I am not a bible thumper nor am I a republican but I'd like a citation of scientific PROOF that "global warming" is caused by man and/or that this is something nature hasn't dealt with before. PROOF... Not insane babble. Proof. I don't deny global warming. I don't deny man MAY have something to do with it. I insist on evidence to show that it will cause harm in the long run. Frankly if the Earth gets so hot that it forces us to do stuff to thwart that (like use solar energy) then it is a great thing.
Let me get this straight - if I can't prove to you that a bus is about to hit you, and that it's being driven by your mother-in-law, you refuse to step out of the bus lane? Why in the world do you care about that level of detail?
Somebody that wants to stop pollution, because pumping garbage into one's air supply is retarded, I can understand that. I see what happens when you put too many fish in a tank (ick). People who publish rants like yours... I just don't get it. What are you going on about? Why do you think it should be possible for someone to spoon feed you totally accurate data about past and future events?
You want to reduce the number of people? You go first. At the least, don't have kids.
I did you one better. I adopted a kid. Your turn now.
The fact is that if you want to reduce population growth, the best way to do that is to make everyone rich. Prosperity always leads to declining fertility.
Ye Ghods, somebody that makes sense! I didn't expect to find you in this discussion. You're right, and education works even better. Education leads to opportunity which leads to prosperity which pays for more education...
I suspect that many people realize that when first created, the internet was closed to themselves. It was an elite ivory tower kind of thing. You know - the kind of thing a guy who rides on private jets and limosines would like.
As I recall, it was closed to people below a certain level of education and native intelligence. Oh, and patience, too, at least until ethernet got rolled out and speeds went up over 300/1200 baud. When I was a kid I used to climb into a second story window in the middle of the night to get ARPANET access. Rich people were among the last to get on board the Internet, shortly after the stupid people.
I have heard that the Prius is a but under powered if you have to drive a lot in mountains. If you have all the seats full and have some luggage I could see how it might be a hand full in Utah or Colorado.
I don't have any trouble driving my Prius through the mountains. Gas mileage is not as good going up, obviously, (just like any other car in the mountains) but I can drive a half hour or so without using any gasoline at all coming down out of the mountains. It's not as responsive while climbing as my (8 mpg) V8 was, but I can pass most similarly sized vehicles without any problems.
Keep in mind, though, it's a small family sedan - it doesn't magically transform into a 500k$ race car by being hybridized, and it isn't intended for climbing Pike's Peak with a trunk full of concrete.
On a flat road I am sure that is is just fine and dandy. I love fast cars but what people think they need and what they actually do need are worlds apart. I would say that the Prius could be under powered in some situations but that for most people it is just fine.
My seven-year-old Prius is too slow for the Indy 500, too weak to haul a horse trailer, and too small to carry elephants. It's built to efficiently carry a maximum of five people in comfort on reasonably well maintained roads... like most other cars, only with better quality and higher efficiency.
It jumps out of my driveway faster than a normal ICE car, because electric motors develop 100% torque from a dead stop.
Gore is just playing the enviro-hipster card. The same people who buy Priuses or other hybrids because they are cool, when in fact they are too underpowered for US and European highway traffic.
Nice of you to discredit your point of view right off the bat; saved me some reading.
Automatic file versioning built right into the file system! Problem solved! Next!
Beat me to the punch. VMS was running on 64-bit processors with full version control built into the OS in 1992.
The ISO-9660 standard used on most CD-ROMs has VMS-style version numbering built in, but more primitive OSes can't really do anything with it.
*ix file system semantics are such a huge step backwards. As somebody once said (jwz perhaps?) "If you'd told me 20 years ago that unix was the great hope for the future, I'd have cut my own throat". Sadly, licensing and corporate greed have trumped technical issues, and now we just try to buy an OS that won't go unsupported if the vendor cashes out or decides to ram an upgrade down our collective throats.
My 11-year-old son successfully installed Ubuntu & that silly compiz cube thing. He's now got WOW running under wine, too.
