You have no idea what you are talking about. Most tapes are not written by people and put on a shelf. Most tapes are automatically managed by a tape library, such as this one (note that thing can store up to 900PB.) Read failures do not happen, because the library and host software together automatically count cycles and copy to a different tape when the cycles get too high, as well as detecting corrected errors and signalling when there is a problem with a tape.
z/OS, for instance, has a hierarchical storage manager where, by policy, data that is not accessed in certain period of time is moved first to slower (cheaper) disk, then to tape. Where I work, the 'to tape' time is about a month. In over 30 years of using such systems I have seen the 'DFHSM is recalling from tape' message many thousands of times, and I have never once encountered a situation where the recall failed or the data was corrupted. And the recall typically takes less than a minute.
It seems that most people on here only have experience with crappy home tape systems.
So let's do your contrasting with HDDs. That library holds up to 900PB, and uses 1.6kVA of power. It takes up 163 square feet of floor space. By my calculation, that would take over 1 million 1TB HDDs in a RAID array. How much floor space would that take? How much power would it use? How much heat would be generated?
If you have a lot of data, and do not need all of the data 'right this second', and (most importantly) have a system that can manage the data without causing the user to jump through hoops, tape makes an excellent solution. And that describes most large companies.
I didn't say 'they were already there'. I said 'they were getting paid anyway'. It is a quite simple math problem. Let's say that the investigators were paid (by the taxpayers) a total of $5000 for the three days of investigation. How much would they have been paid (by the taxpayers) if they were NOT doing that investigation? The answer is $5000. Now, quick, how much is $5000 - $5000?
Of course there is a cost to having a police force. Trying to assign those costs to individual cases is meaningless, unless the cases have specific costs over and above the usual (such as requiring overtime).
Your landscaping example is stupid. YOU are not paying the landscapers to work somewhere else.
According to TFA, it took 3 days to find the guy. And the people that did the investigation were getting paid anyway (you don't think they went out and hired extra investigators for this, do you). The 'cost' was $0.
Evidence? Seems to me that it is more likely he could have caused accidents, because now the idiot who was going to make a call (or was in the middle of a call) is going to be looking at his phone to check signal strength, redialing, getting frustated, etc.
No, it is not anything like security through obscurity. It is more like security through the-only-way-you're-getting-near-the-thing-is-by-getting-past-heavily-armed-military-personnel.
Exactly this. The last time there was one of these articles some guy was claiming that stores would no longer carry manufactured goods, they would print them on demand. The impact of this was to be so great as to cause the collapse of the shipping industry. So I took a quick walk around my house to get an inventory of what would be printable. And what I found was: a few kitchen utensils and some toiletry items (hair brushes, etc). Everything else is wood, glass, polished chrome or brass, electronics, plant or animal based cloth/textiles, food, etc.
Yes, you have valid uses. But those uses all fall under the hobbyist or creator category. Nobody is saying there is no use in those markets. The article and discussion is about consumer use of 3d printing, and so far there is no use case for that at all. Yes, it would be nice to replace a broken battery cover for a remote, but not at the cost of 3D printer, the associated materials, and most importantly, a place for it.
Of course a 3.5" floppy drive can damage a disk. The head is in contact with moving media. Should it damage the disk? No. CAN it damage the disk? Certainly.
I hope your not an archeologist or forensics expert. The first thing to be concerned about, when dealing with a one-of-a-kind artifact, is to minimize any POSSIBLE (not probable) damage. There is a non-zero probability that using a disk drive could cause damage. There is less of a possibility that magnetic imaging would cause damage.
Please tell me you don't believe that 97% nonsense. TWC has about a 9.5% gross profit margin. If the internet business was really operating at a 97% margin then the other areas (tv and phone) must be operating at one hell of a loss to drag the GPM all the way down to 9.5%. Why would they stay in those businesses? They could just ditch those businesses and make 97% profit!
