"Anywhere else in the world, it would have been a thought exercise, done up pretty for a design book or a museum show...These new megacities could evolve into sprawling, polluting megaslums. Or they could define a new species of world city. Unlike New York or London, they are blank slates - less affluent, perhaps, but also free from legacy designs and technologies tailored to the world of the 19th and 20th centuries."
The Stasi and Gestapo are two excellent examples more so because they are from very recent history. With plenty of other examples of government-done-wrong, meaning oppression of the people, you'd think we could learn from our past. You'd think we could gather a few lessons and progress.
I believe the wrong lessons are taught in school. While we learn about WWII, aren't we just studying words that might as well be in the sepia-toned irrelevant past. It's more than learning from history though. Clearly the repetition of corruption and oppression stems from something other than lack of knowledge.
The biggest limitation of PAR2 for me is the lack of directory handling. You can only create and verify parchives for the files within a directory. One solution is a script that runs the PAR creation or verification for each subdirectory but this is hardly elegant. Hard to use backup is backup that isn't used. A better solution is what ICE ECC offers.
Agreeing with Fnord666, the software does not use an open algorithm. The general tone of the site is "use this software it is awesome, don't argue". There doesn't seem to be verification of its awesomeness. Furthermore, the program author's tone in many of the forum posts is abrasive and near combative when people question it.
PAR2 is proven but limited. This/. post is the closest I've seen to addressing the progression of software past Parchives, or at least enhancing the PAR spec for new needs (directory traversing for example).
Is this really the case, that no one has taken PAR2 to the next level? Judging from the lack of links in these comments to the flamebaiting posts of "we've been doing this for years" there isn't much progress.
Slashdot Mirror
From Wired Magazine Issue 15.05
"Pop-Up Cities: China Builds a Bright Green Metropolis"
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.05/feat_popup.html
"Anywhere else in the world, it would have been a thought exercise, done up pretty for a design book or a museum show...These new megacities could evolve into sprawling, polluting megaslums. Or they could define a new species of world city. Unlike New York or London, they are blank slates - less affluent, perhaps, but also free from legacy designs and technologies tailored to the world of the 19th and 20th centuries."
The Stasi and Gestapo are two excellent examples more so because they are from very recent history. With plenty of other examples of government-done-wrong, meaning oppression of the people, you'd think we could learn from our past. You'd think we could gather a few lessons and progress.
I believe the wrong lessons are taught in school. While we learn about WWII, aren't we just studying words that might as well be in the sepia-toned irrelevant past. It's more than learning from history though. Clearly the repetition of corruption and oppression stems from something other than lack of knowledge.
The biggest limitation of PAR2 for me is the lack of directory handling. You can only create and verify parchives for the files within a directory. One solution is a script that runs the PAR creation or verification for each subdirectory but this is hardly elegant. Hard to use backup is backup that isn't used. A better solution is what ICE ECC offers.
/. post is the closest I've seen to addressing the progression of software past Parchives, or at least enhancing the PAR spec for new needs (directory traversing for example).
Agreeing with Fnord666, the software does not use an open algorithm. The general tone of the site is "use this software it is awesome, don't argue". There doesn't seem to be verification of its awesomeness. Furthermore, the program author's tone in many of the forum posts is abrasive and near combative when people question it.
PAR2 is proven but limited. This
Is this really the case, that no one has taken PAR2 to the next level? Judging from the lack of links in these comments to the flamebaiting posts of "we've been doing this for years" there isn't much progress.
I want PAR3.