RAID 1+5 is the answer. 6 6 TB disks disks gets you 12 TB (which is really about 10.9 TB).
A1 A2 B1 B2 P1 P2
A1 and A2 are mirrors of each other (RAID 1). A, B, and P form a RAID 5 array.
If A1 goes down, it gets rebuilt from A2. If A2 goes down while rebuilding A1, you can recover A1 from B1 and P1. If B1 or P1 then goes down, you can recover both it and A2 (and thus A1) from B2 and P2.
You can survive any 3 drive failures. You can potentially survive a 4th drive failure, too:
XX XX XX B2 P1 P2
If P1 goes down, you can still rebuild everything automatically. If P2 goes down, you can still rebuild everything, but your controller almost certainly won't automatically do so. You'd want to carefully read the documentation / contact your manufacturer to make sure you've got the right procedure for using P1 and B2 to regenerate A (either as A1 or A2). If B2 goes down, you're fucked.
Even in the cases where you're fucked you may be able to get shit back together. Unrecoverable read errors are the most likely issue to come up when rebuilding an array when a disk goes down, but UREs are unlikely to line up across both the RAID 1 and RAID 5 arrays. If your shit looks like this (where X is unreadable data and O is readable data):
Then you can still recover shit if you really want, though it's unlikely for your controller to be able to do so automatically while online (or automatically at all).
Compared to a single disk, RAID 1+5 is sextuple the cost for double the storage, but you get a ton of redundancy. Compared to RAID 1+0, you get the same storage for 50% more money, but you can withstand double the amount of disk failures. RAID 1+0 can survive 1 or 2 disk failures (2/3 chance for the second failure). RAID 1+5 can survive 3 or 4 (1/3 chance for the 4th failure).
There are people who insist that they can hear the difference between 320kbps mp3s (using the highest-quality available compressor) and their uncompressed counterparts So you can't? And hence you conclude no one can? Sorry, that is bullshit! Science and math proves all of these things wrong, yet people still insist they're right. A contrair! Sciense and math exactly proof that. You have a braindead idea about math and sciense. You can only hear up to like 20k Herz. But there are so called overtones, multiples of the base frequency. In this case 40k, 60k, 80k 100k etc. No human is able to hear 40k and above frequencies, but we all can hear if a 20k frequency is combined with an 40k overtone, or an 100k overtone even. Modern lossy compression algorithms cut off these overtones (as the overtone itself is unhearable)... nevertheless we can hear if it is 'there' or not.
Same is true for wine tasting and other human senses... in your next post you will explain to us that Ki/Chi is humbugs and does nit exist... just because you never tried to feel it.
The interference patterns caused by high (or low) frequencies interacting with the audible frequencies are both audible and inaudible. An recording recording will have all those interference patterns recorded as part of the overall resultant signal. The entire signal is processes by the compressor - highs and lows are removed because they are inaudible, but any interference patterns they created in the audible range will still be present. Cutting off the high/low end does not undo whatever effects the original sources for those frequencies had in the audible band.
Preserving highs and lows beyond our hearing range only matter during mixing, which happens before compression. Studios know what they're doing and generally won't resort to mixing compressed samples. Some older games however had no choice but to use compressed samples because of storage restrictions, and as a result can sound like ass if there are too many channels firing at once.
Another big issue is that these were 12 top of the line violins. Its pretty impressive honestly to say that violins that hundreds of years old can sound identical to 12 top of the line modern violins. No other 300 year old instrument is likely to sound as good as a modern top of the line version.
The modern violins aren't designed to sound good or correct - they're designed to sound like the old violins because that's what people think violins should sound like. A "perfect" violin would likely sound like ass to most people. It's basically the audio version of the uncanny valley, except the valley is on the "too good" side instead of the "not quite good enough" side.
There's nothing wrong with preferring the type of sound of those old violins make, because that preference is subjective. It just means it's not impressive for an old violin to sound like a brand new violin that was designed to imitate the sound of the old violin. It also means it's ridiculous when people claim to prefer the old violin over the new one designed to sound like it after it's been proven they can't actually hear a difference.
But there's not much substance to the study, either. You're doing exactly what you're complaining about.
It's a double blind test. Elitists can't pick out the over priced, over hyped thing from the other things. What more do you want?
Audiophiles, wine connoisseurs, art critics, and fashion designers are the masters of bullshit. They even trump holistic healers and political/religious leaders/zealots.
