design that would actually eliminate DDOS. I'm fairly convinced it can't be done. Fundamentally, a DDOS looks like a bunch of legitimate service requests made to a server whose purpose is to answer the requests. Essentially, a DDOS is the death by a thousand cuts. No particular source of the DDOS packets individually looks like a problem.
Consider a web server. How can you decide that this page request is from a legitimate user viewing the page but that one was generated by a bot and won't actually be read?
I WISH it was a technically solvable problem because those get solved sooner or later. Alas, this problem requires a social solution. Find the botnets, tear them down, then track down the people who run them and prosecute them.
And yet they choose an appropriate speed. Perhaps they're not qualified to determine the absolute maximum safe speed, but they seem to be fine at choosing an appropriate speed that they are comfortable at.
It could well be that they secretly believe they could be the action hero driving 150 mph in a Yugo and all would be well, but that's not the speed they choose to drive.
Studies have shown that on average drivers will go the safe speed (as determined by the best practices of traffic engineering) for conditions regardless of the posted limit. In that sense, looking at the average speed is a scientific determination.
Yes, as I indicated, it can help writes as long as the size of the written data doesn't exceed the size of the SSD. No help for reads though, so if you're processing video or streaming 'big data' you remain constrained by the read speed. And in the fileserver case, you're constrained by the network interface.
RAID itself isn't a backup. However, using multiple disks with btrfs or ZFS is approaching it. They address the case of most pilot error failures as long as you actually make snapshots (no more rm -rf disasters) that prevented RAID from being the answer. You are still left with a few disastrous failure modes like the power supply blowing up just wrong and putting AC line voltage on both drives or a fire, but it is approaching.
You can do cross backups between two machines to eliminate the power supply failure mode. For most home users, regular off-site backup of that much data simply won't happen.
The truth is they're all at the bottom of the barrel. Nothing is worse than X except for Y. Now Y is really crap. Only Z is worse than Y. Never Use Z. The only thing worse than Z is X. For every major brand out there you will find glowing reviews and horrific failure reports in about equal amounts. They all have good runs and bad runs. Occasionally they will have a particular model that is nothing but fail.
That's why for larger systems you should use multiply redundant arrays. For example, RAID6 or 3 way mirroring. That way you can cover the increasingly probable case of losing a disk while the re-construction is in progress. It also becomes increasingly important to use drives from different batches and preferably different ages.
It's also helpful to have spares on-hand. I would like to see a concept of warm spares where the designated spares do not get powered except for periodic testing and when actually required so the system doesn't have to wait for you to notice the failure and put hands on it to begin reconstruction AND it doesn't put excess wear and tear on the spare drive.
Slashdot Mirror
No technical reason Apple couldn't address those issues. It's their OS and their device and they can put any filesystem they want on the card and use any management technique they care to including union directories so it doesn't matter where the photo is stored. They clearly just didn't want to.
My (old) Android phone just defaults to putting pictures and video on the SD card since that's nearly always the right thing.
I don't know what phone you had, but my old but still in use Android offers to move applications to the SD card (or back to main flash). I'm sure Apple could have figured it out if they wanted to.
That leaves teh moneys.
There is value in reducing accidents and in particular, fatalities. It may be that lowering the speed limit in some places contributes to that. However, zero tolerance (read: zero intelligent thought) is not likely the answer. That will only create disrespect for the law in general eventually.
Every speed limit has to be set based on some likely condition. It can be the most optimistic possible, but that wouldn't be safe most of the time. It can be the most pessimistic possible, but somehow it seems wrong to ticket someone driving in daylight on a dry road with no traffic for going faster than would be safe in a hailstorm at rush hour.
All of that aside, the fact is that the entire human brain is wired to deal well with speeds under 20 MPH and even then, it makes errors. Absolute safety won't happen (as you recognized) so it's a matter of deciding how unsafe is too unsafe and making sure to warn motorists of any hazards that are ahead without crying wolf so people will actually heed the warnings.
Perhaps some preparation H will help.
Based on the mod, looks like someone got butthurt.
That is dual homing. See my last paragraph about that.
Some may have physical disabilities that preclude conventional military training. Others simply aren't willing to do it. I'm fairly sure that with adequate training you could be stuffed into a tutu and and placed in the role of prima donna but if I want you for your IT skills I suspect I would need to re-evaluate the mandatory nature of that training.
Same applies here. They want the talent, they may need to re-evaluate what training is mandatory for people otherwise willing to provide it.
And that has what to do with the science of setting speed limits or the way that most people drive at a safe speed? Are you claiming that MOST people rear end someone?
