You will eventually lose this debate. Not on/., not in the public domain. But in reality, in the hearts and minds of people. Why, you wonder? Because our entire economic system is built up on the idea that "rare= valuable". When something is plentiful, it becomes CHEAP. Except, that hasn't applied to traditional media. You must begin to wonder why, and the only answer that matters is, because someone doesn't want it to be cheap. It doesn't matter who, or why. The fact of that matter is that MOST of our economy as it exists now is based on the scarcity principle, and MOST people realize that anything that is trivial to copy (as most media is) has an inherently low value. That isn't to say you can't make money selling it, because you can. What that says is that you can't make any arbitrary amount you say, and use our codex of laws to enforce your pricing model. It will work only so long as the majority allows it. That majority is QUICKLY starting to believe that 20$ for a disc is more often than not, unreasonable. When enough people believe it's too much, it will no longer be profitable to make those discs, and they will fade away, or get cheaper. Either or.
This has nothing to do with consumption, it has everything to do with underlying economic principles. I'd like nothing better than to change those principles, however, that might be just a tad unrealistic. In any case, those principles aren't changing, they haven't changed in a VERY long time, and IP law only covers about 5% of that time. Go back to ancient Persia and convince the guy playing music on a street corner that he should be able to force everyone to pay him directly for the right to listen. You'll find that not only will no one listen to you, they will probably think you are absolutely nuts. Arguably, you are.
You are correct in your position that certain ideas, because of their development cost, should have protection. Many many pharmaceuticals are among them.
However, I wonder how a little reality fits in with your example. Lets try it. Company A raises a few hundred million to develop a new disease fighting drug. 20% of this money comes from scientific grants from various sources. 40% comes in the form of tax relief and handouts from various government branches. The last 40% is covered by the drug company as part of the cost of doing business. This last part pretty much covers day to day operating costs and facilities and people required. Now, they develop a kick ass drug. It lays the smack down on $disease. But they don't release it. They patent it for sure. Instead though, they develop a derivative that requires daily/weekly treatment and is ongoing. Because, there is no money in the cure. So now company A has a cool new drug, and a crappy new product. Company B isn't legally allowed to clone the product, or the drug, and is blocked from providing a low cost alternative to the profiteering company A.
Company A refuses to sell it's drug for less than X. Country A can't afford to pay X for all it's citizens that need the drug. Legally, Company B in country A can't just clone it and sell it at cost to help stem the tide of a ravaging disease. Morally, Company A and the laws that support it are now AT BEST on shaky ground. At worst, they are morally bankrupt and supporting what amounts to genocide. (ethnic cleansing, if you prefer)
So, we have IP law becuase it's for the greater good, because it allows individuals and companies to invest in something that can be monetized later, but only if the IP law protects the "idea". Which is all well and good, arguably required. BUT, once you give companies a profit motive to hide the best they can do, and only release the sub par versions (because they are more profitable), you've lost sight of the greater good, and instead, you are now granting profiteering licenses. I don't think our (or any) government should be looking out for profit, above the greater good. If you are ok with that, then that's fine. You are entitled to your own views. I ESPECIALLY have a problem with this when it comes to life saving products and drugs. I believe that if company A refuses to help provide low cost versions where they are NEEDED, then they should forfeit their IP protection on those products.
Because 1 life is worth an infinite amount of money, and if you don't agree... well, we don't have any common ground to meet on. Before you ask, yes, even if it puts the drug company out of business. And yes, they have every right to NOT develop life saving drugs, but they do not have a right to deny them to people once they exist.
As for actual units of culture, such as music, movies, art, etc etc. There is no compelling reason why IP protection should be circumvented. NONE. There is no compelling reason why it should NOT be circumvented either. My position is that IP protection is like a pad lock. It only keeps honest people honest. Anyone that wants to can break through it. And by doing so, they cross a line, as long as they are fine with that, I don't care.
I do some pirating, and I do so openly. MOST of that is done for convenience. My entertainment center doesn't have a DVD/Bluray or VHS player. So despite the big pile of discs and tapes in the corner, it's FAR easier to pirate a good copy and use that. (I do have an HTPC) I do generally buy a copy if it was a worthwhile product, but not always, and not for any reason other than to support the products I like. You know the old, vote with your wallet, concept. However, that being said, I don't believe I'm morally in the right, or even ethically. I just don't think it's a big deal, like some people do. Shades of grey. Once you have some perspective on what is going on in the world, piracy of media products tends to fall down to the bottom of the moral outrage scale.