If you have ever sold a business like this, there is usually a 'no-compete' type condition for many years, usually a decade.
If you have ever conducted business, you would know that there is always a negotiation phase. If you have ever conducted business, you would know that dyn.com would love this approach as long as the number of users joining dyn.com from FreeOptionB exceeded the number of FreeOptionA users leaving. Right now many people are deciding between paying or finding another free option. If you provide a free option and then ship them off to dyn.com and present them with the same option, some percentage are going to decide to pay so they don't have to deal with this a third time. That percentage decreases as you get to the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. times, and the value of the exercise decreases along with it.
I take it you're not familiar with ticketmaster and ticketsnow . They do the same shit and sweep their affiliation under the rug as much as legally possible. Instead of shuffling users around they shuffle the product around to maximize gouging. When you think of dyn.com's free users and the users of the other free service you offer and plan to sell off to dyn.com as the product, it matches up perfectly.
Pay the Toll or Take the Free Road
- You profit when people Pay the Toll
- If you control the Free Road you basically get to bully people into making that choice again and dealing with the cost of Paying the Toll vs. the inconvenience of finding a Free Road that stays free.
They have my cable modem's MAC address. And if my cable modem sends out my router's MAC address, they have whatever MAC address I want to send out. Many routers let you specify a specific MAC, and many that don't let you clone the MAC of the first device connected behind it, which itself is often configurable via the driver or the BIOS/EFI.
I don't know - if you're talking 4-6 hours of driving on a charge then you probably want to stop and eat and use the facilities more often than you need to charge the car. How long will you be busy? There's your optimal charging window.
Most electric vehicles have a rated range of about 80 miles. The Tesla S with the big battery gets 200. (CR listed between 180 and 220 depending on weather, ac/heater, etc.. "Max Range" charging is not something you want to do to your car regularly, and even if you do use it for a long trip, it's offset by the fact that the 200 rating is based on a new battery.)
200 miles on the freeway will take 3 hours.
If you have a battery that isn't brand new, are driving at 5-10 MPH over the limit (everyone does it), or dare to use the AC/heater/radio/etc., your time to recharge will drop considerably. Remember that you get hit twice for speeding - once for being less efficient and twice for going the same distance in less time. Add in a small buffer to make sure you get to the charging station BEFORE you run out of juice, and you'll be stopping to charge every 2 to 2.5 hours.
I don't need/want a pit stop that often.
I'd be using the range estimator and driving too fast / too slow in an effort to get the earliest arrival time. Speeding may be overall worse in terms of efficiency, but it's not always worse in terms of arrival time (and it's not always better).
I'd rather speed and waste some energy IF it means I'm a stopping a few miles later (or a few minutes earlier) AND my stop will be long enough to (fast)charge fully - for example if I'm getting food and a fast charge can be done in 30 minutes.
I'd rather drive slow if it means the longer travel time is offset by having to do 1 less charge stop before I reach my destination.
I'd be gaming my speed and route because I don't want to be stopping for 30 minutes at a time more than once per 6 hours when I'm hungry / need to evacuate my various organs. I'll be buying an EV when a non-super-expensive one can get about 130 miles per charge in real-world use (my longest typical trip is about 110 miles). For longer trips, one pit stop is fine since I'll grab food, but a second pit stop means I'm burning time for no reason while cars with gasoline stay on the road making progress toward their destination.
The amount of energy they require is huge. Even if you slapped solar paneling all over the car and managed to eke out 200 W, you'd only extend range of the Tesla by about 0.7% assuming a generous 3 hours worth of range at freeway speeds. (200 W / (85 kWh / 3 h)).
Battery swaps are the only answer to the range problem for the foreseeable future.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
And, as we learned from "People vs. Larry Flint" (and other, less popular, sources), porn is speech...
However disgusting, "revenge porn" ought to remain legal...
Cough. Your freedoms end where other's begin. Cough.
That's a nice shitty little cliche to teach high school kids but it's not true at all. The first amendment guarantees that my speech an never (legally) be restricted, constrained, repressed, silenced, censored, etc. by the government. Never. The fact that it happens all the time doesn't mean my rights legally have stoppign and starting points, it means the government is broken and is illegally shitting on me.
What's next? You're going to tell me about the "social contract"? Hint - there is one social contract - the law.
Someone that is waving their arms in response to the fire has obviously already detected and is aware of the fire. At that point, it doesn't really matter if your fire alarm shuts off since the person is already alarmed...