I had some trouble, though, because I have a large soft RAID rig that I didn't want to give up. It seems to me that if you are doing something well outside the desktop mainstream Ubuntu isn't any better than anything else.
They want Apple computers because of marketing and hype. They are becoming trendy status symbols. (Put the flame-throwers away, I'm not commenting on quality here). Linux doesn't have a marketing department.
[No flames from me.] They want Macs because of the marketing and hype combined with geeks like me who say "If you've got the money and you don't want any problems, you should get a Mac."
Er, yes, exactly, that would be the "hype" previously referred to.
The problem with your car analogy is that you can still buy a Jag XJ220 used. It is illegal to resell old copies of Windows XP for use in new computers.
What happened to the first-sale doctrine?
They blew it off by simply claiming you have only been sold a "license to use the product" - you are renting access, not buying software, first-sale doesn't apply.
They also claim you agreed to this nonsense in the EULA when you popped the shrink-wrap on your CD or unboxed your OEM system.
There is nothing stopping you from starting a competing company that doesn't have those problems.
Bwahahahahahahahah! Nothing except a shortage of the multiple millions of dollars that would be required, the ability to swindle bankers and/or investors, and the desire to have a comfy bed with no horses' heads in it! Just those small trifles keep stopping me from ruling the world...
Or you just not purchase those products. Hey you can even setup a movement to get others to boycott such products and you do it well enough it may work. Yes none of those solutions are easy but where does it say Life should be easy, in any counties laws. The fact that taking the BS is so much easier then doing something about it thus it continues.
Now you're talking, brother. Testify! If you don't like the producer, don't use the product. Hallelujah!
But, my life expectancy would go up if I could afford neither steak nor beer. Instead, I'm sitting here well-fed, half-drunk, and on an uncensored internet connection (at least as uncensored as most of the world - and I have no objection to most of what people are being arrested for).
Well, you might find that's not really true. Given your language skills, your education is probably pretty good, so you probably know that one beer a day is optimal for health, yet you are still half-drunk. So, if you were less educated or less well-off you'd probably be smoking grass or tobacco or drinking sterno. The native wild tobacco that grows on the islands is pretty bad for you and costs nothing. People with less money are far more likely to indulge in harmful vices than the rich, in my fairly extensive experience.
Linus is being blunt, as usual, and he's telling everybody what his personal policy is towards disclosure. If he finds a bug, he fixes it, and he doesn't rate security bugs as more or less important than other bugs because he's a kernel hacker, and therefore security bugs are not his sole focus in life. He doesn't use any special language to highlight or obscure security fixes in the changelog, he just describes the fix, which is what people are claiming is "security by obscurity".
From that, people looking for something to bitch about have created this kerfuffle; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of storm and fury, and signifying... nothing.(from Macbeth, 5.5)
"Shakespeare really kicks the cap off" -- James Hovenac
I don't know if there are any O-rings in the design, but if so they'd be made of materials that do not exhibit the well-known shortcomings of the ones used on Challenger. There haven't been any other O-ring related failures in space vehicles AFAIK. There's no need for them in a non-segmented design, of course.
Without knowing the composition of the case, the propellant, and the O-rings in question, you can't really say. For example, some solid propellants operate within a fairly narrow pressure range, and having a hole open up in the case could drop the internal pressure enough to stop the burn. The effect on navigation is also impossible to predict without getting into ridiculous detail - is it a 3 mm hole on the port side six inches from bolt, or a 5 mm hole facing in towards the vehicle? Either way your combustion chamber will deform and the effect on surface area of the burn will cause a variation in impulse from that rocket which will mess you up, but you also might get some spin or side thrust. There are just too many variables to make a prediction... consider this analogy - what will happen to your car if a capacitor fails? Maybe you'll die, maybe you will just have to pull off the road.
In the cause of Challenger, I'll WAG that the leak wouldn't have caused any unresolveable problems if the whole vehicle hadn't been designed like two bottle rockets strapped to a zip-lock bag of gasoline.
