BRILLIANT! That means that any flaws in your OS or applications (web browser) WON'T BE PATCHED
Which isnt really an issue for several reasons: A) most of the code out there isnt targetting some obscure form of linux B) this is a live distro, so there is no permenant storage, so no real worry of a rootkit C) someone booting up this distro is unlikely to be doing so for reasons that would expose him to threats
Hence the lack of caring about/etc/passwd, or running as root, or all the rest. Its generally irrelevant on a live distro because you cannot get rootkitted.
What about rootkits that can get loaded via different means? NIC cards? Storage adapters? LCD monitors that have small repeaters to record and send encrypted frames of what is displayed?
Statistically and practically speaking, those are if miniscule concern especially compared with the relatively common MBR rootkits out there.
Not to mention the inherent difficulties in trying to install a generic rootkit to specific hardware via CMOS overwrite; I dont think its anywhere as easy as you seem to think it is. Hint-- not all BIOSes will work on all motherboards (and the same is true of NICs, etc).
Its different because not only is it approved for clearanced work, it also has a version of Firefox with CAC-reader support. My understanding has always been that CAC support was limited to windows; no longer.
Having a single copy of your data on a single external medium with no RAID is asking for one of the following scenarios:
A) power surge across your SATA power lines. All drives knocked off line, backup media is also offline, need to go to data recovery lab to repair controllers. B) Data corruption or deletion occurs prior to backup, goes unnoticed for 1 week (or more). Backups now consist of the "bad" data that you need to roll back from. C) Your backup drive dies, followed by a failure of your main drive (Not uncommon, if both are installed in the same time frame and are from the same vendor). You now have no data.
THIS is why tape is king IMO-- not praying that your one backup medium is OK.
When you say "bailed them out", to be clear, you mean that they took advantage of tax incentives, by presumably doing things we were trying to incentivize that cost GE money (like green initiatives)?
True but any radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer.
False. There is no scientist Ive ever heard of who would ever claim that infrared or optical radiation causes cancer, and these particular scanners (which ARENT x-ray scanners) are just outside the infrared spectrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation).
In any case, it is radiation and can cause cancer.
No, its microwave radiation (not even that!), and noone has ever shown a conclusive or even likely link to show that it causes cancer. From the wiki article on it...
The terahertz region is between the radio frequency region and the optical region generally associated with lasers....safety limits are based on extrapolation.... It is expected that effects on tissues are thermal in nature and, therefore, predictable by conventional thermal models.
In otherwords, there really isnt any credible "it causes cancer" hypothesis out there based on where it lies on the electromagnetic spectrum.
Please stop spouting nonsense, every time one of these TSA Millimeter wave discussions comes up someone inevitably spouts nonsense about cancer.
These ARENT x-ray scanners, and do not dose you with ionizing radiation. So while most of the stuff in your post is accurate, it is irrelevant because so far as anyone is aware these scanners (Millimeter Wave) do not cause any health effects whatsoever; theyre basically zapping you with microwaves which only have thermal effects so far as anyone has shown.
To everyone in this thread, these arent X-ray scanners, theyre millimeter wave scanners, which are fundamentally different than the backscatter scanners in that they DONT INVOLVE XRAYS.
For the TLDR crowd out there, once again, NO XRAYS ARE INVOLVED HERE.
Good gracious are people not even reading the summary?
The Washington Post reports that the TSA will begin installing new software on millimeter wave body scanners at 41 airports that will....
And for reliability, which are you more confident of, a spool of tape being mechaincally able to unspool, or a harddrive's motor spinning up, its platters rotating, being dust free, the controller correctly operating, and the readhead moving freely?
By your logic, photographs are also detailed searches, once they hit a certain megapixel range. I do not believe that to be a correct interpretation of the constitution.
If youre against it, fine, push for legislation, but dont read things into the constitution that arent there.
