I only use Seagate. The only company offering consumer hard drives with a 5 year warranty.
I'm not sure what you mean by "consumer hard drives", but both Western Digital and Maxtor (which admittedly is now part of Seagate) offer 5-year warranties on at least most of their drives.
One thing to watch out for is that drives sold in external enclosures typically have only a one year warranty, even though they use the same drive that when purchased bare has a 5-year.
Of course, everyone has their own drive horror stories, and there are many people who swear by a brand that others swear at.
Overall, I've had every brand die in every stage of their lifetimes, and I've found that I've RMA'd far more Seagate drives than any other brand. It's not that they are any worse, it's just that with the 5-year warranty, they are far more likely to still be in warranty.
So, I tend to buy the drive that best fits my needs and has a 5-year warranty. I've got Maxtor, Western Digital, and Seagate at this point in multiple arrays with a total of about 15TB.
The only things I have learned for sure is that I'll only use RAID-1, true hardware RAID-5 or 6 (no Intel ICHx "RAID-5"), and Linux software RAID-5 or 6...anything else is too dangerous for recovery.
Though as size increases, so does risk of failure, as I'm finding out.
That blog post forgets one thing: sector remapping.
With any actual redundant system (i.e., not RAID-0), you increase the likelyhood that the data is still there somehow. The drive with the unrecoverable read error re-maps the sector and the RAID software/firmware uses the redundancy to recover the correct data and write it back to the re-mapped sector.
Ask any MythTV user about how they can record a pair of HD streams while watching a third with no skips. That's about 7MB/second, and drives don't break a sweat on that.
No, the fact that it violates Microsoft's own UI standards is what makes it a bad system.
When every program puts "Save" and "Save As" on the "File" menu, there is no "learning" involved. You know where to find all the common tasks, because they are in the same place on every application.
The Office 2007 ribbon makes this sort of UI consistency impossible.
There is a way to set the command window to be mark/paste as default, so that right-click does instant paste and select works immediately. But I'm buggered if I know how to turn it on
"QuickEdit Mode" is what you are looking for.
Try the control menu and pick "Properties". Click the "Options" tab and there it is. Click "OK" and make sure you click "Save properties for future windows with same title".
Then, to make it portable, run "regedit.exe" and export "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Console". You can then take this registry file and merge it wherever you go and your console window will have all your tweaks (font, QuickEdit, etc.).
One of the things that IceTV can do is to skip ads when recording, or mute them when watching live.
VCRs also allow you to skip ads, although not quite in the same way.
Really, there are now quite literally dozens of products that can record TV and enable you to easily skip ads if you want, many of them commercial (i.e., not free as in beer or speech) and some quite well known (TiVo, for example). There are also many PC software products like IceTV that have similar functionality, and some are relatively well known (like MS Media Center). I can't really believe not wanting commecials skipped is the reason for the lawsuit.
Now, if the Nine Network has a competing product (either themselves or through some investment in another company), I could easily see that as the reason.
but 'Astros' is limited to a very very small population
Google numbers its users at nearly 50% of the population of the entire planet...I wouldn't call that "small".
The point is that a CAPTCHA doesn't have to be dirt simple for a human...it just has to be almost impossible for a computer. You could even put in the page instructions "please search for the answer using Google if you are a human".
I think that 2 meters isn't much of a limitation, especially consdering the extra speed.
Generally, people keep external drives fairly close to their systems, so the 100m cables that IEEE-1394 can theoretically handle really isn't all that useful.
If you're are talking about a transfer from one specific device (say an external drive) to your computer, then both USB and IEEE-1394 have exactly the same issues (or lack thereof).
The difference between USB and IEEE-1394 is that USB requires a "host" and all transfers must go through the host. IEEE-1394 allows transfers directly between any devices on the bus. In the real world, this is almost never used, though, because generally your computer (i.e., the "host") has to process the data from the source device before it gets sent to the destination device.