I'm not sure why you think gold would have any value after the collapse of society anyway, regardless of the quantity of it available on earth. When people are fighting for survival, shiny baubles with limited real world application would be the LAST thing of value. Food is a good example of something that would be worth a lot. Ammo even. But gold would be worthless both literally and figuratively. It only has any value now because we have a societal and government structures that make it valuable. Outside of certain industrial processes, gold isn't a valuable (read: useful) metal.
Further, in your dystopian future, if everyone can build nukes, everyone can build nuke proof shelters.
yes, I see the law as written, I saw it the first time. I'm not arguing the law, as I have no idea if it applies here or not (and we'll need a judge to decide). I'm arguing reality. You can't COPY, CLONE, or otherwise duplicate physical objects using photographic means. If this law is applied in such a way that says you can, and it's a crime, then I will help lobby to change the law as written. Just as I am lobbying here to change minds as they sit.
Interestingly, Gizmodo did nothing wrong here. They got a tip about a possible newly leaked product, they did what every news agency does, they went after it. They got it. Then they gave it back to the rightful owner, as soon as that owner was confirmed. EVERYONE involved knew it didn't belong to any of the parties involved. However, that doesn't make it "stolen" and it doesn't make it illegal. If apple wanted to protect their secrets, they wouldn't have let the phone out of the building. PERIOD.
The lot of you crucifying Gizmodo for doing exactly what you want them to do, are a bunch of hypocrites.
You keep using the word "copy" incorrectly. You can copy a paper document, and have 2 of that same document. Making PICTURES of a phone is NOT a copy of that phone. It has NONE of the functions that phone has, and, the pictures can't even be used to make a physical copy of the phone, because you can't photograph code as it exists inside the phone.
You can't reproduce a physical object with photographs or facsimile. You can reproduce INFORMATION in this way, but not a physical object. I realize most of you can't tell the difference, but there is one.
And just like the majority of apps on the iphone, it doesn't actually do anything useful at all. It does however look really really sexy while it sits there burning electricity.
First off, judging personal wants and needs by the way a giant corporation acts is hardly reasonable. ABC has cost/benefit to consider when trying to keep data available, and it's probably easier/cheaper to do it the way you say they do, rather than implement a fully digital, fully available storage system.
That being said, the solution is SIMPLE. If you have a bunch of hard drives with data you want, you put together a low end PC, install it into a server case, and fill it with hard drives and SATA controllers. When it's full, you build another one. You have 30tb of data, mostly not accessible. I have 10tb of data accessible from any internet connected computer on earth, and it's twice as much storage as I actually use. It cost me about 500$ to build and deploy a personal storage server, and it doubles as an HTPC. ( I already had most of the drives, and some parts) It's likely most people here have enough hardware laying around to implement a basic storage server. There really isn't any reason not to do it. As a bonus, since it's not a machine you need to access directly most of the time, you can hide it in a closet and forget all about it.
Sure, you could buy a premade NAS/SAN or stand alone data box. However, they are costly and not any more suited for the job than an old machine, or low end new system. At least, not in a personal environment. If you actually require robust data storage, I'd suggest a NAS, from any number of sources. But now we are talking about 4k worth of hardware, and requiring proper power systems to be added if you really want longevity out of it. However, that's overkill for a home storage solution, no matter how much data you have. Simply because you don't need enterprise class data serving, when only one or two computers are accessing the data.
If you don't know how to build and deploy a system with lots of drives accessible over a network, then you probably started at the wrong website for help. You want DELL/HP/IBM small office sales line.
I'm going to annihilate the mod points I already used in this discussion to respond here.
Nintendo isn't into playing the game that the rest of the industry is into playing, and that's why they are winning against sony and MS. Everyone seems to think that "bigger better faster more" is what nintendo needs to do. You are all flat wrong. They are and will continue to make more money per unit than any other gaming hardware maker, and the reason is that they DONT release a new console, a new platform, or a new handheld every 4 years. It's going to shock some of you, but providing a platform with some life to it is part of why nintendo is doing so well in the current market. Another part is that they built a console that can play games, but doesn't cost more to build than it can be sold for.