The answer, of course, is that the guy making the 97% claim is assigning ALL of the costs of operating the business, except for things directly related to internet, to things other than internet. In other words, the only costs that the internet business incurs are basically the power to keep the servers running. All of the other expenses (employees, pensions, debt service, maintenance, marketing, etc) are assigned to everything OTHER than internet.
'Common understanding of the law' according to who? While the copyright law is pretty large, the basic concept behind copyright law is in the Constitution - creators shall have exclusive right to their works.
Of course the over the air broadcasters are complaining. They actual PAY for the content. Then Aereo comes and leeches off the broadcasters, taking away a source of revenue, without paying anything. When Aereo actually produces (or pays for) it's own content, then you may have a point.
Well, he is entirely wrong if that is his argument. Aereo is not producing (or paying for) content, ABC is. Aereo is, in fact, entirely dependant on ABC et al, they just don't think they need to pay for that. Car makers, however, were in no way dependant on buggy whip makers - they were COMPETITORS. If Aereo wants to put ABC out of business by producing their own content and drawing viewers from ABC, ABC can't do anything about it. But as long as their model is 'bleed the host until it is dead', you can expect the host to put up a fight.
Did it ever occur to you that neither advertising fees nor subscription fees are enough, by themselves, to cover the cost and still make a profit?
It does not matter in the slightest what the 'original' method was. Back then, there were only a very few choices of what to watch, so each network had a huge number of viewers. Adverstising rates could be set high enough to cover the costs, because there was no other way for advertisers to reach that many people. Today, there are many, many choices for an advertiser to spend his money on. The TV stations can not raise rates high enough to pay for everything, so they use a model where SOME of the money comes from advertising and SOME of the money comes from subscription. That is in no way 'double dipping'.
Ah, yes, the stupid old 'buggy whip makers' argument.
Buggy whip makers went out of business because people did not want buggy whips. Are you trying to claim that people don't want the content the content producers are making? If that is your claim, then why does this case even exist? Surely if people don't want the content then there is no need for Aereo.
It's way past time to put that old trope to bed. I have seen way more Android and iOS devices spontaneously reboot than I ever saw blue screens. The only difference is, the spontaneous reboots provide absolutely NO information about why they happened, and the name of the product that DETECTED (not necessarily caused) the problem is not displayed, so people are far more likely to blame 'the hardware', etc whereas with a blue screen it is always WINDOWS that blue screened.
I made no such claims. I was just rebutting your 'practically impossible' and 'simply can't be done' claims, which are obviously false. Clearly, skilled photographers can do it, and they do it every day.
You seem to be confusing lenses and filters. Lenses are not used to 'apply distortions' (although a side effect of many lenses is distortion). Lenses are used to control what fills the frame of the picture.
I'll give you an example. Suppose you are on the sidelines at a football game, and want to take some pictures. One picture might be of what your eye sees - a good portion of the stands on the other side of the field, grass between you and the players, and the players. A better picture may be of only the player controlling the ball. A different picture may want to show mostly the stands, to show the size of the crowd.
A point and shoot camera, or a camera with a 'normal' lens is going to take the first picture. A telephoto lens would take the second picture (you could zoom in and get just the players face, including the sweat dripping from his hair), and a wide angle lens would take the third picture.
Now, why can't this camera elimate those lenses? Well, suppose you have a 10MP camera. In the wide-angle shot, the players face probably takes up.1% of the frame. If you are using all 10MP to capture the wide angle shot, your players face only uses about 10K of the pixels. If you try to blow the players face up to full-frame you have an extremely blocky picture with no detail at all. On the other hand, if you want to the players face to occupy 10MP, you need to capture 10 GIGA pixels in your wide angle shot.
You know, lots of people also die doing something they enjoy (like running.) Does that mean they purposely killed themselves or were forced to do the activity? No, of course not.