I imagine it WOULD be a search at that point. My post was only addressing the specific scenario of someone doing a scan only, from a distance, not restraining you.
Reading comprehension fail. My post was specifically addressing whether or not iris scanners were unconstitutional. Your reply indicated you read an endorsement into my post.
I nowhere in any of my posts on this topic indicated whether I am for or against such scanners; I simply want to eliminate the bad arguments on the topic, much as I try to do in the Millimeter Wave Scanner discussions any time someone tries to claim that they cause cancer (they dont, theyre different than backscatter machines, etc).
Possibly this puts me in the minority, but I dont come to discussion boards primarily to try to pound my ideas into someone elses head to bolster my ego. I come here to discuss, and to potentially learn, and when people throw non-sequiturs and factually wrong information about, it impedes that. My post was simply trying to rectify that.
I think pretty much every lawyer would LOVE to take a case where police, with no warrant, court order, or probable cause, physically restrained someone. That would (IANAL, IMO, etc) seem to be a pretty clear violation of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures".
But im still not seeing how someone taking an iris scan of you unawares would violate that, or how it is substantially different than photographing you and then looking your pic up in a database. Possibly there are other relevant laws, but again this does NOT seem to violate the CONSTITUTION, which is what the discussion (constitutionality) is about.
And, in case you think something not being in the constitution is a good reason why such a thing SHOULD not be in the constitution, realize it would have been pretty impressive were the founding fathers to predict cameras and iphones and put protections in against them.
Whether or not something SHOULD be in the constitution is irrelevant when discussing whether or not something IS unconstitutional.
Neither is there a constitutional right to privacy. There are certain searches and seizures that require a warrant, and certain protections against self testimony etc, but nowhere am I aware of any constitutional right to not be photographed.
You can argue about whether it is "police-state scary" or not, but to call it unconstitutional seems a little ridiculous.
If I ever need to restore a 1TB server I will be done in afew hours, you will still be running your tape restore the next day (and probably the day after that too).
You very clearly have NO experience with tape.
1TB tapes (LTO4, LTO5) have speeds around 150MB/s+, and are usually on either a SAS or SCSI adapter which means their overhead is far less than your sata drives. So for 1TB of data, it will take about 2.5-3 hours to do a restore.
As for redundancy, presumably youre not using desktop-grade drives (what with their tendency to cause raid controllers to mark them offline on a bad block), and presumably youre using a raid controller, so for 1TB data we're already at $500 between the cost of 2x RE4 drives and a suitable controller; plus if you want multiple copies, you now need hotswap chassis (anyone saying "sleeveless hotswap" should be ignored, as sata connectors are not rated for many insertions) and backplane. Cost is rising, and you have not addressed potential issues like "changing drive letter (or identifier)" depending on OS.
For instance, Is the backup drive D:? E:? Is it/dev/sda, or/dev/sdc? What happens when someone plugs a flash card in, and the OS assigns it the identifier you were intending to use for backup? Cant use UUID, since we are (presumably) backing up to multiple different media for redundancy.
And you also havent solved the whole "disks are inherently more complex, have more moving parts, and are more breakage prone".
Testing daily is less important as you have more copies of your data. It seems far more silly to have a single copy of your data on HDD, and test it daily, then to have 20 copies but test once a year.
And there is a reason tape is considered archival media, while HDDs are not (even on their best day).
It looks like you're using 1000 GB = 1 TB for your calc so I'll continue with that.
That is correct. I didnt feel like it was necessary to complicate things when it would have no effect on the comparison.
the LOT05 cartridge has a capacity of 1.5TB not 3
That is technically correct, and I addressed that below the price comparison. However, in practical usage it DOES approach 2:1 compression on data (I've used LTO3 and 4 drives for quite some time; they almost always hit at least 80% of their "compressed" rating). And you are wrong that tape is more expensive than sata-- LTO4 as you noted is 0.031 per MB in native capacity, so even if we ignore LTO hardware compression (which is nothing to sneeze at), you have 75% of the cost of your cheapest, lowest-common-denominator SATA drives-- assuming you pony up for 2TB drives, rather than the even more expensive 1TB drives.