One other difference is that because IEEE-1394 doesn't use a host, all the devices are "smarter" and don't require as much CPU load. But, with today's fast processors, the difference doesn't amount to much in the real world. From what I have seen, both USB at 480Mbps and IEEE-1394 at 400Mbps perform about the same, with both far behind 800Mbps IEEE-1394 and all of them standing still compared to eSATA at 3Gbps.
And where does the heat that the CPU needs to tolerate come from? From inside the CPU itself!
You are still missing the point.
Any CPU running even 25% load will quickly build up a lot of heat inside the CPU package if the heat isn't moved away. This is what heatsinks and fans are for.
Google wants a CPU package that can tolerate having less of the heat moved away (or moved less slowly) into the outside air. This means that the air doesn't have to be as cool to keep the processor within an acceptable temperature range. This, in turn, translates into less air conditioning used, which means less power used.
The CPU uses the same amount of power as before, so overall it's a power reduction.
Google's chips will be running full throttle/full temp 24/7
Is there any documentation for this?
I seriously find it hard to believe that Google has every processor they own running 24/7 at 100% utilization. Other than the computation problems like SETI and protein folding, most problems are I/O bound, and I would think that the stuff Google does would involve a lot of I/O.
As I said, that will admittedly exclude some people, but only the complete idiots, as the key is that a bot can't use Google, but a halfway intelligent human can.
So, to avoid insulting you, I'm just gonna assume you're a bot, since you couldn't figure out how to enter the one term you didn't understand into a search box, and then take the first hit and use that to figure out that New York is not Houston.
And, to be pedantic, "New York" probably isn't in some people's body of knowledge, and neither is "dog" or "Sunday". But, I think that if you are dealing with people without those bits of basic knowledge (Martians, I guess), you would change the questions.
OK, so that's 1 in 6 that get past it. With not much work, you could make it a lot harder. Using a bit of the original example:
"Jim and Sue go to New York on Sunday. Billy the dog goes too. Did they seen the Astros play at home?"
By adding in current events and some very well know facts (which admittedly will exclude some people), you can really make it difficult.
Then, use the fact that this is not in isolation. Always fail the CAPTCHA if the HTTP client doesn't send the right cookie, which it got from the page that refers you to the page with the CAPTCHA. If the CAPTCHA fails, then fail any CAPTCHA attempt that uses that cookie for some timeout.
If you generate the cookie based on the IP address and some random values, and store it in a database linked to the source IP address, then any cookie from that IP address will work (which solves the proxy issue). The cookie timeout and "failed CAPTCHA" timeout are the same, and set them such that it is too long to be worth it for spammers (like 5 minutes).
Also, if the service being signed up for isn't e-mail, require an e-mail verification. With that, you can also force the user to enter an e-mail address and the CAPTCHA answer in the same form, and if an e-mail address is used in a failed CAPTCHA, don't allow it to be used again until a timeout. And, you can make the e-mail verification so that sometimes the user has to open a link from the e-mail, and sometimes just reply to the e-mail, and only one of these would work for that particular verification.
Any one of these things won't solve the problem, but all of them will slow down spammers so much that they shouldn't be able to beat you in the arms race.
But will Windows 7 really have kernel version 6.1? Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't use Windows, after all), but isn't NT 6.1 used for Windows Server 2008?
In any event, the grandparent's recitation of versions is correct, and Windows 7 is the 7th major version of the Windows kernel.
Except, of course, that it skips Windows NT, which was a major change to the kernel.
You could substitute NT for XP, but XP was also a pretty big change to the kernel, especially to make direct hardware access in certain instances to increase performance work better. Although DirectX was available to NT, it was quite limited compared to what XP (or even Win2K) could do.
Basically, if you think Vista is a "major" change from XP, then XP is a "major" change from NT, and so Vista is the seventh version of Windows. But, like everything else from Microsoft, it takes some kind of update before it's really ready, so then the successor to Vista really will be "Windows 7" (at least, the non-beta version).