I've got a PS2 in my living room, right next to the wii. Both of them have been there for an age, but the PS2 ONLY ever plays DVDs, and only because the HTPC optical drive failed. The Wii however, sees use on a monthly basis. Why not daily? Because I have multiple high powered gaming computers, and when I want serious games, I play there. When I want to have a laugh, or entertain guests, we fire of the wii, or the HTPC and play games like Rag doll kungfu on the big screen. Nintendo will win the game wars because eventually, the only gamers left will be hardcore (people like me that use computers) and casual, the people that like Wii games and have DS's in their pockets.
Microsoft and sony started a war to win "gamers" by building low powered gaming computers into a console form factor. It worked, in so much as it has decimated the computer gaming world. But it didn't accomplish anything. All they managed was to move the market away from computers, and into purpose built hardware. We all know that the trends in computing say that the next logical step is back to general purpose hardware. (especially now that general purpose hardware is so ridiculously fast) Except, we won't see that in the console market, because the real war was to control the home entertainment center, and while Sony and MS think they are doing a good job, someone (coughApplecough) is going to come along in a few years and introduce a product that does media and games BETTER than anything sony and MS could come up with, because sony and MS are focused on content creation and control, and apple is just interested in market share and incredibly good interfaces (something neither MS or sony are capable of). Meanwhile, nintendo will putter along as they always have, making a fortune, and laughing at the "big boys" falling all over themselves to catch up.
So then of course the obvious answer, since we can't have privacy, is to flood the world with information about every single person... so long as you have enough money to pay for that information.
That's a MUCH better logical situation. It's still bullshit, but that didn't stop you, so why should it stop me?
Yeah, I wish the government would have never even gotten involved. The internet was so much better before those bastards stuck their dirty fingers in there.:stare:
We thought about that possibility. But the drives in it, both during and after the rack relocation were from the same batch. Granted, it's possible almost all the drives in the front of the case were bad and all the ones in the back were good, but that's a strange happenstance.
Walk over to the nearest properly mounted rack array you have, and shake it. Does it move visibly? If so, problem identified. Most racks are built to hold things up. They aren't built with much structural integrity beyond what is absolutely needed. I've seldom seen a rack with any kind of proper cross bracing, and this makes them prone to vibration transfer. You make a valid point that this is presented as a "buy this product to improve your servers" kinda thing. However, the issues with vibrations have long been ignored, and maybe that needs to change.
My personal anecdote is: Working for a small company dealing in terabytes of data (7 years ago), they got their first disk array. Previous to that, they were using desktops to store everything around the network. So, after months of pleading, they got me the disk array I wanted, and the failure rate was atrocious. Averaged to 1 disk per 90 days. The SAN we used sat on a flimsy filing cabinet right next to a high speed printer. Not touching, but close. After a while of trying to figure out the problem, I finally sold the bosses on the idea of turning one of the closets into a server room. I installed a rack, mounted it to the wall with dampeners, and installed the SAN into it. Along with 2 1au servers, and another brand new NAS. The failure rate plummeted. The original SAN so prone to killing disks worked it's ass off for 2 more years before any of the drives failed again. As far as I know it's only had 3 disks replaced in the 5 years since then. Seems reasonable to me to assume that vibration not only plays a role in performance, but in lifetime as well.
I'm not sure why you think the FCC is there to protect consumers. It's not. It exists to look out for business investments. The FCC in my lifetime has consistently sided with "big business" over private interests. This isn't exactly odd however. The FDA is similar in it's function, if not it's charter.
It's likely anything already on scene was sent the first second anyone knew what was going on. Specialized equipment and ships aren't always just hanging around nearby. It's entirely likely that any ships capable of helping were rushed into service. Finishing off repairs, bringing on gear and supplies, and replacing absent (shoreleaved) crew as fast as they could. Further, those same ships probably ran their engines right up to the limits, trying to make the best time possible. Which in and of itself means 5% of the response fleet needs to be rescued too.
Most of the ships I've been around don't make better than 20 knots on open sea, and half that isn't especially slow. Especially the heavy specialized ships.
It's not unreasonable to assume that if a reasonably modern Alfa can get down to 1300 meters, then the military has something that exceeds that. Although, maybe not, deep DEEP diving hasn't really ever been a goal for the military.
Given the magnitude of the situation, it's entirely possible we'll see some extreme answers. Including specially built torpedoes for the job. But my guess is that any explosives used here will be delivered by a re-repurposed DSRV. Shades of Abyss.
