The problem with RAID-5 is that you are 2 disks away from failure and rebuilds often kill the disks.
No. The problem with RAID-5 is that during a rebuild, there is a reasonably possible chance you could have a UBE, and lose one bit, making perfect recovery of the array impossible. Only a stupid controller would consider a UBE to be a failed drive and trash the entire array. On RAID-6, you still have the same possibility of a UBE, but the chances that two separate drives would experience one on the same exact block during a rebuild are so astronomically slim as to be irrelevant.
" data really make that much of a difference?"
IF their are survivors, yes, yes it makes a difference. See "Alive!" for one example.
There's no transponder data. There's no radio communications of any sort. When all those other systems have failed, what makes you think this data logger would magically continue working?
You don't simply recover the FDR. You recover each and every piece of the aircraft you possibly can, so the investigators can attempt to rebuild the aircraft. The cost would be incurred even if there was no FDR to search for.
What for? We already have the FDR for recovery after the crash. Why would a transmitter which streams a duplicate copy of the data through a satellite also need to survive the crash intact and functional?
Considering these investigations take months or even years to conclude, and usually identify the pilot or ground crew doing something stupid rather than following their training, and even if they do find some engineering or procedural fault that they develop a recommendation to fix, it takes years for the FAA and ICAO to adopt and implement, will the few extra weeks spent trying to discover the black box of the highly uncommon crash at sea with no transponder or RADAR data really make that much of a difference?
There's a big difference between slightly changing an orbit so it does not kill us all, and performing a Lunar entry burn for shits and giggles. The asteroid that detonated over Russia last year was around 12Gg, with a velocity of roughly 19km/s. The detonation as only about half a MT, so even a direct impact would not have been that bad outside the local region. It's a long way off from cataclysmic.
So let's intercept this thing and slow it down to Lunar orbit. Assuming a good chemical rocket at 450s... no, lets go all out and give it something nuclear at ~1000s, you're looking at some 70Gg in fuel. Now remember, you actually have to intercept it with that much fuel first. Even assuming you get lucky with several years of preparation and a fortuitous gravitational assist, you're still looking at a good 25km/s. You're up close to a full Tg in launch mass. The Saturn V was only around 3Gg. If you used that more traditional chemical rocket, you would be looking at 100x that requirement. Rocketry is very sensitive to specific impulse.
The requirements to capture even a small asteroid are just so absolutely staggering, trying to do so with an extinction-scale asteroid is not even remotely in the realm of possibilities, regardless of how much money we threw at it.
Suddenly (well, over the past 20 years), hacking has become something evil, and all those old meanings are forgotten.
And you're just as bad. "Constructive" was never a pre-requisite -- deconstructive operations were just as common, if not more so, because of "taking it apart to see how it works," and there's no viable clause anywhere that precludes a destructive operation from having a legitimate use, other than this naive re-branding idiocy.
"taking it apart to see how it works" is a constructive action. That's how we build new engineers.
Alignment has nothing to do with anything. "Hacking" is a constructive operation. You hack together a piece of code. You hack together a server. You hack together physical objects that have nothing at all to do with computers. "Hacking" is the process of building something new and useful without the full blown structure and overhead of a traditional engineering. Or, it could be violent coughing. Or, it could be chopping down a tree. Hacking has been around long before computer security was even a thing. Suddenly (well, over the past 20 years), hacking has become something evil, and all those old meanings are forgotten.
Nice strawman. Perhaps you are unaware that it is common that words can have multiple meanings and the fact that one of them is polite doesn't mean the others are.
So once someone decides to use a term as an insult, all of its uses are instantly off limits?
Without hackers, personal computing, the internet, and the entire information age itself would not exist. Face it, the misappropriation of the term "hacker" to mean someone who works to maliciously bypass computer security is a giant conspiracy among journalists to punish hackers for causing such a disruption to their industry.
Next time you want to make a racially pejorative term, you might pick one that isn't already used to describe people who break into safes. Cut it out with all this PC bullshit. You're taking all of our best terms.
So you would stand idly by and allow misinformation by a group who clearly and chronically has absolutely no grasp of the field they are discussing ruin your language?
No. Guessing passwords is a form of cracking. You're confused by how Hollywood and modern media has redefined the term hacking into something that is inherently criminal.
That argument only holds true if passwords were actually randomly generated. Humans are incapable of intentionally generating entropy. If forced to add a capital letter to a password, users will most likely place a single capital at the beginning or end. Numbers and special characters will replace similar looking letters. Passwords will still be based off dictionary words. The effective increase in entropy produced by such requirements is many orders of magnitude less than what the increased keyspace would otherwise suggest. The minor increase in the difficulty to brute force the passwords is more than offset by the significant increase in the difficulty to remember, and more importantly, type, those passwords. You're much better off just requiring a few more characters.
There is no "they", as there is no organized entity or group for "they" to refer to. There are only individuals who happen to carry the moniker for a specific event.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with RAID-5 is that you are 2 disks away from failure and rebuilds often kill the disks.
No. The problem with RAID-5 is that during a rebuild, there is a reasonably possible chance you could have a UBE, and lose one bit, making perfect recovery of the array impossible. Only a stupid controller would consider a UBE to be a failed drive and trash the entire array. On RAID-6, you still have the same possibility of a UBE, but the chances that two separate drives would experience one on the same exact block during a rebuild are so astronomically slim as to be irrelevant.
or Constantinople... um no Istanbul.