Slashdot Mirror
You have no idea what you are talking about. Most tapes are not written by people and put on a shelf. Most tapes are automatically managed by a tape library, such as this one (note that thing can store up to 900PB.) Read failures do not happen, because the library and host software together automatically count cycles and copy to a different tape when the cycles get too high, as well as detecting corrected errors and signalling when there is a problem with a tape.
z/OS, for instance, has a hierarchical storage manager where, by policy, data that is not accessed in certain period of time is moved first to slower (cheaper) disk, then to tape. Where I work, the 'to tape' time is about a month. In over 30 years of using such systems I have seen the 'DFHSM is recalling from tape' message many thousands of times, and I have never once encountered a situation where the recall failed or the data was corrupted. And the recall typically takes less than a minute.
It seems that most people on here only have experience with crappy home tape systems.
So let's do your contrasting with HDDs. That library holds up to 900PB, and uses 1.6kVA of power. It takes up 163 square feet of floor space. By my calculation, that would take over 1 million 1TB HDDs in a RAID array. How much floor space would that take? How much power would it use? How much heat would be generated?
If you have a lot of data, and do not need all of the data 'right this second', and (most importantly) have a system that can manage the data without causing the user to jump through hoops, tape makes an excellent solution. And that describes most large companies.
I didn't say 'they were already there'. I said 'they were getting paid anyway'. It is a quite simple math problem. Let's say that the investigators were paid (by the taxpayers) a total of $5000 for the three days of investigation. How much would they have been paid (by the taxpayers) if they were NOT doing that investigation? The answer is $5000. Now, quick, how much is $5000 - $5000?
Of course there is a cost to having a police force. Trying to assign those costs to individual cases is meaningless, unless the cases have specific costs over and above the usual (such as requiring overtime).
Your landscaping example is stupid. YOU are not paying the landscapers to work somewhere else.
Where did you get that 'statistic'?
Should it be illegal to conduct business while you are driving? Yes.
According to TFA, it took 3 days to find the guy. And the people that did the investigation were getting paid anyway (you don't think they went out and hired extra investigators for this, do you). The 'cost' was $0.
Evidence? Seems to me that it is more likely he could have caused accidents, because now the idiot who was going to make a call (or was in the middle of a call) is going to be looking at his phone to check signal strength, redialing, getting frustated, etc.
No, it is not anything like security through obscurity. It is more like security through the-only-way-you're-getting-near-the-thing-is-by-getting-past-heavily-armed-military-personnel.
Exactly this. The last time there was one of these articles some guy was claiming that stores would no longer carry manufactured goods, they would print them on demand. The impact of this was to be so great as to cause the collapse of the shipping industry. So I took a quick walk around my house to get an inventory of what would be printable. And what I found was: a few kitchen utensils and some toiletry items (hair brushes, etc). Everything else is wood, glass, polished chrome or brass, electronics, plant or animal based cloth/textiles, food, etc.
Yes, you have valid uses. But those uses all fall under the hobbyist or creator category. Nobody is saying there is no use in those markets. The article and discussion is about consumer use of 3d printing, and so far there is no use case for that at all. Yes, it would be nice to replace a broken battery cover for a remote, but not at the cost of 3D printer, the associated materials, and most importantly, a place for it.
Or, you could just continue doing what people do today: tape it back on. Total expense, tenth of a cent. Total time spent, 15 seconds.
If those kinds of things are what people are hanging their visions on, forget it.
Of course a 3.5" floppy drive can damage a disk. The head is in contact with moving media. Should it damage the disk? No. CAN it damage the disk? Certainly.
I hope your not an archeologist or forensics expert. The first thing to be concerned about, when dealing with a one-of-a-kind artifact, is to minimize any POSSIBLE (not probable) damage. There is a non-zero probability that using a disk drive could cause damage. There is less of a possibility that magnetic imaging would cause damage.
Sorry, I looked up the wrong Time Warner. TWC is about 44% GPM. However, the rest is still true.
Please tell me you don't believe that 97% nonsense. TWC has about a 9.5% gross profit margin. If the internet business was really operating at a 97% margin then the other areas (tv and phone) must be operating at one hell of a loss to drag the GPM all the way down to 9.5%. Why would they stay in those businesses? They could just ditch those businesses and make 97% profit!