Others in the house / same building may have heard the alarm but did not see the flames or the person fighting with them. When the alarm is quickly shut off, they assume it was a false alarm. But if the alarm shuts off and the fire is still going those people are screwed.
You cannot rely on the first responder (who is likely the idiot who started the fire) to take appropriate action. Even if the alarm retriggers in 10 seconds, or if people notice the fire or the flailing idiot after 10 seconds, that's still 10 seconds wasted. 10 seconds is the difference between a call to Servpro and the loss of 6 apartment units. 10 seconds is the difference between a few burns and smoke inhalation and death.
There's a reason we don't allow commercial/industrial fire alarms to be deactivated by anyone but the fire department.
How could someone think the idea of waving your hand to silence a fire alarm would be a good idea? That could easily happen when groggily being woken up, waving, then dropping back into a deep sleep and suffocating - not a very well thought out idea IMHO
Worse than that, it will easily happen when the first person near the fire starts waving their arms about in response to the fire (either in panic, trying to smother it, etc.).
I did not RTFA in depth but I am surprised that they did not have a mechanism to fix it remotely via updates of something. In these kinda devices you have to always assume there will be a failure and there should be a backup mechanism to be able to do quick updates. Think/develop it like the Curiosity the moon rover. There is no possibility of re-call and fix must be made really quick.
Apparently you didn't RTFS either. Wifi-connected units can be patched. Others can be patched manually by the user. Clueless users without an account can return it for a refund (or an updated unit, of course).
If it's not intended for the masses, then it's going to fail on all important points:
- it will be bigger/thicker than current all-in-one phones because each module will be its own box with its own case and you need space for the magnets and inter-modular connections - it means it will cost even more than current all-in-one phones - it means it won't get manufactured in enough quantities to make a difference in the waste produced by all-in-one phones
Somebody gets it.
This is a puff project designed to bolster the "innovative silicon valley tech firm" image more than anything else.
I have to put it back together again? Well, they'd have to actually build one first for me to be able to drop it. (Not that I'm one to often drop a phone.)
A modular phone will never work. The masses don't want modular devices. They want a solid slate they can get laser engraved more than they want the ability to customize, modify, or repair things.
I am a man. I am a volunteer to go on such a mission, as part of the first generation. I will necessarily have to breed, in order to do my part for overall mission success. Does this mean I may have to fuck a woman I find ugly, dumb, boring, vulgar or otherwise unattractive ?
Why not just allow for inbreeding and do continuous genetic testing on all embryos generated, terminating those that will turn into West Virginians?
Why not just allow inbreeding? It's how we fucking colonized Earth. Genetic diversity isn't something to strive for, it's simply a result of a population surviving long enough in different circumstances (from diet to weather to disease). Absolutely none of the issues our current genetic diversity handles will be an issue for a colonization program. All people chosen will be screened appropriately so we'll know they're all decently healthy, and all potential catastrophic problems will be completely unlike those encountered (and survived) on Earth by humans before the advent of clothing, medicine, etc. The risk of inbreeding creating disfigured/disabled/impaired offspring is really quite low, especially if you screen for known issues in advance. It's a taboo with no basis in science. Yes, bad shit can happen when you start with bad genes, but that's just as likely as good shit happening when you start with good genes. Inbreeding is how all populations of sexual species bootstrap. When you get right down to it, ANYONE you marry is your cousin, and it doesn't fucking matter.
I predicted this years ago. Just like I predict EA Origins will fail and what little games that rely on Origin will need to be changed, or more likely they will simply go away.
This is why the developer community should always build in capability to directly host games and use Steam.
GameSpy fails! It is known, Khaleesi.
Origin will fail! Eventually, yes.
They will all fail! Eventually, yes.
Include a server with the client. Yes, please.
Use Steam! Why? They're just going to fail eventually.
1: People will exit anyway, regardless of whether or not their letter has been called. 2: People exiting early or getting ready to exit will prevent people who are supposed to exit from exiting in time. This results in people from A still trying to exit while people from B are exiting, and this cascades all the way through.
At this time we'd like to offer boarding to our First Class and Business Class travelers, our Convoluted Rewards Program Platinum, Gold, and Silver members, as well as any elderly travelers, travelers needing assistance, those traveling with small children, and travelers serving in the military.
Half of the travelers stand up and congeal into an undulating blob at the doors. Over the course of 15 minutes, the blob reduces in size by 50%.