True, but you don't need pipe here, because they aren't trying to drill/suck the oil out. At this point, anything that can be placed in water that is oil tight (fabrics?) can do the job. It doesn't have to be rigid anymore, it just needs to hold in the majority of the oil. (nothing is going to contain it completely, until it's capped).
They do. "They" being OPEC, and they do go around just changing the price of oil whenever they want. Sure, there is a certain range they have to stick to, but that range is going up every day. I'm sure they have their reasons, however I doubt they make them public (not the real ones).
I think most of you missed the point. You are defining "best" by what? K:D? Engagements fought? Engagements won? Kills? Tactical strike efficiency? Pilot skill? What?
I am not going to try and define who, of the military divisions, is "best" at flying. The bottom line is they are ALL good at it. However, while there is some animosity between the ground pounders, and the cloud hoppers, they require each other. Modern military combat is, as it always was, largely logistics, intel and boots on the ground. Pretty much in that order. Nothing happens without the boots on the ground, but they don't get there without the intel coming from the eye in the sky. Further, logistical support is what puts the guns in the hands, the rounds in the clips, and the fuel in the APC.
A lot of you seem to be implying that the various divisions of the military handle their own logistics. To a point, yes. But that navy strike plane made it to the target because it was refueled by USAF. It didn't encounter SAMs because the USAF marked them and passed the intel to the army, which send in ground pounders and an air strike to silence them. That navy strike plane hit it's target, because the USAF controllers "hiding" in the clouds gave up to the second tracking and trajectory analysis.
The air force isn't the "best" fighting force in the world. However, it's beyond foolish to not respect the amount of FORCE they put on target. Indirectly at times, but none the less critical. You start believing the air force is weak and sad, and the next thing you know, you are eating shaped charges on the end of a kinetic kill vehicle.
Also, I'm not sure you get to call out the USAF, if you haven't ever broken mach. I think that's a rule somewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree with what you have to say, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it.
I'm fairly certain this is the main principle behind the ACLU's action here.
WOOOOSH!
You will eventually lose this debate. Not on /., not in the public domain. But in reality, in the hearts and minds of people. Why, you wonder? Because our entire economic system is built up on the idea that "rare= valuable". When something is plentiful, it becomes CHEAP. Except, that hasn't applied to traditional media. You must begin to wonder why, and the only answer that matters is, because someone doesn't want it to be cheap. It doesn't matter who, or why. The fact of that matter is that MOST of our economy as it exists now is based on the scarcity principle, and MOST people realize that anything that is trivial to copy (as most media is) has an inherently low value. That isn't to say you can't make money selling it, because you can. What that says is that you can't make any arbitrary amount you say, and use our codex of laws to enforce your pricing model. It will work only so long as the majority allows it. That majority is QUICKLY starting to believe that 20$ for a disc is more often than not, unreasonable. When enough people believe it's too much, it will no longer be profitable to make those discs, and they will fade away, or get cheaper. Either or.
This has nothing to do with consumption, it has everything to do with underlying economic principles. I'd like nothing better than to change those principles, however, that might be just a tad unrealistic. In any case, those principles aren't changing, they haven't changed in a VERY long time, and IP law only covers about 5% of that time. Go back to ancient Persia and convince the guy playing music on a street corner that he should be able to force everyone to pay him directly for the right to listen. You'll find that not only will no one listen to you, they will probably think you are absolutely nuts. Arguably, you are.
You are correct in your position that certain ideas, because of their development cost, should have protection. Many many pharmaceuticals are among them.
However, I wonder how a little reality fits in with your example. Lets try it. Company A raises a few hundred million to develop a new disease fighting drug. 20% of this money comes from scientific grants from various sources. 40% comes in the form of tax relief and handouts from various government branches. The last 40% is covered by the drug company as part of the cost of doing business. This last part pretty much covers day to day operating costs and facilities and people required. Now, they develop a kick ass drug. It lays the smack down on $disease. But they don't release it. They patent it for sure. Instead though, they develop a derivative that requires daily/weekly treatment and is ongoing. Because, there is no money in the cure. So now company A has a cool new drug, and a crappy new product. Company B isn't legally allowed to clone the product, or the drug, and is blocked from providing a low cost alternative to the profiteering company A.