The answer, of course, is that the guy making the 97% claim is assigning ALL of the costs of operating the business, except for things directly related to internet, to things other than internet. In other words, the only costs that the internet business incurs are basically the power to keep the servers running. All of the other expenses (employees, pensions, debt service, maintenance, marketing, etc) are assigned to everything OTHER than internet.
'Common understanding of the law' according to who? While the copyright law is pretty large, the basic concept behind copyright law is in the Constitution - creators shall have exclusive right to their works.
Of course the over the air broadcasters are complaining. They actual PAY for the content. Then Aereo comes and leeches off the broadcasters, taking away a source of revenue, without paying anything. When Aereo actually produces (or pays for) it's own content, then you may have a point.
Well, he is entirely wrong if that is his argument. Aereo is not producing (or paying for) content, ABC is. Aereo is, in fact, entirely dependant on ABC et al, they just don't think they need to pay for that. Car makers, however, were in no way dependant on buggy whip makers - they were COMPETITORS. If Aereo wants to put ABC out of business by producing their own content and drawing viewers from ABC, ABC can't do anything about it. But as long as their model is 'bleed the host until it is dead', you can expect the host to put up a fight.
Did it ever occur to you that neither advertising fees nor subscription fees are enough, by themselves, to cover the cost and still make a profit?
It does not matter in the slightest what the 'original' method was. Back then, there were only a very few choices of what to watch, so each network had a huge number of viewers. Adverstising rates could be set high enough to cover the costs, because there was no other way for advertisers to reach that many people. Today, there are many, many choices for an advertiser to spend his money on. The TV stations can not raise rates high enough to pay for everything, so they use a model where SOME of the money comes from advertising and SOME of the money comes from subscription. That is in no way 'double dipping'.
Ah, yes, the stupid old 'buggy whip makers' argument.
Buggy whip makers went out of business because people did not want buggy whips. Are you trying to claim that people don't want the content the content producers are making? If that is your claim, then why does this case even exist? Surely if people don't want the content then there is no need for Aereo.
It's way past time to put that old trope to bed. I have seen way more Android and iOS devices spontaneously reboot than I ever saw blue screens. The only difference is, the spontaneous reboots provide absolutely NO information about why they happened, and the name of the product that DETECTED (not necessarily caused) the problem is not displayed, so people are far more likely to blame 'the hardware', etc whereas with a blue screen it is always WINDOWS that blue screened.
I made no such claims. I was just rebutting your 'practically impossible' and 'simply can't be done' claims, which are obviously false. Clearly, skilled photographers can do it, and they do it every day.
Ever hear of Sports Illustrated? They have thousands of photos of sporting events, in perfect focus and shallow DOF.
You seem to be confusing lenses and filters. Lenses are not used to 'apply distortions' (although a side effect of many lenses is distortion). Lenses are used to control what fills the frame of the picture.
I'll give you an example. Suppose you are on the sidelines at a football game, and want to take some pictures. One picture might be of what your eye sees - a good portion of the stands on the other side of the field, grass between you and the players, and the players. A better picture may be of only the player controlling the ball. A different picture may want to show mostly the stands, to show the size of the crowd.
A point and shoot camera, or a camera with a 'normal' lens is going to take the first picture. A telephoto lens would take the second picture (you could zoom in and get just the players face, including the sweat dripping from his hair), and a wide angle lens would take the third picture.
Now, why can't this camera elimate those lenses? Well, suppose you have a 10MP camera. In the wide-angle shot, the players face probably takes up .1% of the frame. If you are using all 10MP to capture the wide angle shot, your players face only uses about 10K of the pixels. If you try to blow the players face up to full-frame you have an extremely blocky picture with no detail at all. On the other hand, if you want to the players face to occupy 10MP, you need to capture 10 GIGA pixels in your wide angle shot.
You know, lots of people also die doing something they enjoy (like running.) Does that mean they purposely killed themselves or were forced to do the activity? No, of course not.
Yes, that is what I meant.