At this time we'll be boarding boarding group A.
The rest of the travelers stand up and join the blob, regardless of the boarding group they're in.
"Physicists have always thought it can be used to describe everything in the universe, even large objects, and perhaps the universe itself." Nope. Nope nope nope.
"So if macroscopic superpositions exist, there must be an algorithm that can solve this NP-hard problem quickly and efficiently." What? Why would you claim that?
You are grossly misinterpreting what he said, showing a basic lack of understanding in logic. He never, ever said anything like replace 4 way stops with yield signs and they are equivalent. You might want to re-check the context and see that it's about roundabouts and roundabouts do not have the problems which you felt the need to go into oh so much detail about. (Not that the problems you mentioned don't have other solutions, just that they are irrelevant).
Another way to say what he meant is "if Americans understood and followed the yield to right principle they would have roundabouts instead of 4 way stops." That may or may not be true, but it is nothing like what your interpretation (and irrelevant rebuttal).
Clearly, my "false" was negating your "false", which I've demonstrated makes it quite correct. You could have also said "False. The sky is blue." and my "false" would still be just as appropriate. Making an irrelevant statement of fact after an incorrect statement doesn't magically make that prior incorrect statement any more true.
Do you have any understanding of how a roundabout works? Have you ever driven through one? It doesn't appear so.
He said "four way stops are for idiots who cannot figure out the "yield to right" rule.".
Saying X "is for idiots who can't figure out" Y means X is unnecessary if you can figure out Y, which means Y functionally covers X. I showed that Y does not functionally cover X. Bingo bango, you're wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
RAID 1+5 is the answer. 6 6 TB disks disks gets you 12 TB (which is really about 10.9 TB).
A1 A2
B1 B2
P1 P2
A1 and A2 are mirrors of each other (RAID 1).
A, B, and P form a RAID 5 array.
If A1 goes down, it gets rebuilt from A2.
If A2 goes down while rebuilding A1, you can recover A1 from B1 and P1.
If B1 or P1 then goes down, you can recover both it and A2 (and thus A1) from B2 and P2.
You can survive any 3 drive failures. You can potentially survive a 4th drive failure, too:
XX XX
XX B2
P1 P2
If P1 goes down, you can still rebuild everything automatically.
If P2 goes down, you can still rebuild everything, but your controller almost certainly won't automatically do so. You'd want to carefully read the documentation / contact your manufacturer to make sure you've got the right procedure for using P1 and B2 to regenerate A (either as A1 or A2).
If B2 goes down, you're fucked.
Even in the cases where you're fucked you may be able to get shit back together. Unrecoverable read errors are the most likely issue to come up when rebuilding an array when a disk goes down, but UREs are unlikely to line up across both the RAID 1 and RAID 5 arrays. If your shit looks like this (where X is unreadable data and O is readable data):
A1 [OOOOOOOOXXOOOOOO] A2 [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]
B1 [OOOXXOOOOOOOOOOO] B2 [OOOOOOOOXXOOOOOX]
P1 [OOOOOXOOOOOOOOXO] P2 [XOOOOOOOOOXXOOOO]
Then you can still recover shit if you really want, though it's unlikely for your controller to be able to do so automatically while online (or automatically at all).
Compared to a single disk, RAID 1+5 is sextuple the cost for double the storage, but you get a ton of redundancy.
Compared to RAID 1+0, you get the same storage for 50% more money, but you can withstand double the amount of disk failures.
RAID 1+0 can survive 1 or 2 disk failures (2/3 chance for the second failure). RAID 1+5 can survive 3 or 4 (1/3 chance for the 4th failure).
There are people who insist that they can hear the difference between 320kbps mp3s (using the highest-quality available compressor) and their uncompressed counterparts ... nevertheless we can hear if it is 'there' or not.
So you can't? And hence you conclude no one can?
Sorry, that is bullshit!
Science and math proves all of these things wrong, yet people still insist they're right.
A contrair! Sciense and math exactly proof that. You have a braindead idea about math and sciense.
You can only hear up to like 20k Herz.
But there are so called overtones, multiples of the base frequency. In this case 40k, 60k, 80k 100k etc.
No human is able to hear 40k and above frequencies, but we all can hear if a 20k frequency is combined with an 40k overtone, or an 100k overtone even. Modern lossy compression algorithms cut off these overtones (as the overtone itself is unhearable)
Same is true for wine tasting and other human senses ... in your next post you will explain to us that Ki/Chi is humbugs and does nit exist ... just because you never tried to feel it.