So the real cost would be more like $0.081 per GB for the tapes.
Thats not quite fair, because you havent calculated the enormous cost of trying to back 45TB up to hard drive, and keep any kind of decent rotation going, not to mention parity and the rest. I might as well start talking about the cost of a controller capable of handling 45TB of storage (a 16-slot LTO5 autoloader can be had for around $4k-- thats ~48TB, while a 16-channel controller costs around $1200 by itself).
Even for smaller customers, I recommend tape-- LTO2 @ 200/400GB capacity is around $200-500 depending on where you get it, and the tapes are very cheap to replace. And nothing really beats having multiple copies.
Offline HD has replaced tape for almost every application. It is so much cheaper and more reliable.
Lets do a quick comparison.
Price: SATA 2TB drive: $80, or $0.04/MB SATA 1TB drive: $54, or $0.054/MB LTO5 3TB tape: $68, or $0.023/MB LTO4 1.6TB tape: $25, or $0.015/MB Even if you drop the "compressed vs native", LTO4 is still $0.03/MB, about 75% of the cost of sata at its best.
Durability: SATA connector: rated for 50 connections LTO-5 tape: rated for 5000 loads/unloads
Complexity: LTO5 tape: spool of magnetic media SATA drive: Spinning platters, motor, controller, read head. Very sensitive to bumps during operation.
You go with your disk-backup; Im sticking with tape. Enjoy your added costs of removable drive chassis.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what things like SSL are for. No need to reinvent the wheel here.
BRILLIANT! That means that any flaws in your OS or applications (web browser) WON'T BE PATCHED
Which isnt really an issue for several reasons:
A) most of the code out there isnt targetting some obscure form of linux
B) this is a live distro, so there is no permenant storage, so no real worry of a rootkit
C) someone booting up this distro is unlikely to be doing so for reasons that would expose him to threats
Hence the lack of caring about /etc/passwd, or running as root, or all the rest. Its generally irrelevant on a live distro because you cannot get rootkitted.
What about rootkits that can get loaded via different means? NIC cards? Storage adapters? LCD monitors that have small repeaters to record and send encrypted frames of what is displayed?
Statistically and practically speaking, those are if miniscule concern especially compared with the relatively common MBR rootkits out there.
Not to mention the inherent difficulties in trying to install a generic rootkit to specific hardware via CMOS overwrite; I dont think its anywhere as easy as you seem to think it is. Hint-- not all BIOSes will work on all motherboards (and the same is true of NICs, etc).
they won't even be able to access their email unless the computer has a smart chip reader
I might be wrong, but thats probably why the distro includes CAC and PIV card support.
Its different because not only is it approved for clearanced work, it also has a version of Firefox with CAC-reader support. My understanding has always been that CAC support was limited to windows; no longer.
Having a single copy of your data on a single external medium with no RAID is asking for one of the following scenarios:
A) power surge across your SATA power lines. All drives knocked off line, backup media is also offline, need to go to data recovery lab to repair controllers.
B) Data corruption or deletion occurs prior to backup, goes unnoticed for 1 week (or more). Backups now consist of the "bad" data that you need to roll back from.
C) Your backup drive dies, followed by a failure of your main drive (Not uncommon, if both are installed in the same time frame and are from the same vendor). You now have no data.
THIS is why tape is king IMO-- not praying that your one backup medium is OK.
If you read TFS, the summary makes it explicitly clear in its first sentence that the devices discussed in the article are millimeter wave.
You can bring up backscatter and its safety all day long, but the article isnt about that and neither was my comment.
When you say "bailed them out", to be clear, you mean that they took advantage of tax incentives, by presumably doing things we were trying to incentivize that cost GE money (like green initiatives)?
