Firmware update shouldn't be too bad on you. It requires only a few minutes of downtime during two reboots. The brand new 4.0 firmware is pretty nice and has improved performance quite a bit. Also, you can upgrade the box from 256MB to 1GB to give it a performance boost.
I'm using X-RAID with 4 x 750GB. I haven't tried it with any other RAID levels, so I can't make a comparison.
If you don't frequent it already, go check out Infrant's support forum at http://www.infrant.com/forum/ . You'll find their technical guys to be very involved and helpful, and they love to geek out with clued users. Good luck!
If your client is seeing 50-60 Mbps writes and 100 Mbps reads, something is wrong. I've got one of these boxes at home and see over 200 Mbps in each direction. Check that configuration, update the firmware, do something.
Yes, it has DRM, and yes DRM is evil, but you're not quite understanding how the DRM works on the Kindle. Unlike the services-gone-tits-up you describe, the Kindle doesn't check over the network every time you read a book whether or not you're allowed to use it. The AZW file is merely linked to your Kindle account. As long as you do a reasonable job of protecting your digital assets by backing up your books, you're safe for life, even if Amazon should terminate the whole program (which I really don't see happening).
I agree that the device has some shortcomings and is too expensive, and I have a distaste for DRM in general, but they're not going to hang people out to dry like so many network-checking DRM schemes have in the past.
Personally, I hope the box succeeds, because I'd like see 2.0. That might be where they get everything right and convince me to buy one.
What specifically are you talking about? The only use of its/it's in the original blurb ("What is exciting about this tool or blog engine is that even a lay person can easily master its use and get his or her blog up and running in no time.") is quite correct.
Were you talking about something else, or are you as clueless as your use of "their" suggests?
The amount of BS floating around on this topic is staggering. And the fact that mentally ill people are denied the attention they need is a major shame (this isn't a US only problem btw). Jailing them is simply stupid. ...as is treating them like second class citizens, enacting law after law after law to make them fear their neighbors and worry about going back to prison for failing to jump through one of the hundreds of hoops in a system designed to make them fail when it should be designed to encourage them to better themselves, which is something I bet a lot of them would like to do if given a fair opportunity.
When we have a culture in which recovering sex offenders, no matter the severity of their orgiginal crimes, are constantly stigmatised, are constantly in fear of returning to prison for some petty little bureaucractic mistake, and are incessantly chased around at their jobs and schools by a drooling media intent on "exposing predators," how can we ever expect them to able to improve themselves and to become better members of society?
As other posters have pointed out, they've either done their time or they haven't. If they're still a threat, leave them in jail or inpatient treatment. If they're not, leave them alone!
2. incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs. e.g. "How ironic that someone who posted a story about "truthiness" doesn't even know how to use the term correctly." Do tell me in what dictionary you found that ridiculous misdefinition. Or did you just make it up because it suits your misuse of the word?
I'm not American, but this story reinforces an impression of Americans that I have not been able to shake off. Namely, that there is absolutely no love of the English language among the majority of it's native speakers. You might want to figure out how to form possessive pronouns properly before lambasting Americans' treatment of the English language. Here's a hint for you: With the exception of one's, possessive pronouns in English do not have apostrophes.
Ironic that the post here misuses the word... Poster needs to look up the defintion of truthiness? Try parent needs to look up the definition of irony. Here, I'll help you out:
ironynoun (ironies) 1 a linguistic device or form of humour that takes its effect from stating or implying the opposite of what is the case or what is intended, eg saying 'You've made a really good job of that, haven't you', when someone has done something badly.
Why did you tack something random ("Edit is a verb") to your post?
That's not random. Slashdot editors are supposed to be editors, not just posters. Fixing submitters' egregious grammar is part of their job description, and yet they never seem to bother.
It's got no apostrophe when its is a pronoun.
on
Firefox Losing Its Way?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
NeoSmart Technologies has a recap on Firefox 2.0 and it's [sic] shortcomings. Aside from the technical aspects, the article raises some good questions about the Firefox "community," it's [sic] future, and what it's [sic] goals are at the end of the day.
Attention Slashdot editors: Edit is a verb. Possessive pronouns in English (save one's) do not have apostrophes.
That may be true but somehow it seems that commercial airliners have a catastrophic failure rate of somewhat less than 20% over that same timeframe...