Hey, that's nobody's business but the Turks...
" data really make that much of a difference?" IF their are survivors, yes, yes it makes a difference. See "Alive!" for one example.
There's no transponder data. There's no radio communications of any sort. When all those other systems have failed, what makes you think this data logger would magically continue working?
You don't simply recover the FDR. You recover each and every piece of the aircraft you possibly can, so the investigators can attempt to rebuild the aircraft. The cost would be incurred even if there was no FDR to search for.
Commercial airliners travel well under 600 MPH
A few months ago, flying eastbound out of SLC in a 737, we had a ground track of well over 700MPH. Tail winds are fun.
What for? We already have the FDR for recovery after the crash. Why would a transmitter which streams a duplicate copy of the data through a satellite also need to survive the crash intact and functional?
I think some of the deep space data protocols would be more appropriate for use than TCP, or even IP in general.
Considering these investigations take months or even years to conclude, and usually identify the pilot or ground crew doing something stupid rather than following their training, and even if they do find some engineering or procedural fault that they develop a recommendation to fix, it takes years for the FAA and ICAO to adopt and implement, will the few extra weeks spent trying to discover the black box of the highly uncommon crash at sea with no transponder or RADAR data really make that much of a difference?
Presumably this device would only supplement the "black box", while the original hardened storage device would remain in the aircraft.
There's a big difference between slightly changing an orbit so it does not kill us all, and performing a Lunar entry burn for shits and giggles. The asteroid that detonated over Russia last year was around 12Gg, with a velocity of roughly 19km/s. The detonation as only about half a MT, so even a direct impact would not have been that bad outside the local region. It's a long way off from cataclysmic.
So let's intercept this thing and slow it down to Lunar orbit. Assuming a good chemical rocket at 450s... no, lets go all out and give it something nuclear at ~1000s, you're looking at some 70Gg in fuel. Now remember, you actually have to intercept it with that much fuel first. Even assuming you get lucky with several years of preparation and a fortuitous gravitational assist, you're still looking at a good 25km/s. You're up close to a full Tg in launch mass. The Saturn V was only around 3Gg. If you used that more traditional chemical rocket, you would be looking at 100x that requirement. Rocketry is very sensitive to specific impulse.
The requirements to capture even a small asteroid are just so absolutely staggering, trying to do so with an extinction-scale asteroid is not even remotely in the realm of possibilities, regardless of how much money we threw at it.
If an asteroid is found that is legitimately dangerous, we don't have the technology to capture it in Lunar orbit.
Suddenly (well, over the past 20 years), hacking has become something evil, and all those old meanings are forgotten.
And you're just as bad. "Constructive" was never a pre-requisite -- deconstructive operations were just as common, if not more so, because of "taking it apart to see how it works," and there's no viable clause anywhere that precludes a destructive operation from having a legitimate use, other than this naive re-branding idiocy.
"taking it apart to see how it works" is a constructive action. That's how we build new engineers.
Alignment has nothing to do with anything. "Hacking" is a constructive operation. You hack together a piece of code. You hack together a server. You hack together physical objects that have nothing at all to do with computers. "Hacking" is the process of building something new and useful without the full blown structure and overhead of a traditional engineering. Or, it could be violent coughing. Or, it could be chopping down a tree. Hacking has been around long before computer security was even a thing. Suddenly (well, over the past 20 years), hacking has become something evil, and all those old meanings are forgotten.
Nice strawman. Perhaps you are unaware that it is common that words can have multiple meanings and the fact that one of them is polite doesn't mean the others are.
So once someone decides to use a term as an insult, all of its uses are instantly off limits?
Without hackers, personal computing, the internet, and the entire information age itself would not exist. Face it, the misappropriation of the term "hacker" to mean someone who works to maliciously bypass computer security is a giant conspiracy among journalists to punish hackers for causing such a disruption to their industry.
Next time you want to make a racially pejorative term, you might pick one that isn't already used to describe people who break into safes. Cut it out with all this PC bullshit. You're taking all of our best terms.
So you would stand idly by and allow misinformation by a group who clearly and chronically has absolutely no grasp of the field they are discussing ruin your language?
No. Guessing passwords is a form of cracking. You're confused by how Hollywood and modern media has redefined the term hacking into something that is inherently criminal.
Apparently two internet dorks arrested in the US.
But then "they" is referring to those specific people, not to Anonymous.
And other than their own claim, what makes them members of Anonymous?
So then name two people who are in Anonymous. Presumably non-Human "things" cannot be in it.
How do you easily identify Anonymous?
That argument only holds true if passwords were actually randomly generated. Humans are incapable of intentionally generating entropy. If forced to add a capital letter to a password, users will most likely place a single capital at the beginning or end. Numbers and special characters will replace similar looking letters. Passwords will still be based off dictionary words. The effective increase in entropy produced by such requirements is many orders of magnitude less than what the increased keyspace would otherwise suggest. The minor increase in the difficulty to brute force the passwords is more than offset by the significant increase in the difficulty to remember, and more importantly, type, those passwords. You're much better off just requiring a few more characters.
There is no "they", as there is no organized entity or group for "they" to refer to. There are only individuals who happen to carry the moniker for a specific event.