I was working for Morton-Thiokol when it happened, and it was not a fun time for myself or my cow-orkers.
Were you in the conference call the night before that attempted to get NASA to scrub the launch? I saw a special on that, and the interview with the Boisjoly was chilling. Too bad, though, that despite all his heroic efforts, he fell short at the crucial moment and didn't object when the mic was open.
Hell no, I wasn't involved with the shuttle SRMs at all (though I lost my job in the layoffs that resulted from the Challenger accident). I was busy helping Ronald Reagan give the Saudis nuclear weapons technology. Oh, excuse me, that didn't happen, we were developing totally peaceful "booster rockets" that were to be used in the totally peaceful "Saudi communications satellite launch program" and those missiles, er, I mean totally peaceful rocket motors, just happen to be functionally identical to state-of-the-art cruise missiles. Just a coincidence I am sure; there's no reason you wouldn't want satellite launchers to fly ten feet off the ground with a 500 lb payload.
While I'm sure that it would cost less to have one vehicle instead of two, I disagree with their safety and "simpler" claim.
I'm no rocket scientist (though I am an engineer), but a simple look at the NASA plan shows that the crew vehicle is much simpler than this Jupiter plan. The Jupiter are looking to use 2 shuttle boosters and the center fuel tank with shuttle engines mounted on it to put a crew into space, while NASA is using only one booster and one engine for the 2nd stage.
Do I have this right? Seems to me that NASA's solution for the crew vehicle is simpler (and thus probably safer). Especially considering that there's never been a booster failure, has there? Though Challenger was arguably a booster failure, would it have been catastrophic without the center fuel tank explosion?
Strap-on boosters are an old and well-proven technology. Delta, Titan/Centaur, and Atlas have all used them very successfully; the Delta vehicle has been in use in various forms for more than a quarter-century and I'd guess it has put more satellites in orbit than any other.
Sending two vehicles up separately and having them join up after launch is a comparatively radical idea, with a much shorter track record. We've been doing pretty well lately with the international space station, though, and it's not really as hard as refueling a jet in flight (since you don't have to fight turbulence or weather).
When Challenger was built, NASA insisted that we use rubber-gasketed steel composite SRBs. We wanted to use case-on-propellant technology, winding graphite fiber onto pre-cast propellant cores to make a seamless case, but NASA was on this "cheap spaceflight" kick and had a lowest-bid mentality that ruled out anything new. Since then the Deltas have used wound graphite cases very successfully (although, Wikipedia has refused to let me create a Vic Singer entry - designing the airbags for the Mars Lander on the back of a napkin isn't "notable" enough, so I don't think his case-on-propellant designs will get him in. Perhaps you have to be a minor player in a Joss Whedon flick to get props at wikipedia).
I'm not passing judgment on either scheme, just thought I'd give you some data to munch on.
The data recovered after the crash suggest the crew were killed by impact with the water. I don't believe it's known how badly (if at all) the crew were injured by the orbiter's breakup. Several of the suits' emergency air supplies had been activated, however, which tends to support the idea that at least some crew members were still functional after the cabin lost pressure due to hull breach. The guys at NASA who studied the crash didn't think the forces on the cabin would have hurt anyone strapped in, but the altitude was sufficient to knock people out from lack of oxygen.
This is dredged up from memory, so it may have been superseded by now. I was working for Morton-Thiokol when it happened, and it was not a fun time for myself or my cow-orkers.
Once we have that level of control, we will eliminate tooth decay and put nearly all the dentists out of work. Apparently susceptibility to dental caries is a genetic defect!
Coroners occasionally find elderly corpses have incongruously perfect teeth. Supposedly, in a very small percentage of humans, the tiny tubes in the tooth continually transfer dentin to the surface to prevent enamel wear. Additionally (and more commonly) some persons have antibodies in their saliva that destroy tooth decay organisms.