The fact that we have lost 20% of the orbiter fleet has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the fleet. The loss of neither orbiter was age related, so this remark is a complete non-sequitur.
The space shuttle orbiter airframes were designed and built to take the stress of spaceflight for at least 100 flights each over at least 50 years. Talk to me again when your remarks become relevant.
The act of launching into space in a gigantic 22 year old space shuttle protected by ceramic tiles sounds pretty risky on its own.
Do you ever fly on commercial jetliners? If so, you're probably fairly regularly riding on 25+ year old aircraft which are subject to much MUCH less maintenance and scrutiny than the space shuttle orbiters are.
If you slowly push away from the space station, you won't keep moving away from it in a straight line, because you and the space station are both orbiting the earth. In 46 minutes or so you may find yourself passing by it again.
It may be *more* profitable to fly 11, but it certainly isn't unprofitable to fly 1. Unless you think it cost Rutan $200k per launch, which is just crazy.
You wanna bet? It takes an ungodly amount of fuel to fire a rocket engine that size for a few minutes, and fuel is not cheap. And that doesn't pay for R&D, staff, fuel for the mothership, insurance, etc. I would not be at all surprised to find that each of those SS1 launches cost in excess of $200k. Rutan didn't pay for it, of course... Paul Allen footed the R&D costs, and then Paul Allen and Richard Branson paid for the launch costs.
As for the jerk comment, don't take my comment out of context.
Fair enough. And you're right that there would be some people willing to pay nearly any amount of money for this opportunity. After all, look at what Tito and Shuttleworth paid for rides to the ISS. But what Rutan and Branson want to do is open up this field to the merely rich instead of just the obscenely rich, with an eye to later making it affordable to the simply well off. We'll never get to that point if we stop development as soon as we can give rides to the obscenely rich.
SpaceShipOne was a test vehicle and nothing more. It was not designed or built to make more than a few flights. It was designed to prove the technology works, to collect the X-Prize, and to encourage investment in further development of the technology for commercial use. It's achieved all of those goals magnificently, and I think therefore is just in sitting in the Smithsonian now instead of continuing to fly.
Establishing an airliner? WTF? Seriously dude, require your passenger to aquire a pilot's license, do the minimum required number of flight hours and designate them as a co-pilot.
Think about this. SpaceShipOne seats two. SpaceShipTwo (the passenger version) seats 11. If we assume the profit flying 11 is, say, $50,000 per person, then the cost to fly the thing is $1,500,000. You can't fly one person for a reasonable price. All the safety comments people have made aside, it's just not economical to fly a single passenger.
...you'll still have enough rich jerks with $200k each lining up to keep you flying...
What makes you think people who are interested in investing in the fledgeling space travel industry are automatically jerks?
Yes, by all means, tinkering with electronics (and even rendering them non-functional in the process) is a good thing, and should be encouraged. I've broken lots of electronics in my life, and I've learned a whole lot doing it, too. But does it deserve a Slashdot headline when we do it? Absolutely not! Electronics geeks who break things because they don't quite know what they are doing are not newsworthy.
My favourite part of his page is where he says, "these pins are very fragile, and breaking this pin will render the SNES useless!" So does overclocking it to 5.1 MHz, kid.
So what? Anybody with a soldering iron can install an oscillator. Knowing how to do so whilst still maintaining the intended usability of the hardware is useful overclocking. This is nothing more than a clueless idiot with a soldering iron and a little time. He hasn't overlocked his SNES. He's broken it. I can do that myself, with a hammer, and it'll be a lot more satisfying. Can I have a Slashdot headline, too?
While the referenced Guardian article does mention wikitruth.info, it says absolutely nothing about administrators "going through back channels on Wikipedia and retrieving articles deleted by Jimbo Wales or other higher-ups", as claimed by the submission. Slashdot's accuracy here is looking, well, Wikipedian. This is a creative interpretation at the least and an absolute fallacy at the most. While the statement may well be correct, the reference clearly is not.
So why is this on Slashdot now, instead of several months ago, when the Justin Berry flame war was going on in full force, when Jimbo and his drones were actively deleting all article content and were banning anyone who questioned their motives? Why did Slashdot ignore the situation at the time, when Slashdot readers could actually have made some noise about Jimbo's concessions to a whiny camwhore who didn't like reading the truth about himself? I know for a fact it was submitted several times.