Company A refuses to sell it's drug for less than X. Country A can't afford to pay X for all it's citizens that need the drug. Legally, Company B in country A can't just clone it and sell it at cost to help stem the tide of a ravaging disease. Morally, Company A and the laws that support it are now AT BEST on shaky ground. At worst, they are morally bankrupt and supporting what amounts to genocide. (ethnic cleansing, if you prefer)
So, we have IP law becuase it's for the greater good, because it allows individuals and companies to invest in something that can be monetized later, but only if the IP law protects the "idea". Which is all well and good, arguably required. BUT, once you give companies a profit motive to hide the best they can do, and only release the sub par versions (because they are more profitable), you've lost sight of the greater good, and instead, you are now granting profiteering licenses. I don't think our (or any) government should be looking out for profit, above the greater good. If you are ok with that, then that's fine. You are entitled to your own views. I ESPECIALLY have a problem with this when it comes to life saving products and drugs. I believe that if company A refuses to help provide low cost versions where they are NEEDED, then they should forfeit their IP protection on those products.
Because 1 life is worth an infinite amount of money, and if you don't agree... well, we don't have any common ground to meet on. Before you ask, yes, even if it puts the drug company out of business. And yes, they have every right to NOT develop life saving drugs, but they do not have a right to deny them to people once they exist.
As for actual units of culture, such as music, movies, art, etc etc. There is no compelling reason why IP protection should be circumvented. NONE. There is no compelling reason why it should NOT be circumvented either. My position is that IP protection is like a pad lock. It only keeps honest people honest. Anyone that wants to can break through it. And by doing so, they cross a line, as long as they are fine with that, I don't care.
I do some pirating, and I do so openly. MOST of that is done for convenience. My entertainment center doesn't have a DVD/Bluray or VHS player. So despite the big pile of discs and tapes in the corner, it's FAR easier to pirate a good copy and use that. (I do have an HTPC) I do generally buy a copy if it was a worthwhile product, but not always, and not for any reason other than to support the products I like. You know the old, vote with your wallet, concept. However, that being said, I don't believe I'm morally in the right, or even ethically. I just don't think it's a big deal, like some people do. Shades of grey. Once you have some perspective on what is going on in the world, piracy of media products tends to fall down to the bottom of the moral outrage scale.
I'm not sure why you think gold would have any value after the collapse of society anyway, regardless of the quantity of it available on earth. When people are fighting for survival, shiny baubles with limited real world application would be the LAST thing of value. Food is a good example of something that would be worth a lot. Ammo even. But gold would be worthless both literally and figuratively. It only has any value now because we have a societal and government structures that make it valuable. Outside of certain industrial processes, gold isn't a valuable (read: useful) metal.
Further, in your dystopian future, if everyone can build nukes, everyone can build nuke proof shelters.
yes, I see the law as written, I saw it the first time. I'm not arguing the law, as I have no idea if it applies here or not (and we'll need a judge to decide). I'm arguing reality. You can't COPY, CLONE, or otherwise duplicate physical objects using photographic means. If this law is applied in such a way that says you can, and it's a crime, then I will help lobby to change the law as written. Just as I am lobbying here to change minds as they sit.
Try that logic at a LAN party where you have 10 people, and 8 copies of halflife. See how far "free" gets you then.
Interestingly, Gizmodo did nothing wrong here. They got a tip about a possible newly leaked product, they did what every news agency does, they went after it. They got it. Then they gave it back to the rightful owner, as soon as that owner was confirmed. EVERYONE involved knew it didn't belong to any of the parties involved. However, that doesn't make it "stolen" and it doesn't make it illegal. If apple wanted to protect their secrets, they wouldn't have let the phone out of the building. PERIOD.
The lot of you crucifying Gizmodo for doing exactly what you want them to do, are a bunch of hypocrites.
You keep using the word "copy" incorrectly. You can copy a paper document, and have 2 of that same document. Making PICTURES of a phone is NOT a copy of that phone. It has NONE of the functions that phone has, and, the pictures can't even be used to make a physical copy of the phone, because you can't photograph code as it exists inside the phone.
You can't reproduce a physical object with photographs or facsimile. You can reproduce INFORMATION in this way, but not a physical object. I realize most of you can't tell the difference, but there is one.
And just like the majority of apps on the iphone, it doesn't actually do anything useful at all. It does however look really really sexy while it sits there burning electricity.