I'm not a coroner, so I haven't any independent confirmation of this. But my dentist believes it.;)
Yah, planning is more than just counting drives
on
What NAS To Buy?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
With any of these RAID methods make sure you pay attention to your disk controllers as well. If you have a controller go out and all the disks on that controller go with it, what happens to your array? Things to keep in mind...
You're right. And having two or more controllers does not always help - unless you intelligently distribute your RAID elements across more than one bus. And don't forget to put your power supplies on separate circuit breakers, too.
Use the 21st century RAID notation for clarity
on
What NAS To Buy?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
RAID10, is a mirror of RAID5 arrays. RAID0+1, is a RAID5 of mirrors.
No. The old nomenclature (such as "RAID10") was never defined properly so different people used different definitions. One vendor's RAID10 can be the same as another vendor's RAID0/1 so be careful.
Since 1990 or thereabouts people have taken to using the plus symbol, so
RAID0+1 is a RAID1 of RAID0s (a single mirror) RAID1+0 is a RAID0 of RAID1s (a bunch of mirrors) RAID5+0 adds (or stripes) a bunch of RAID5 arrays together.
You notate the RAID levels in the order they were applied; if I take 96 disks and make 12 stripe sets (RAID0) and then make six mirror pairs (RAID1) and then make a RAID5 array from them, it would be a RAID0+1+5 array. The notation is infinitely extensible and simple to learn and remember.
then hell, get the Logitech DiNovo Edge with the lithium ion batteries, recharging stand, and circular built-in touchpad. It's laser-cut out of a sheet of lexan for chrissakes, you don't get much sexier than that with a keyboard, and it has superb wireless that runs out-of-the-box on Ubuntu LTS.
Not a great keyboard for us wage slaves, though; very expensive and kind of optimized for media-center couch potatoes... suboptimal for desktops.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not a bible thumper nor am I a republican but I'd like a citation of scientific PROOF that "global warming" is caused by man and/or that this is something nature hasn't dealt with before. PROOF... Not insane babble. Proof. I don't deny global warming. I don't deny man MAY have something to do with it. I insist on evidence to show that it will cause harm in the long run. Frankly if the Earth gets so hot that it forces us to do stuff to thwart that (like use solar energy) then it is a great thing.
Let me get this straight - if I can't prove to you that a bus is about to hit you, and that it's being driven by your mother-in-law, you refuse to step out of the bus lane? Why in the world do you care about that level of detail?
Somebody that wants to stop pollution, because pumping garbage into one's air supply is retarded, I can understand that. I see what happens when you put too many fish in a tank (ick). People who publish rants like yours... I just don't get it. What are you going on about? Why do you think it should be possible for someone to spoon feed you totally accurate data about past and future events?
You want to reduce the number of people? You go first. At the least, don't have kids.
I did you one better. I adopted a kid. Your turn now.
The fact is that if you want to reduce population growth, the best way to do that is to make everyone rich. Prosperity always leads to declining fertility.
Ye Ghods, somebody that makes sense! I didn't expect to find you in this discussion. You're right, and education works even better. Education leads to opportunity which leads to prosperity which pays for more education...
I suspect that many people realize that when first created, the internet was closed to themselves. It was an elite ivory tower kind of thing. You know - the kind of thing a guy who rides on private jets and limosines would like.
As I recall, it was closed to people below a certain level of education and native intelligence. Oh, and patience, too, at least until ethernet got rolled out and speeds went up over 300/1200 baud. When I was a kid I used to climb into a second story window in the middle of the night to get ARPANET access. Rich people were among the last to get on board the Internet, shortly after the stupid people.
Unlike Digg, you can pretty much killfile people you don't agree with here. Learn the interface.
"Super liberal" is a laugh, though.
I have heard that the Prius is a but under powered if you have to drive a lot in mountains. If you have all the seats full and have some luggage I could see how it might be a hand full in Utah or Colorado.