Typical Slashdot style of late, I'm afraid... Totally drop the ball when a story is relevant, only to pick it up a few months later and post it... and then probably dupe it.
There has never been a remotely or locally exploitable vulnerability in qmail, regardless of what your Google query tells you.
...which was exactly my point. Googling for a product name followed by "exploit" does not yield results which accurately measure a products actual exploitability, as the original poster suggests.
Slashdot Mirror
...who have been playing WoW for the past three days.
What are you smoking? ROT13 was cracked years ago. These days, Double ROT13 is a much better choice.
The vast majority of Deloreans ever made are still on the road, driving, in good condition. I'd call these the Yugos of the deep instead.
Firmware update shouldn't be too bad on you. It requires only a few minutes of downtime during two reboots. The brand new 4.0 firmware is pretty nice and has improved performance quite a bit. Also, you can upgrade the box from 256MB to 1GB to give it a performance boost.
I'm using X-RAID with 4 x 750GB. I haven't tried it with any other RAID levels, so I can't make a comparison.
If you don't frequent it already, go check out Infrant's support forum at http://www.infrant.com/forum/ . You'll find their technical guys to be very involved and helpful, and they love to geek out with clued users. Good luck!
If your client is seeing 50-60 Mbps writes and 100 Mbps reads, something is wrong. I've got one of these boxes at home and see over 200 Mbps in each direction. Check that configuration, update the firmware, do something.
Yes, it has DRM, and yes DRM is evil, but you're not quite understanding how the DRM works on the Kindle. Unlike the services-gone-tits-up you describe, the Kindle doesn't check over the network every time you read a book whether or not you're allowed to use it. The AZW file is merely linked to your Kindle account. As long as you do a reasonable job of protecting your digital assets by backing up your books, you're safe for life, even if Amazon should terminate the whole program (which I really don't see happening).
I agree that the device has some shortcomings and is too expensive, and I have a distaste for DRM in general, but they're not going to hang people out to dry like so many network-checking DRM schemes have in the past.
Personally, I hope the box succeeds, because I'd like see 2.0. That might be where they get everything right and convince me to buy one.
What specifically are you talking about? The only use of its/it's in the original blurb ("What is exciting about this tool or blog engine is that even a lay person can easily master its use and get his or her blog up and running in no time.") is quite correct.
Were you talking about something else, or are you as clueless as your use of "their" suggests?
HIV has been unique, and staggering in it's ability to resist all attempts at treatment by mutating its own genetic code.
Hey, at least if you try it both ways, you'll be right half the time.
Hint: Possessive its has no apostrophe.
When we have a culture in which recovering sex offenders, no matter the severity of their orgiginal crimes, are constantly stigmatised, are constantly in fear of returning to prison for some petty little bureaucractic mistake, and are incessantly chased around at their jobs and schools by a drooling media intent on "exposing predators," how can we ever expect them to able to improve themselves and to become better members of society?
As other posters have pointed out, they've either done their time or they haven't. If they're still a threat, leave them in jail or inpatient treatment. If they're not, leave them alone!
Okay, I'll grant you that those definitions exist. However, to apply them to the poster's misuse of a word is at best a bit of a stretch.
irony noun (ironies) 1 a linguistic device or form of humour that takes its effect from stating or implying the opposite of what is the case or what is intended, eg saying 'You've made a really good job of that, haven't you', when someone has done something badly.
Funny, but "it's" = "it is", not "it has".Consult your dictionary again. Both expansions are correct.
Why did you tack something random ("Edit is a verb") to your post?
That's not random. Slashdot editors are supposed to be editors, not just posters. Fixing submitters' egregious grammar is part of their job description, and yet they never seem to bother.
NeoSmart Technologies has a recap on Firefox 2.0 and it's [sic] shortcomings. Aside from the technical aspects, the article raises some good questions about the Firefox "community," it's [sic] future, and what it's [sic] goals are at the end of the day.
Attention Slashdot editors: Edit is a verb. Possessive pronouns in English (save one's) do not have apostrophes.
For those with more money than common sense.
And naturally, since your priorities are different from those of others, you've got to insult us.