Yes, but that reason to believe cannot come from an unconstitutional action, such as employing a device to 'see' through the walls of the house.
How about they reserve that kind of bullshit for the really dangerous criminals and use the savings to fund doing it right.
Of course, a lot of it isn't a matter of funding, it's a matter of being conscientious and not creating situations where things tend to go dreadfully wrong. There is no excuse for shooting a 7 year old at the wrong address during a raid when they honestly could have just knocked on the door to deliver the warrant like they used to.
Interestingly, doing it right could easily also be cheaper and safer for everyone involved, it just wouldn't be any 'fun'.
Fun fact, David Koresh went jogging every day at the same time along public roads (they knew this because they had been staking out the compound for a while). He could have been arrested quietly any day by a single deputy and brought in for questioning.
Read deeper. It has nothing to do with tailgating.
Google speed limit 85th percentile.
Not a lot if it's done with bitmasks. Many ISPs do egress filtering already. The rest should.
It doesn't much matter if your odds of connecting in the first place are thousands to one against.
If you do something like penalizing packets with the syn flag set, the ddos guys will just flood with RST packets or data packets that look like they're part of a stream, or switch to UDP.
Remember, by the time the packets get to a router you control to tailor the rules, it's too late. Your uplink is flooded. So, any rules that might be applied have to work well for everyone out there.
I can't think of a single good reason why spoofed packets should be allowed out at all. I would say they should filter them by default. IF someone comes up with an actual good reason they need to send such packets, perhaps it could be considered on a case by case basis but I really doubt any such exception requests will prove reasonable.
Note that in dual homing it might be reasonable to send packets out with source addresses from a particular range not assigned by the ISP but that range can be validated and configured.
It's not a matter of cost, it's a matter of coming up with a design that would actually eliminate DDOS. I'm fairly convinced it can't be done. Fundamentally, a DDOS looks like a bunch of legitimate service requests made to a server whose purpose is to answer the requests. Essentially, a DDOS is the death by a thousand cuts. No particular source of the DDOS packets individually looks like a problem.
Consider a web server. How can you decide that this page request is from a legitimate user viewing the page but that one was generated by a bot and won't actually be read?
I WISH it was a technically solvable problem because those get solved sooner or later. Alas, this problem requires a social solution. Find the botnets, tear them down, then track down the people who run them and prosecute them.
And yet they choose an appropriate speed. Perhaps they're not qualified to determine the absolute maximum safe speed, but they seem to be fine at choosing an appropriate speed that they are comfortable at.
It could well be that they secretly believe they could be the action hero driving 150 mph in a Yugo and all would be well, but that's not the speed they choose to drive.
So the speed limit should be zero for maximum safety, right?
Studies have shown that on average drivers will go the safe speed (as determined by the best practices of traffic engineering) for conditions regardless of the posted limit. In that sense, looking at the average speed is a scientific determination.
Yes, as I indicated, it can help writes as long as the size of the written data doesn't exceed the size of the SSD. No help for reads though, so if you're processing video or streaming 'big data' you remain constrained by the read speed. And in the fileserver case, you're constrained by the network interface.
RAID itself isn't a backup. However, using multiple disks with btrfs or ZFS is approaching it. They address the case of most pilot error failures as long as you actually make snapshots (no more rm -rf disasters) that prevented RAID from being the answer. You are still left with a few disastrous failure modes like the power supply blowing up just wrong and putting AC line voltage on both drives or a fire, but it is approaching.
You can do cross backups between two machines to eliminate the power supply failure mode. For most home users, regular off-site backup of that much data simply won't happen.
Marketing weasels.
That's why I celebrate the arrival of the 6 TB drives. They really brought the price of the 4's down.
The truth is they're all at the bottom of the barrel. Nothing is worse than X except for Y. Now Y is really crap. Only Z is worse than Y. Never Use Z. The only thing worse than Z is X. For every major brand out there you will find glowing reviews and horrific failure reports in about equal amounts. They all have good runs and bad runs. Occasionally they will have a particular model that is nothing but fail.
That's why for larger systems you should use multiply redundant arrays. For example, RAID6 or 3 way mirroring. That way you can cover the increasingly probable case of losing a disk while the re-construction is in progress. It also becomes increasingly important to use drives from different batches and preferably different ages.
It's also helpful to have spares on-hand. I would like to see a concept of warm spares where the designated spares do not get powered except for periodic testing and when actually required so the system doesn't have to wait for you to notice the failure and put hands on it to begin reconstruction AND it doesn't put excess wear and tear on the spare drive.