The interference patterns caused by high (or low) frequencies interacting with the audible frequencies are both audible and inaudible.
An recording recording will have all those interference patterns recorded as part of the overall resultant signal.
The entire signal is processes by the compressor - highs and lows are removed because they are inaudible, but any interference patterns they created in the audible range will still be present. Cutting off the high/low end does not undo whatever effects the original sources for those frequencies had in the audible band.
Preserving highs and lows beyond our hearing range only matter during mixing, which happens before compression.
Studios know what they're doing and generally won't resort to mixing compressed samples.
Some older games however had no choice but to use compressed samples because of storage restrictions, and as a result can sound like ass if there are too many channels firing at once.
Another big issue is that these were 12 top of the line violins. Its pretty impressive honestly to say that violins that hundreds of years old can sound identical to 12 top of the line modern violins. No other 300 year old instrument is likely to sound as good as a modern top of the line version.
The modern violins aren't designed to sound good or correct - they're designed to sound like the old violins because that's what people think violins should sound like. A "perfect" violin would likely sound like ass to most people. It's basically the audio version of the uncanny valley, except the valley is on the "too good" side instead of the "not quite good enough" side.
There's nothing wrong with preferring the type of sound of those old violins make, because that preference is subjective. It just means it's not impressive for an old violin to sound like a brand new violin that was designed to imitate the sound of the old violin. It also means it's ridiculous when people claim to prefer the old violin over the new one designed to sound like it after it's been proven they can't actually hear a difference.
But there's not much substance to the study, either. You're doing exactly what you're complaining about.
It's a double blind test. Elitists can't pick out the over priced, over hyped thing from the other things. What more do you want?
Audiophiles, wine connoisseurs, art critics, and fashion designers are the masters of bullshit. They even trump holistic healers and political/religious leaders/zealots.
If you have ever sold a business like this, there is usually a 'no-compete' type condition for many years, usually a decade.
If you have ever conducted business, you would know that there is always a negotiation phase.
If you have ever conducted business, you would know that dyn.com would love this approach as long as the number of users joining dyn.com from FreeOptionB exceeded the number of FreeOptionA users leaving. Right now many people are deciding between paying or finding another free option. If you provide a free option and then ship them off to dyn.com and present them with the same option, some percentage are going to decide to pay so they don't have to deal with this a third time. That percentage decreases as you get to the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. times, and the value of the exercise decreases along with it.
I take it you're not familiar with ticketmaster and ticketsnow . They do the same shit and sweep their affiliation under the rug as much as legally possible. Instead of shuffling users around they shuffle the product around to maximize gouging. When you think of dyn.com's free users and the users of the other free service you offer and plan to sell off to dyn.com as the product, it matches up perfectly.
Pay the Toll or Take the Free Road
- You profit when people Pay the Toll
- If you control the Free Road you basically get to bully people into making that choice again and dealing with the cost of Paying the Toll vs. the inconvenience of finding a Free Road that stays free.
They already have your MAC address anyway if you are sending packets to them. The address is only valid on the link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
They have my cable modem's MAC address.
And if my cable modem sends out my router's MAC address, they have whatever MAC address I want to send out.
Many routers let you specify a specific MAC, and many that don't let you clone the MAC of the first device connected behind it, which itself is often configurable via the driver or the BIOS/EFI.
I don't know - if you're talking 4-6 hours of driving on a charge then you probably want to stop and eat and use the facilities more often than you need to charge the car. How long will you be busy? There's your optimal charging window.
Most electric vehicles have a rated range of about 80 miles. The Tesla S with the big battery gets 200. (CR listed between 180 and 220 depending on weather, ac/heater, etc.. "Max Range" charging is not something you want to do to your car regularly, and even if you do use it for a long trip, it's offset by the fact that the 200 rating is based on a new battery.)
200 miles on the freeway will take 3 hours.
If you have a battery that isn't brand new, are driving at 5-10 MPH over the limit (everyone does it), or dare to use the AC/heater/radio/etc., your time to recharge will drop considerably. Remember that you get hit twice for speeding - once for being less efficient and twice for going the same distance in less time. Add in a small buffer to make sure you get to the charging station BEFORE you run out of juice, and you'll be stopping to charge every 2 to 2.5 hours.
I don't need/want a pit stop that often.
I'd be using the range estimator and driving too fast / too slow in an effort to get the earliest arrival time.