Tell you what. After I land, I'll let you know whether or not I felt it was a good investment. Enjoy waiting in Bigelow's line for the next 20 years.
The space shuttle orbiter airframes were designed and built to take the stress of spaceflight for at least 100 flights each over at least 50 years. Talk to me again when your remarks become relevant.
Oh now I understand. You're an idiot.
It may be *more* profitable to fly 11, but it certainly isn't unprofitable to fly 1. Unless you think it cost Rutan $200k per launch, which is just crazy.
You wanna bet? It takes an ungodly amount of fuel to fire a rocket engine that size for a few minutes, and fuel is not cheap. And that doesn't pay for R&D, staff, fuel for the mothership, insurance, etc. I would not be at all surprised to find that each of those SS1 launches cost in excess of $200k. Rutan didn't pay for it, of course... Paul Allen footed the R&D costs, and then Paul Allen and Richard Branson paid for the launch costs.
As for the jerk comment, don't take my comment out of context.
Fair enough. And you're right that there would be some people willing to pay nearly any amount of money for this opportunity. After all, look at what Tito and Shuttleworth paid for rides to the ISS. But what Rutan and Branson want to do is open up this field to the merely rich instead of just the obscenely rich, with an eye to later making it affordable to the simply well off. We'll never get to that point if we stop development as soon as we can give rides to the obscenely rich.
SpaceShipOne was a test vehicle and nothing more. It was not designed or built to make more than a few flights. It was designed to prove the technology works, to collect the X-Prize, and to encourage investment in further development of the technology for commercial use. It's achieved all of those goals magnificently, and I think therefore is just in sitting in the Smithsonian now instead of continuing to fly.
Establishing an airliner? WTF? Seriously dude, require your passenger to aquire a pilot's license, do the minimum required number of flight hours and designate them as a co-pilot.
...you'll still have enough rich jerks with $200k each lining up to keep you flying...
Think about this. SpaceShipOne seats two. SpaceShipTwo (the passenger version) seats 11. If we assume the profit flying 11 is, say, $50,000 per person, then the cost to fly the thing is $1,500,000. You can't fly one person for a reasonable price. All the safety comments people have made aside, it's just not economical to fly a single passenger.
What makes you think people who are interested in investing in the fledgeling space travel industry are automatically jerks?
Yes, by all means, tinkering with electronics (and even rendering them non-functional in the process) is a good thing, and should be encouraged. I've broken lots of electronics in my life, and I've learned a whole lot doing it, too. But does it deserve a Slashdot headline when we do it? Absolutely not! Electronics geeks who break things because they don't quite know what they are doing are not newsworthy.
My favourite part of his page is where he says, "these pins are very fragile, and breaking this pin will render the SNES useless!" So does overclocking it to 5.1 MHz, kid.
So what? Anybody with a soldering iron can install an oscillator. Knowing how to do so whilst still maintaining the intended usability of the hardware is useful overclocking. This is nothing more than a clueless idiot with a soldering iron and a little time. He hasn't overlocked his SNES. He's broken it. I can do that myself, with a hammer, and it'll be a lot more satisfying. Can I have a Slashdot headline, too?
Move on, folks. Nothing to see here.
While the referenced Guardian article does mention wikitruth.info, it says absolutely nothing about administrators "going through back channels on Wikipedia and retrieving articles deleted by Jimbo Wales or other higher-ups", as claimed by the submission. Slashdot's accuracy here is looking, well, Wikipedian. This is a creative interpretation at the least and an absolute fallacy at the most. While the statement may well be correct, the reference clearly is not.
So why is this on Slashdot now, instead of several months ago, when the Justin Berry flame war was going on in full force, when Jimbo and his drones were actively deleting all article content and were banning anyone who questioned their motives? Why did Slashdot ignore the situation at the time, when Slashdot readers could actually have made some noise about Jimbo's concessions to a whiny camwhore who didn't like reading the truth about himself? I know for a fact it was submitted several times.
Typical Slashdot style of late, I'm afraid... Totally drop the ball when a story is relevant, only to pick it up a few months later and post it... and then probably dupe it.
There has never been a remotely or locally exploitable vulnerability in qmail, regardless of what your Google query tells you.
...which was exactly my point. Googling for a product name followed by "exploit" does not yield results which accurately measure a products actual exploitability, as the original poster suggests.