1. Windows
2. Windows 2
3. Windows 3.0
4. Windows NT (NT 4)
5. Windows 2000 (NT 5)
6. Windows XP (NT 5.1)
7. Windows Vista (NT 6)
I seem to recall that even forgetting minor versions (like Windows 3.1) there were some other fairly significant other releases...what were they again...oh, yeah:
1. Windows
2. Windows 2
3. Windows 3.0 3.33 Windows 95/98 (first with co-operative multitasking) 3.66 Windows NT 3 (first with 32-bit)
4. Windows NT (NT 4)
5. Windows 2000 (NT 5)
6. Windows XP (NT 5.1)
7. Windows Vista (NT 6)
Well, OWA for Exchange 2003 doesn't ask to install any ActiveX components so I'm not so sure.
I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to have hard-coded into IE something like "hey, this is the OWA ActiveX...it's cool...install it without asking the user regardless of the security settings they have".
Now, Mozilla.org says that most popular add-on right now is Video DownloadHelper with about 340K downloads each week. However, its developers have released 32 versions in the last 22 months, so a big chunk of downloads will be for upgraders.
I don't think the numbers at addons include upgrades...they only count "click on the download link".
Problem is, how do you measure a CEOs performance? If a company has a great year, was it just because of a good economy? Would that year have been just as great if the CEO did nothing? How about if the company has a bad year? Is it the CEO's fault if oil prices quadruple and the financial markets tank?
As for "what if the market tanks?", well, you are paying a good CEO to be in front of such things, and allowing the company to continue its success.
Although measuring performance in meaningful ways might be difficult, there are obviously ways like profit, etc. But, there really isn't any need to be accurate if you demand true accountability for anything that happened on during the tenure of the CEO. So, if Joe in shipping screwed up and lost the company a boatload of money, the CEO is ultimately to blame, because it happened on his watch. Likewise, if the company succeeds by some measure (whatever that may be), the CEO should get the benefit.
If you start CEOs with "living wages" (i.e., anywhere from $200-300K up to at most 1% of the company net profit) but have incentives that can give them something to shoot for, you end up with better performance. In addition, you have to tie the performance to long-term viability of the company, so awarding stock options is good, but those "performance" options need to have a significant portion vest quite a few years out, so that if the CEO tries to pull stunts that raise the stock price for now but hurt the company in the long run, they don't benefit.
Like anything else in the law, it can certainly be debated, but the text is fairly clear in this case, and it's fairly standard.
If the "nothing in this section shall effect" for this section gets thrown out, then most of the rest of recent copyright law will alos be able to change meaning, and the MPAA and RIAA really don't want that to happen. Basically, it means that either way a ruling goes on this section, the MAFIAA loses, and that's why they don't really want a case to go to court.
No, you can break the DRM...that's the point of the paragraph.
The "nothing in this section shall affect" means that if something in this section says that an action would be illegal, but that you are doing that action to use your fair use rights, then the action is not illegal in that instance.
The problem is that the DMCA also includes the "trafficking" parts, which prohibit distribution of a device or software with a primary purpose of circumvention. This part of the DMCA is not protected by fair use, because the act of distributing such software or devices might help others exercise their fair use rights, but it isn't exercising the rights of the distributor. This makes it hard to get the tools to allow fair use into the hands of the average user.
You, too, have been brainwashed by various sources that want you to believe that copyright law has more restrictions than it actually does.
If you distribute a derivative work, you are infringing on copyright. But, if you keep the compiled binary to yourself, you are not infringing. Although this may not sound very useful, it is more than enough to do things like security research, bug fixing, etc.
Also, there has been no ruling on whether a compiled binary is actually a derivative work of the original source, and so even that part would be up in the air. Personally, I think it is, but it's the judges that matter, and we all know how those kinds of rulings can go.
Slashdot Mirror
I only use Seagate. The only company offering consumer hard drives with a 5 year warranty.
I'm not sure what you mean by "consumer hard drives", but both Western Digital and Maxtor (which admittedly is now part of Seagate) offer 5-year warranties on at least most of their drives.