I don't have any trouble driving my Prius through the mountains. Gas mileage is not as good going up, obviously, (just like any other car in the mountains) but I can drive a half hour or so without using any gasoline at all coming down out of the mountains. It's not as responsive while climbing as my (8 mpg) V8 was, but I can pass most similarly sized vehicles without any problems.
Keep in mind, though, it's a small family sedan - it doesn't magically transform into a 500k$ race car by being hybridized, and it isn't intended for climbing Pike's Peak with a trunk full of concrete.
On a flat road I am sure that is is just fine and dandy. I love fast cars but what people think they need and what they actually do need are worlds apart.
I would say that the Prius could be under powered in some situations but that for most people it is just fine.
My seven-year-old Prius is too slow for the Indy 500, too weak to haul a horse trailer, and too small to carry elephants. It's built to efficiently carry a maximum of five people in comfort on reasonably well maintained roads... like most other cars, only with better quality and higher efficiency.
It jumps out of my driveway faster than a normal ICE car, because electric motors develop 100% torque from a dead stop.
Gore is just playing the enviro-hipster card. The same people who buy Priuses or other hybrids because they are cool, when in fact they are too underpowered for US and European highway traffic.
Nice of you to discredit your point of view right off the bat; saved me some reading.
Automatic file versioning built right into the file system! Problem solved! Next!
Beat me to the punch. VMS was running on 64-bit processors with full version control built into the OS in 1992.
The ISO-9660 standard used on most CD-ROMs has VMS-style version numbering built in, but more primitive OSes can't really do anything with it.
*ix file system semantics are such a huge step backwards. As somebody once said (jwz perhaps?) "If you'd told me 20 years ago that unix was the great hope for the future, I'd have cut my own throat". Sadly, licensing and corporate greed have trumped technical issues, and now we just try to buy an OS that won't go unsupported if the vendor cashes out or decides to ram an upgrade down our collective throats.
My 11-year-old son successfully installed Ubuntu & that silly compiz cube thing. He's now got WOW running under wine, too.
I had some trouble, though, because I have a large soft RAID rig that I didn't want to give up. It seems to me that if you are doing something well outside the desktop mainstream Ubuntu isn't any better than anything else.
YMMV.
Er, yes, exactly, that would be the "hype" previously referred to.
apparently DE:AD:BE:EF:DE:AD:BE:EF is some guy named Peter Shipley, and he just laughed at me when I called him up and asked him about it.
The description you and the author are looking for is NOT "jury-rigged" - rigging a jury is a completely different thing!
The phrase you are looking for is "jerry-rigging", a racist term that comes from the even more racist "nigger-rigging" - just so you know.
Epic Fail.
The problem with your car analogy is that you can still buy a Jag XJ220 used. It is illegal to resell old copies of Windows XP for use in new computers.
What happened to the first-sale doctrine?
They blew it off by simply claiming you have only been sold a "license to use the product" - you are renting access, not buying software, first-sale doesn't apply.
They also claim you agreed to this nonsense in the EULA when you popped the shrink-wrap on your CD or unboxed your OEM system.
There is nothing stopping you from starting a competing company that doesn't have those problems.
Bwahahahahahahahah! Nothing except a shortage of the multiple millions of dollars that would be required, the ability to swindle bankers and/or investors, and the desire to have a comfy bed with no horses' heads in it! Just those small trifles keep stopping me from ruling the world...
Or you just not purchase those products. Hey you can even setup a movement to get others to boycott such products and you do it well enough it may work. Yes none of those solutions are easy but where does it say Life should be easy, in any counties laws. The fact that taking the BS is so much easier then doing something about it thus it continues.
Now you're talking, brother. Testify! If you don't like the producer, don't use the product. Hallelujah!
Please refrain from using 'we' when referring to yourself - unless you are perhaps royalty or an editor, then it is of course your perogative.
Hey, pr'aps he's got a tapeworm!
I was probably supposed to end that sentence with "you insensitive clod".
But, my life expectancy would go up if I could afford neither steak nor beer. Instead, I'm sitting here well-fed, half-drunk, and on an uncensored internet connection (at least as uncensored as most of the world - and I have no objection to most of what people are being arrested for).