First off, judging personal wants and needs by the way a giant corporation acts is hardly reasonable. ABC has cost/benefit to consider when trying to keep data available, and it's probably easier/cheaper to do it the way you say they do, rather than implement a fully digital, fully available storage system.
That being said, the solution is SIMPLE. If you have a bunch of hard drives with data you want, you put together a low end PC, install it into a server case, and fill it with hard drives and SATA controllers. When it's full, you build another one. You have 30tb of data, mostly not accessible. I have 10tb of data accessible from any internet connected computer on earth, and it's twice as much storage as I actually use. It cost me about 500$ to build and deploy a personal storage server, and it doubles as an HTPC. ( I already had most of the drives, and some parts) It's likely most people here have enough hardware laying around to implement a basic storage server. There really isn't any reason not to do it. As a bonus, since it's not a machine you need to access directly most of the time, you can hide it in a closet and forget all about it.
Sure, you could buy a premade NAS/SAN or stand alone data box. However, they are costly and not any more suited for the job than an old machine, or low end new system. At least, not in a personal environment. If you actually require robust data storage, I'd suggest a NAS, from any number of sources. But now we are talking about 4k worth of hardware, and requiring proper power systems to be added if you really want longevity out of it. However, that's overkill for a home storage solution, no matter how much data you have. Simply because you don't need enterprise class data serving, when only one or two computers are accessing the data.
If you don't know how to build and deploy a system with lots of drives accessible over a network, then you probably started at the wrong website for help. You want DELL/HP/IBM small office sales line.
No, it never was. It was a free MOD, but if you didn't own Half-Life, CS itself was nothing at all. I know, I was there.
I'm going to annihilate the mod points I already used in this discussion to respond here.
Nintendo isn't into playing the game that the rest of the industry is into playing, and that's why they are winning against sony and MS. Everyone seems to think that "bigger better faster more" is what nintendo needs to do. You are all flat wrong. They are and will continue to make more money per unit than any other gaming hardware maker, and the reason is that they DONT release a new console, a new platform, or a new handheld every 4 years. It's going to shock some of you, but providing a platform with some life to it is part of why nintendo is doing so well in the current market. Another part is that they built a console that can play games, but doesn't cost more to build than it can be sold for.
I've got a PS2 in my living room, right next to the wii. Both of them have been there for an age, but the PS2 ONLY ever plays DVDs, and only because the HTPC optical drive failed. The Wii however, sees use on a monthly basis. Why not daily? Because I have multiple high powered gaming computers, and when I want serious games, I play there. When I want to have a laugh, or entertain guests, we fire of the wii, or the HTPC and play games like Rag doll kungfu on the big screen. Nintendo will win the game wars because eventually, the only gamers left will be hardcore (people like me that use computers) and casual, the people that like Wii games and have DS's in their pockets.
Microsoft and sony started a war to win "gamers" by building low powered gaming computers into a console form factor. It worked, in so much as it has decimated the computer gaming world. But it didn't accomplish anything. All they managed was to move the market away from computers, and into purpose built hardware. We all know that the trends in computing say that the next logical step is back to general purpose hardware. (especially now that general purpose hardware is so ridiculously fast) Except, we won't see that in the console market, because the real war was to control the home entertainment center, and while Sony and MS think they are doing a good job, someone (coughApplecough) is going to come along in a few years and introduce a product that does media and games BETTER than anything sony and MS could come up with, because sony and MS are focused on content creation and control, and apple is just interested in market share and incredibly good interfaces (something neither MS or sony are capable of). Meanwhile, nintendo will putter along as they always have, making a fortune, and laughing at the "big boys" falling all over themselves to catch up.
Except I'm pretty sure the method the US used DID fail at least once. Or don't you recall apollo 13?
So then of course the obvious answer, since we can't have privacy, is to flood the world with information about every single person... so long as you have enough money to pay for that information.
That's a MUCH better logical situation. It's still bullshit, but that didn't stop you, so why should it stop me?
Yeah, I wish the government would have never even gotten involved. The internet was so much better before those bastards stuck their dirty fingers in there. :stare:
We thought about that possibility. But the drives in it, both during and after the rack relocation were from the same batch. Granted, it's possible almost all the drives in the front of the case were bad and all the ones in the back were good, but that's a strange happenstance.