One thing to watch out for is that drives sold in external enclosures typically have only a one year warranty, even though they use the same drive that when purchased bare has a 5-year.
Of course, everyone has their own drive horror stories, and there are many people who swear by a brand that others swear at.
Overall, I've had every brand die in every stage of their lifetimes, and I've found that I've RMA'd far more Seagate drives than any other brand. It's not that they are any worse, it's just that with the 5-year warranty, they are far more likely to still be in warranty.
So, I tend to buy the drive that best fits my needs and has a 5-year warranty. I've got Maxtor, Western Digital, and Seagate at this point in multiple arrays with a total of about 15TB.
The only things I have learned for sure is that I'll only use RAID-1, true hardware RAID-5 or 6 (no Intel ICHx "RAID-5"), and Linux software RAID-5 or 6...anything else is too dangerous for recovery.
Though as size increases, so does risk of failure, as I'm finding out.
That blog post forgets one thing: sector remapping.
With any actual redundant system (i.e., not RAID-0), you increase the likelyhood that the data is still there somehow. The drive with the unrecoverable read error re-maps the sector and the RAID software/firmware uses the redundancy to recover the correct data and write it back to the re-mapped sector.
Mod parent up.
Ask any MythTV user about how they can record a pair of HD streams while watching a third with no skips. That's about 7MB/second, and drives don't break a sweat on that.
This does not mean it's a bad system.
No, the fact that it violates Microsoft's own UI standards is what makes it a bad system.
When every program puts "Save" and "Save As" on the "File" menu, there is no "learning" involved. You know where to find all the common tasks, because they are in the same place on every application.
The Office 2007 ribbon makes this sort of UI consistency impossible.
There is a way to set the command window to be mark/paste as default, so that right-click does instant paste and select works immediately. But I'm buggered if I know how to turn it on
"QuickEdit Mode" is what you are looking for.
Try the control menu and pick "Properties". Click the "Options" tab and there it is. Click "OK" and make sure you click "Save properties for future windows with same title".
Then, to make it portable, run "regedit.exe" and export "HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Console". You can then take this registry file and merge it wherever you go and your console window will have all your tweaks (font, QuickEdit, etc.).
One of the things that IceTV can do is to skip ads when recording, or mute them when watching live.
VCRs also allow you to skip ads, although not quite in the same way.
Really, there are now quite literally dozens of products that can record TV and enable you to easily skip ads if you want, many of them commercial (i.e., not free as in beer or speech) and some quite well known (TiVo, for example). There are also many PC software products like IceTV that have similar functionality, and some are relatively well known (like MS Media Center). I can't really believe not wanting commecials skipped is the reason for the lawsuit.
Now, if the Nine Network has a competing product (either themselves or through some investment in another company), I could easily see that as the reason.
but 'Astros' is limited to a very very small population
Google numbers its users at nearly 50% of the population of the entire planet...I wouldn't call that "small".
The point is that a CAPTCHA doesn't have to be dirt simple for a human...it just has to be almost impossible for a computer. You could even put in the page instructions "please search for the answer using Google if you are a human".
I think that 2 meters isn't much of a limitation, especially consdering the extra speed.
Generally, people keep external drives fairly close to their systems, so the 100m cables that IEEE-1394 can theoretically handle really isn't all that useful.
If you're are talking about a transfer from one specific device (say an external drive) to your computer, then both USB and IEEE-1394 have exactly the same issues (or lack thereof).
The difference between USB and IEEE-1394 is that USB requires a "host" and all transfers must go through the host. IEEE-1394 allows transfers directly between any devices on the bus. In the real world, this is almost never used, though, because generally your computer (i.e., the "host") has to process the data from the source device before it gets sent to the destination device.
One other difference is that because IEEE-1394 doesn't use a host, all the devices are "smarter" and don't require as much CPU load. But, with today's fast processors, the difference doesn't amount to much in the real world. From what I have seen, both USB at 480Mbps and IEEE-1394 at 400Mbps perform about the same, with both far behind 800Mbps IEEE-1394 and all of them standing still compared to eSATA at 3Gbps.