Speeding may be overall worse in terms of efficiency, but it's not always worse in terms of arrival time (and it's not always better).
I'd rather speed and waste some energy IF it means I'm a stopping a few miles later (or a few minutes earlier) AND my stop will be long enough to (fast)charge fully - for example if I'm getting food and a fast charge can be done in 30 minutes.
I'd rather drive slow if it means the longer travel time is offset by having to do 1 less charge stop before I reach my destination.
I'd be gaming my speed and route because I don't want to be stopping for 30 minutes at a time more than once per 6 hours when I'm hungry / need to evacuate my various organs. I'll be buying an EV when a non-super-expensive one can get about 130 miles per charge in real-world use (my longest typical trip is about 110 miles). For longer trips, one pit stop is fine since I'll grab food, but a second pit stop means I'm burning time for no reason while cars with gasoline stay on the road making progress toward their destination.
The amount of energy they require is huge. Even if you slapped solar paneling all over the car and managed to eke out 200 W, you'd only extend range of the Tesla by about 0.7% assuming a generous 3 hours worth of range at freeway speeds. (200 W / (85 kWh / 3 h)).
Battery swaps are the only answer to the range problem for the foreseeable future.
FAA/TSA Crackdown in 3...2...Cavity Search.
We can't have people moving about freely. This is AMERICA.
Buy your 3D-printed drone NOW using Bitcoin!
This is what has become of Slashdot.
And, as we learned from "People vs. Larry Flint" (and other, less popular, sources), porn is speech...
However disgusting, "revenge porn" ought to remain legal...
Cough. Your freedoms end where other's begin. Cough.
That's a nice shitty little cliche to teach high school kids but it's not true at all. The first amendment guarantees that my speech an never (legally) be restricted, constrained, repressed, silenced, censored, etc. by the government. Never. The fact that it happens all the time doesn't mean my rights legally have stoppign and starting points, it means the government is broken and is illegally shitting on me.
What's next? You're going to tell me about the "social contract"? Hint - there is one social contract - the law.
Someone that is waving their arms in response to the fire has obviously already detected and is aware of the fire. At that point, it doesn't really matter if your fire alarm shuts off since the person is already alarmed...
Others in the house / same building may have heard the alarm but did not see the flames or the person fighting with them. When the alarm is quickly shut off, they assume it was a false alarm. But if the alarm shuts off and the fire is still going those people are screwed.
You cannot rely on the first responder (who is likely the idiot who started the fire) to take appropriate action. Even if the alarm retriggers in 10 seconds, or if people notice the fire or the flailing idiot after 10 seconds, that's still 10 seconds wasted. 10 seconds is the difference between a call to Servpro and the loss of 6 apartment units. 10 seconds is the difference between a few burns and smoke inhalation and death.
There's a reason we don't allow commercial/industrial fire alarms to be deactivated by anyone but the fire department.
How could someone think the idea of waving your hand to silence a fire alarm would be a good idea? That could easily happen when groggily being woken up, waving, then dropping back into a deep sleep and suffocating - not a very well thought out idea IMHO
Worse than that, it will easily happen when the first person near the fire starts waving their arms about in response to the fire (either in panic, trying to smother it, etc.).
I did not RTFA in depth but I am surprised that they did not have a mechanism to fix it remotely via updates of something. In these kinda devices you have to always assume there will be a failure and there should be a backup mechanism to be able to do quick updates. Think/develop it like the Curiosity the moon rover. There is no possibility of re-call and fix must be made really quick.
Apparently you didn't RTFS either.
Wifi-connected units can be patched. Others can be patched manually by the user. Clueless users without an account can return it for a refund (or an updated unit, of course).
If it's not intended for the masses, then it's going to fail on all important points:
- it will be bigger/thicker than current all-in-one phones because each module will be its own box with its own case and you need space for the magnets and inter-modular connections
- it means it will cost even more than current all-in-one phones
- it means it won't get manufactured in enough quantities to make a difference in the waste produced by all-in-one phones
Somebody gets it.
This is a puff project designed to bolster the "innovative silicon valley tech firm" image more than anything else.
I have to put it back together again?
Well, they'd have to actually build one first for me to be able to drop it. (Not that I'm one to often drop a phone.)
A modular phone will never work. The masses don't want modular devices. They want a solid slate they can get laser engraved more than they want the ability to customize, modify, or repair things.