Walk over to the nearest properly mounted rack array you have, and shake it. Does it move visibly? If so, problem identified. Most racks are built to hold things up. They aren't built with much structural integrity beyond what is absolutely needed. I've seldom seen a rack with any kind of proper cross bracing, and this makes them prone to vibration transfer. You make a valid point that this is presented as a "buy this product to improve your servers" kinda thing. However, the issues with vibrations have long been ignored, and maybe that needs to change.
My personal anecdote is: Working for a small company dealing in terabytes of data (7 years ago), they got their first disk array. Previous to that, they were using desktops to store everything around the network. So, after months of pleading, they got me the disk array I wanted, and the failure rate was atrocious. Averaged to 1 disk per 90 days. The SAN we used sat on a flimsy filing cabinet right next to a high speed printer. Not touching, but close. After a while of trying to figure out the problem, I finally sold the bosses on the idea of turning one of the closets into a server room. I installed a rack, mounted it to the wall with dampeners, and installed the SAN into it. Along with 2 1au servers, and another brand new NAS. The failure rate plummeted. The original SAN so prone to killing disks worked it's ass off for 2 more years before any of the drives failed again. As far as I know it's only had 3 disks replaced in the 5 years since then. Seems reasonable to me to assume that vibration not only plays a role in performance, but in lifetime as well.
I'm not sure why you think the FCC is there to protect consumers. It's not. It exists to look out for business investments. The FCC in my lifetime has consistently sided with "big business" over private interests. This isn't exactly odd however. The FDA is similar in it's function, if not it's charter.
But... what if his name was Robterto? And he just wants to practice?
It's likely anything already on scene was sent the first second anyone knew what was going on. Specialized equipment and ships aren't always just hanging around nearby. It's entirely likely that any ships capable of helping were rushed into service. Finishing off repairs, bringing on gear and supplies, and replacing absent (shoreleaved) crew as fast as they could. Further, those same ships probably ran their engines right up to the limits, trying to make the best time possible. Which in and of itself means 5% of the response fleet needs to be rescued too.
Most of the ships I've been around don't make better than 20 knots on open sea, and half that isn't especially slow. Especially the heavy specialized ships.
It's not unreasonable to assume that if a reasonably modern Alfa can get down to 1300 meters, then the military has something that exceeds that. Although, maybe not, deep DEEP diving hasn't really ever been a goal for the military.
Given the magnitude of the situation, it's entirely possible we'll see some extreme answers. Including specially built torpedoes for the job. But my guess is that any explosives used here will be delivered by a re-repurposed DSRV. Shades of Abyss.
True, but you don't need pipe here, because they aren't trying to drill/suck the oil out. At this point, anything that can be placed in water that is oil tight (fabrics?) can do the job. It doesn't have to be rigid anymore, it just needs to hold in the majority of the oil. (nothing is going to contain it completely, until it's capped).
They do. "They" being OPEC, and they do go around just changing the price of oil whenever they want. Sure, there is a certain range they have to stick to, but that range is going up every day. I'm sure they have their reasons, however I doubt they make them public (not the real ones).
I think most of you missed the point. You are defining "best" by what? K:D? Engagements fought? Engagements won? Kills? Tactical strike efficiency? Pilot skill? What?
I am not going to try and define who, of the military divisions, is "best" at flying. The bottom line is they are ALL good at it. However, while there is some animosity between the ground pounders, and the cloud hoppers, they require each other. Modern military combat is, as it always was, largely logistics, intel and boots on the ground. Pretty much in that order. Nothing happens without the boots on the ground, but they don't get there without the intel coming from the eye in the sky. Further, logistical support is what puts the guns in the hands, the rounds in the clips, and the fuel in the APC.
A lot of you seem to be implying that the various divisions of the military handle their own logistics. To a point, yes. But that navy strike plane made it to the target because it was refueled by USAF. It didn't encounter SAMs because the USAF marked them and passed the intel to the army, which send in ground pounders and an air strike to silence them. That navy strike plane hit it's target, because the USAF controllers "hiding" in the clouds gave up to the second tracking and trajectory analysis.
The air force isn't the "best" fighting force in the world. However, it's beyond foolish to not respect the amount of FORCE they put on target. Indirectly at times, but none the less critical. You start believing the air force is weak and sad, and the next thing you know, you are eating shaped charges on the end of a kinetic kill vehicle.
Also, I'm not sure you get to call out the USAF, if you haven't ever broken mach. I think that's a rule somewhere.