And where does the heat that the CPU needs to tolerate come from? From inside the CPU itself!
You are still missing the point.
Any CPU running even 25% load will quickly build up a lot of heat inside the CPU package if the heat isn't moved away. This is what heatsinks and fans are for.
Google wants a CPU package that can tolerate having less of the heat moved away (or moved less slowly) into the outside air. This means that the air doesn't have to be as cool to keep the processor within an acceptable temperature range. This, in turn, translates into less air conditioning used, which means less power used.
The CPU uses the same amount of power as before, so overall it's a power reduction.
Google's chips will be running full throttle/full temp 24/7
Is there any documentation for this?
I seriously find it hard to believe that Google has every processor they own running 24/7 at 100% utilization. Other than the computation problems like SETI and protein folding, most problems are I/O bound, and I would think that the stuff Google does would involve a lot of I/O.
As I said, that will admittedly exclude some people, but only the complete idiots, as the key is that a bot can't use Google, but a halfway intelligent human can.
So, to avoid insulting you, I'm just gonna assume you're a bot, since you couldn't figure out how to enter the one term you didn't understand into a search box, and then take the first hit and use that to figure out that New York is not Houston.
And, to be pedantic, "New York" probably isn't in some people's body of knowledge, and neither is "dog" or "Sunday". But, I think that if you are dealing with people without those bits of basic knowledge (Martians, I guess), you would change the questions.
OK, so that's 1 in 6 that get past it. With not much work, you could make it a lot harder. Using a bit of the original example:
"Jim and Sue go to New York on Sunday. Billy the dog goes too. Did they seen the Astros play at home?"
By adding in current events and some very well know facts (which admittedly will exclude some people), you can really make it difficult.
Then, use the fact that this is not in isolation. Always fail the CAPTCHA if the HTTP client doesn't send the right cookie, which it got from the page that refers you to the page with the CAPTCHA. If the CAPTCHA fails, then fail any CAPTCHA attempt that uses that cookie for some timeout.
If you generate the cookie based on the IP address and some random values, and store it in a database linked to the source IP address, then any cookie from that IP address will work (which solves the proxy issue). The cookie timeout and "failed CAPTCHA" timeout are the same, and set them such that it is too long to be worth it for spammers (like 5 minutes).
Also, if the service being signed up for isn't e-mail, require an e-mail verification. With that, you can also force the user to enter an e-mail address and the CAPTCHA answer in the same form, and if an e-mail address is used in a failed CAPTCHA, don't allow it to be used again until a timeout. And, you can make the e-mail verification so that sometimes the user has to open a link from the e-mail, and sometimes just reply to the e-mail, and only one of these would work for that particular verification.
Any one of these things won't solve the problem, but all of them will slow down spammers so much that they shouldn't be able to beat you in the arms race.
But will Windows 7 really have kernel version 6.1? Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't use Windows, after all), but isn't NT 6.1 used for Windows Server 2008?
Server 2008 reports as "6.0.6001".
In any event, the grandparent's recitation of versions is correct, and Windows 7 is the 7th major version of the Windows kernel.
Except, of course, that it skips Windows NT, which was a major change to the kernel.
You could substitute NT for XP, but XP was also a pretty big change to the kernel, especially to make direct hardware access in certain instances to increase performance work better. Although DirectX was available to NT, it was quite limited compared to what XP (or even Win2K) could do.
Basically, if you think Vista is a "major" change from XP, then XP is a "major" change from NT, and so Vista is the seventh version of Windows. But, like everything else from Microsoft, it takes some kind of update before it's really ready, so then the successor to Vista really will be "Windows 7" (at least, the non-beta version).