Thats only for OEM licenses.
There ARE no health concerns with Millimeter Wave scanners, as they do not use ionizing radiation.
For your education:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation
True but any radiation exposure increases the risk of cancer.
False. There is no scientist Ive ever heard of who would ever claim that infrared or optical radiation causes cancer, and these particular scanners (which ARENT x-ray scanners) are just outside the infrared spectrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terahertz_radiation).
In any case, it is radiation and can cause cancer.
No, its microwave radiation (not even that!), and noone has ever shown a conclusive or even likely link to show that it causes cancer. From the wiki article on it...
The terahertz region is between the radio frequency region and the optical region generally associated with lasers....safety limits are based on extrapolation.... It is expected that effects on tissues are thermal in nature and, therefore, predictable by conventional thermal models.
In otherwords, there really isnt any credible "it causes cancer" hypothesis out there based on where it lies on the electromagnetic spectrum.
Please stop spouting nonsense, every time one of these TSA Millimeter wave discussions comes up someone inevitably spouts nonsense about cancer.
These ARENT x-ray scanners, and do not dose you with ionizing radiation. So while most of the stuff in your post is accurate, it is irrelevant because so far as anyone is aware these scanners (Millimeter Wave) do not cause any health effects whatsoever; theyre basically zapping you with microwaves which only have thermal effects so far as anyone has shown.
To everyone in this thread, these arent X-ray scanners, theyre millimeter wave scanners, which are fundamentally different than the backscatter scanners in that they DONT INVOLVE XRAYS.
For the TLDR crowd out there, once again, NO XRAYS ARE INVOLVED HERE.
Good gracious are people not even reading the summary?
The Washington Post reports that the TSA will begin installing new software on millimeter wave body scanners at 41 airports that will....
And for reliability, which are you more confident of, a spool of tape being mechaincally able to unspool, or a harddrive's motor spinning up, its platters rotating, being dust free, the controller correctly operating, and the readhead moving freely?
By your logic, photographs are also detailed searches, once they hit a certain megapixel range. I do not believe that to be a correct interpretation of the constitution.
If youre against it, fine, push for legislation, but dont read things into the constitution that arent there.
I imagine it WOULD be a search at that point. My post was only addressing the specific scenario of someone doing a scan only, from a distance, not restraining you.
Reading comprehension fail. My post was specifically addressing whether or not iris scanners were unconstitutional. Your reply indicated you read an endorsement into my post.
I nowhere in any of my posts on this topic indicated whether I am for or against such scanners; I simply want to eliminate the bad arguments on the topic, much as I try to do in the Millimeter Wave Scanner discussions any time someone tries to claim that they cause cancer (they dont, theyre different than backscatter machines, etc).
Possibly this puts me in the minority, but I dont come to discussion boards primarily to try to pound my ideas into someone elses head to bolster my ego. I come here to discuss, and to potentially learn, and when people throw non-sequiturs and factually wrong information about, it impedes that. My post was simply trying to rectify that.
I think pretty much every lawyer would LOVE to take a case where police, with no warrant, court order, or probable cause, physically restrained someone. That would (IANAL, IMO, etc) seem to be a pretty clear violation of "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures".
But im still not seeing how someone taking an iris scan of you unawares would violate that, or how it is substantially different than photographing you and then looking your pic up in a database. Possibly there are other relevant laws, but again this does NOT seem to violate the CONSTITUTION, which is what the discussion (constitutionality) is about.
And, in case you think something not being in the constitution is a good reason why such a thing SHOULD not be in the constitution, realize it would have been pretty impressive were the founding fathers to predict cameras and iphones and put protections in against them.
Whether or not something SHOULD be in the constitution is irrelevant when discussing whether or not something IS unconstitutional.
Neither is there a constitutional right to privacy. There are certain searches and seizures that require a warrant, and certain protections against self testimony etc, but nowhere am I aware of any constitutional right to not be photographed.