The 5 year old didn't find this out, the father did. He's just using his 5 year old to get attention.
I am a man. I am a volunteer to go on such a mission, as part of the first generation. I will necessarily have to breed, in order to do my part for overall mission success. Does this mean I may have to fuck a woman I find ugly, dumb, boring, vulgar or otherwise unattractive ?
No. We'd never ask you to fuck your own mother.
Why is a generation only 10 years?
These days that's the age at which kids start to fuck and make more kids.
Why not just allow for inbreeding and do continuous genetic testing on all embryos generated, terminating those that will turn into West Virginians?
Why not just allow inbreeding? It's how we fucking colonized Earth. Genetic diversity isn't something to strive for, it's simply a result of a population surviving long enough in different circumstances (from diet to weather to disease). Absolutely none of the issues our current genetic diversity handles will be an issue for a colonization program. All people chosen will be screened appropriately so we'll know they're all decently healthy, and all potential catastrophic problems will be completely unlike those encountered (and survived) on Earth by humans before the advent of clothing, medicine, etc. The risk of inbreeding creating disfigured/disabled/impaired offspring is really quite low, especially if you screen for known issues in advance. It's a taboo with no basis in science. Yes, bad shit can happen when you start with bad genes, but that's just as likely as good shit happening when you start with good genes. Inbreeding is how all populations of sexual species bootstrap. When you get right down to it, ANYONE you marry is your cousin, and it doesn't fucking matter.
I predicted this years ago. Just like I predict EA Origins will fail and what little games that rely on Origin will need to be changed, or more likely they will simply go away.
This is why the developer community should always build in capability to directly host games and use Steam.
GameSpy fails!
It is known, Khaleesi.
Origin will fail!
Eventually, yes.
They will all fail!
Eventually, yes.
Include a server with the client.
Yes, please.
Use Steam!
Why? They're just going to fail eventually.
Because Civilization and Grand Theft Auto didn't have a large enough "playebase"?
Not for MP they don't. Those games are predominantly solo affairs.
Congratulations, you've reimplemented airline boarding procedures.
1: People will exit anyway, regardless of whether or not their letter has been called.
2: People exiting early or getting ready to exit will prevent people who are supposed to exit from exiting in time. This results in people from A still trying to exit while people from B are exiting, and this cascades all the way through.
At this time we'd like to offer boarding to our First Class and Business Class travelers, our Convoluted Rewards Program Platinum, Gold, and Silver members, as well as any elderly travelers, travelers needing assistance, those traveling with small children, and travelers serving in the military.
Half of the travelers stand up and congeal into an undulating blob at the doors. Over the course of 15 minutes, the blob reduces in size by 50%.
At this time we'll be boarding boarding group A.
The rest of the travelers stand up and join the blob, regardless of the boarding group they're in.
"Physicists have always thought it can be used to describe everything in the universe, even large objects, and perhaps the universe itself."
Nope. Nope nope nope.
"So if macroscopic superpositions exist, there must be an algorithm that can solve this NP-hard problem quickly and efficiently."
What? Why would you claim that?
Stopped reading TFS there. It's clearly useless wankery.
I want to know that same thing, but for the cluster of ntpd servers running on my LAN.
I'd help you but you didn't specify you were running a Beowulf cluster.
You are grossly misinterpreting what he said, showing a basic lack of understanding in logic. He never, ever said anything like replace 4 way stops with yield signs and they are equivalent. You might want to re-check the context and see that it's about roundabouts and roundabouts do not have the problems which you felt the need to go into oh so much detail about. (Not that the problems you mentioned don't have other solutions, just that they are irrelevant).
Another way to say what he meant is "if Americans understood and followed the yield to right principle they would have roundabouts instead of 4 way stops." That may or may not be true, but it is nothing like what your interpretation (and irrelevant rebuttal).
Clearly, my "false" was negating your "false", which I've demonstrated makes it quite correct. You could have also said "False. The sky is blue." and my "false" would still be just as appropriate. Making an irrelevant statement of fact after an incorrect statement doesn't magically make that prior incorrect statement any more true.
Do you have any understanding of how a roundabout works? Have you ever driven through one? It doesn't appear so.
He said "four way stops are for idiots who cannot figure out the "yield to right" rule.".
Saying X "is for idiots who can't figure out" Y means X is unnecessary if you can figure out Y, which means Y functionally covers X. I showed that Y does not functionally cover X. Bingo bango, you're wrong.