1. Windows
2. Windows 2
3. Windows 3.0
4. Windows NT (NT 4)
5. Windows 2000 (NT 5)
6. Windows XP (NT 5.1)
7. Windows Vista (NT 6)
I seem to recall that even forgetting minor versions (like Windows 3.1) there were some other fairly significant other releases...what were they again...oh, yeah:
1. Windows
2. Windows 2
3. Windows 3.0
3.33 Windows 95/98 (first with co-operative multitasking)
3.66 Windows NT 3 (first with 32-bit)
4. Windows NT (NT 4)
5. Windows 2000 (NT 5)
6. Windows XP (NT 5.1)
7. Windows Vista (NT 6)
Well, OWA for Exchange 2003 doesn't ask to install any ActiveX components so I'm not so sure.
I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to have hard-coded into IE something like "hey, this is the OWA ActiveX...it's cool...install it without asking the user regardless of the security settings they have".
Now, Mozilla.org says that most popular add-on right now is Video DownloadHelper with about 340K downloads each week. However, its developers have released 32 versions in the last 22 months, so a big chunk of downloads will be for upgraders.
I don't think the numbers at addons include upgrades...they only count "click on the download link".
That's the way they report downloads of Firefox.
Problem is, how do you measure a CEOs performance? If a company has a great year, was it just because of a good economy? Would that year have been just as great if the CEO did nothing? How about if the company has a bad year? Is it the CEO's fault if oil prices quadruple and the financial markets tank?
As for "what if the market tanks?", well, you are paying a good CEO to be in front of such things, and allowing the company to continue its success.
Although measuring performance in meaningful ways might be difficult, there are obviously ways like profit, etc. But, there really isn't any need to be accurate if you demand true accountability for anything that happened on during the tenure of the CEO. So, if Joe in shipping screwed up and lost the company a boatload of money, the CEO is ultimately to blame, because it happened on his watch. Likewise, if the company succeeds by some measure (whatever that may be), the CEO should get the benefit.
If you start CEOs with "living wages" (i.e., anywhere from $200-300K up to at most 1% of the company net profit) but have incentives that can give them something to shoot for, you end up with better performance. In addition, you have to tie the performance to long-term viability of the company, so awarding stock options is good, but those "performance" options need to have a significant portion vest quite a few years out, so that if the CEO tries to pull stunts that raise the stock price for now but hurt the company in the long run, they don't benefit.
Like anything else in the law, it can certainly be debated, but the text is fairly clear in this case, and it's fairly standard.
If the "nothing in this section shall effect" for this section gets thrown out, then most of the rest of recent copyright law will alos be able to change meaning, and the MPAA and RIAA really don't want that to happen. Basically, it means that either way a ruling goes on this section, the MAFIAA loses, and that's why they don't really want a case to go to court.
Walmart spends more on toilet paper for their in-store restrooms in a month than a lawsuit over this would have cost them.
If you sue for the same sorts of "losses" that the RIAA sues for, then that $100,000+ per track would add up pretty fast.
Even with miserable total sales of 10,000 tracks, that'd be a billion dollar lawsuit.
No, you can break the DRM...that's the point of the paragraph.
The "nothing in this section shall affect" means that if something in this section says that an action would be illegal, but that you are doing that action to use your fair use rights, then the action is not illegal in that instance.
The problem is that the DMCA also includes the "trafficking" parts, which prohibit distribution of a device or software with a primary purpose of circumvention. This part of the DMCA is not protected by fair use, because the act of distributing such software or devices might help others exercise their fair use rights, but it isn't exercising the rights of the distributor. This makes it hard to get the tools to allow fair use into the hands of the average user.
There is a broad exemption for fair use in the DMCA.
From 17 USC 1201(c)(1):
Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
Chapter 12 of copyright law is where the DMCA ended up.
You, too, have been brainwashed by various sources that want you to believe that copyright law has more restrictions than it actually does.
If you distribute a derivative work, you are infringing on copyright. But, if you keep the compiled binary to yourself, you are not infringing. Although this may not sound very useful, it is more than enough to do things like security research, bug fixing, etc.
Also, there has been no ruling on whether a compiled binary is actually a derivative work of the original source, and so even that part would be up in the air. Personally, I think it is, but it's the judges that matter, and we all know how those kinds of rulings can go.