You can argue about whether it is "police-state scary" or not, but to call it unconstitutional seems a little ridiculous.
If I ever need to restore a 1TB server I will be done in afew hours, you will still be running your tape restore the next day (and probably the day after that too).
You very clearly have NO experience with tape.
1TB tapes (LTO4, LTO5) have speeds around 150MB/s+, and are usually on either a SAS or SCSI adapter which means their overhead is far less than your sata drives. So for 1TB of data, it will take about 2.5-3 hours to do a restore.
As for redundancy, presumably youre not using desktop-grade drives (what with their tendency to cause raid controllers to mark them offline on a bad block), and presumably youre using a raid controller, so for 1TB data we're already at $500 between the cost of 2x RE4 drives and a suitable controller; plus if you want multiple copies, you now need hotswap chassis (anyone saying "sleeveless hotswap" should be ignored, as sata connectors are not rated for many insertions) and backplane. Cost is rising, and you have not addressed potential issues like "changing drive letter (or identifier)" depending on OS.
For instance, Is the backup drive D:? E:? Is it /dev/sda, or /dev/sdc? What happens when someone plugs a flash card in, and the OS assigns it the identifier you were intending to use for backup? Cant use UUID, since we are (presumably) backing up to multiple different media for redundancy.
And you also havent solved the whole "disks are inherently more complex, have more moving parts, and are more breakage prone".
Testing daily is less important as you have more copies of your data. It seems far more silly to have a single copy of your data on HDD, and test it daily, then to have 20 copies but test once a year.
And there is a reason tape is considered archival media, while HDDs are not (even on their best day).
It looks like you're using 1000 GB = 1 TB for your calc so I'll continue with that.
That is correct. I didnt feel like it was necessary to complicate things when it would have no effect on the comparison.
the LOT05 cartridge has a capacity of 1.5TB not 3
That is technically correct, and I addressed that below the price comparison.
However, in practical usage it DOES approach 2:1 compression on data (I've used LTO3 and 4 drives for quite some time; they almost always hit at least 80% of their "compressed" rating).
And you are wrong that tape is more expensive than sata-- LTO4 as you noted is 0.031 per MB in native capacity, so even if we ignore LTO hardware compression (which is nothing to sneeze at), you have 75% of the cost of your cheapest, lowest-common-denominator SATA drives-- assuming you pony up for 2TB drives, rather than the even more expensive 1TB drives.
So the real cost would be more like $0.081 per GB for the tapes.
Thats not quite fair, because you havent calculated the enormous cost of trying to back 45TB up to hard drive, and keep any kind of decent rotation going, not to mention parity and the rest. I might as well start talking about the cost of a controller capable of handling 45TB of storage (a 16-slot LTO5 autoloader can be had for around $4k-- thats ~48TB, while a 16-channel controller costs around $1200 by itself).
Even for smaller customers, I recommend tape-- LTO2 @ 200/400GB capacity is around $200-500 depending on where you get it, and the tapes are very cheap to replace. And nothing really beats having multiple copies.
Offline HD has replaced tape for almost every application. It is so much cheaper and more reliable.
Lets do a quick comparison.
Price:
SATA 2TB drive: $80, or $0.04/MB
SATA 1TB drive: $54, or $0.054/MB
LTO5 3TB tape: $68, or $0.023/MB
LTO4 1.6TB tape: $25, or $0.015/MB
Even if you drop the "compressed vs native", LTO4 is still $0.03/MB, about 75% of the cost of sata at its best.
Durability:
SATA connector: rated for 50 connections
LTO-5 tape: rated for 5000 loads/unloads
Complexity:
LTO5 tape: spool of magnetic media
SATA drive: Spinning platters, motor, controller, read head. Very sensitive to bumps during operation.
You go with your disk-backup; Im sticking with tape. Enjoy your added costs of removable drive chassis.