Well, you might find that's not really true. Given your language skills, your education is probably pretty good, so you probably know that one beer a day is optimal for health, yet you are still half-drunk. So, if you were less educated or less well-off you'd probably be smoking grass or tobacco or drinking sterno. The native wild tobacco that grows on the islands is pretty bad for you and costs nothing. People with less money are far more likely to indulge in harmful vices than the rich, in my fairly extensive experience.
Read this post to get some perspective:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/707044
Linus is being blunt, as usual, and he's telling everybody what his personal policy is towards disclosure. If he finds a bug, he fixes it, and he doesn't rate security bugs as more or less important than other bugs because he's a kernel hacker, and therefore security bugs are not his sole focus in life. He doesn't use any special language to highlight or obscure security fixes in the changelog, he just describes the fix, which is what people are claiming is "security by obscurity".
From that, people looking for something to bitch about have created this kerfuffle; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of storm and fury, and signifying... nothing.(from Macbeth, 5.5)
"Shakespeare really kicks the cap off" -- James Hovenac
I don't know if there are any O-rings in the design, but if so they'd be made of materials that do not exhibit the well-known shortcomings of the ones used on Challenger. There haven't been any other O-ring related failures in space vehicles AFAIK. There's no need for them in a non-segmented design, of course.
Without knowing the composition of the case, the propellant, and the O-rings in question, you can't really say. For example, some solid propellants operate within a fairly narrow pressure range, and having a hole open up in the case could drop the internal pressure enough to stop the burn. The effect on navigation is also impossible to predict without getting into ridiculous detail - is it a 3 mm hole on the port side six inches from bolt, or a 5 mm hole facing in towards the vehicle? Either way your combustion chamber will deform and the effect on surface area of the burn will cause a variation in impulse from that rocket which will mess you up, but you also might get some spin or side thrust. There are just too many variables to make a prediction... consider this analogy - what will happen to your car if a capacitor fails? Maybe you'll die, maybe you will just have to pull off the road.
In the cause of Challenger, I'll WAG that the leak wouldn't have caused any unresolveable problems if the whole vehicle hadn't been designed like two bottle rockets strapped to a zip-lock bag of gasoline.
I was working for Morton-Thiokol when it happened, and it was not a fun time for myself or my cow-orkers.
Were you in the conference call the night before that attempted to get NASA to scrub the launch? I saw a special on that, and the interview with the Boisjoly was chilling. Too bad, though, that despite all his heroic efforts, he fell short at the crucial moment and didn't object when the mic was open.
Hell no, I wasn't involved with the shuttle SRMs at all (though I lost my job in the layoffs that resulted from the Challenger accident). I was busy helping Ronald Reagan give the Saudis nuclear weapons technology. Oh, excuse me, that didn't happen, we were developing totally peaceful "booster rockets" that were to be used in the totally peaceful "Saudi communications satellite launch program" and those missiles, er, I mean totally peaceful rocket motors, just happen to be functionally identical to state-of-the-art cruise missiles. Just a coincidence I am sure; there's no reason you wouldn't want satellite launchers to fly ten feet off the ground with a 500 lb payload.
While I'm sure that it would cost less to have one vehicle instead of two, I disagree with their safety and "simpler" claim.
I'm no rocket scientist (though I am an engineer), but a simple look at the NASA plan shows that the crew vehicle is much simpler than this Jupiter plan. The Jupiter are looking to use 2 shuttle boosters and the center fuel tank with shuttle engines mounted on it to put a crew into space, while NASA is using only one booster and one engine for the 2nd stage.
Do I have this right? Seems to me that NASA's solution for the crew vehicle is simpler (and thus probably safer). Especially considering that there's never been a booster failure, has there? Though Challenger was arguably a booster failure, would it have been catastrophic without the center fuel tank explosion?
Strap-on boosters are an old and well-proven technology. Delta, Titan/Centaur, and Atlas have all used them very successfully; the Delta vehicle has been in use in various forms for more than a quarter-century and I'd guess it has put more satellites in orbit than any other.
Sending two vehicles up separately and having them join up after launch is a comparatively radical idea, with a much shorter track record. We've been doing pretty well lately with the international space station, though, and it's not really as hard as refueling a jet in flight (since you don't have to fight turbulence or weather).
When Challenger was built, NASA insisted that we use rubber-gasketed steel composite SRBs. We wanted to use case-on-propellant technology, winding graphite fiber onto pre-cast propellant cores to make a seamless case, but NASA was on this "cheap spaceflight" kick and had a lowest-bid mentality that ruled out anything new. Since then the Deltas have used wound graphite cases very successfully (although, Wikipedia has refused to let me create a Vic Singer entry - designing the airbags for the Mars Lander on the back of a napkin isn't "notable" enough, so I don't think his case-on-propellant designs will get him in. Perhaps you have to be a minor player in a Joss Whedon flick to get props at wikipedia).
I'm not passing judgment on either scheme, just thought I'd give you some data to munch on.
The data recovered after the crash suggest the crew were killed by impact with the water. I don't believe it's known how badly (if at all) the crew were injured by the orbiter's breakup. Several of the suits' emergency air supplies had been activated, however, which tends to support the idea that at least some crew members were still functional after the cabin lost pressure due to hull breach. The guys at NASA who studied the crash didn't think the forces on the cabin would have hurt anyone strapped in, but the altitude was sufficient to knock people out from lack of oxygen.
This is dredged up from memory, so it may have been superseded by now. I was working for Morton-Thiokol when it happened, and it was not a fun time for myself or my cow-orkers.
Once we have that level of control, we will eliminate tooth decay and put nearly all the dentists out of work. Apparently susceptibility to dental caries is a genetic defect!
Coroners occasionally find elderly corpses have incongruously perfect teeth. Supposedly, in a very small percentage of humans, the tiny tubes in the tooth continually transfer dentin to the surface to prevent enamel wear. Additionally (and more commonly) some persons have antibodies in their saliva that destroy tooth decay organisms.
I'm not a coroner, so I haven't any independent confirmation of this. But my dentist believes it. ;)
Well, that's OK, I will laugh with you!
Ha ha ha ha ha!
These Internets sure are fun.
With any of these RAID methods make sure you pay attention to your disk controllers as well. If you have a controller go out and all the disks on that controller go with it, what happens to your array? Things to keep in mind...
You're right. And having two or more controllers does not always help - unless you intelligently distribute your RAID elements across more than one bus. And don't forget to put your power supplies on separate circuit breakers, too.
RAID10, is a mirror of RAID5 arrays.
RAID0+1, is a RAID5 of mirrors.
No. The old nomenclature (such as "RAID10") was never defined properly so different people used different definitions. One vendor's RAID10 can be the same as another vendor's RAID0/1 so be careful.
Since 1990 or thereabouts people have taken to using the plus symbol, so
RAID0+1 is a RAID1 of RAID0s (a single mirror)
RAID1+0 is a RAID0 of RAID1s (a bunch of mirrors)
RAID5+0 adds (or stripes) a bunch of RAID5 arrays together.
You notate the RAID levels in the order they were applied; if I take 96 disks and make 12 stripe sets (RAID0) and then make six mirror pairs (RAID1) and then make a RAID5 array from them, it would be a RAID0+1+5 array. The notation is infinitely extensible and simple to learn and remember.
then hell, get the Logitech DiNovo Edge with the lithium ion batteries, recharging stand, and circular built-in touchpad. It's laser-cut out of a sheet of lexan for chrissakes, you don't get much sexier than that with a keyboard, and it has superb wireless that runs out-of-the-box on Ubuntu LTS.
Not a great keyboard for us wage slaves, though; very expensive and kind of optimized for media-center couch potatoes... suboptimal for desktops.