Silver nitrate and the original magnetic core memory had about the same lifespan. However, you run into problems of size, speed of access, etc. For those youngsters who never encountered it, core memory was an improvement on the Williams memory device that had been used in previous generations of machines. It used slowly-decaying magnetic fields to store information for 100+ years. This made it the world's first electronic non-volatile storage. At a density of 32 kbits per cubic foot, it was also very inefficient.
So, whilst it's not quite correct to say that old-fashioned film is better than all digital in terms of longevity, it's better than most and those that come close in longevity don't come close in information density. High-grade medium film carries a LOT of information in a couple of square inches.
No, because a name has to be in relation to something.
You basically have four lanes of Internet traffic - slow, basic, broadband and high-speed. You don't want more than four categories.
You peg the top of the highest category to the highest speed that can be accessed by residential users outside of any R&D scenario. That's currently 50 gigabits per second.
You peg the base of the highest category to the highest speed that can be accessed by a significant number of users. That's currently 10 gigabits per second.
This is perfectly reasonable, because it defines an actual meaningful experience and a non-trivial identifiable segment of the population. Because we're not using absolutes, it has nothing to do with computers, it has to do with relative experience of the user.
We peg the base of the next highest category to be the highest speed that both defines a significant number of population centres - cities, towns, etc - and can be meaningfully delivered to those machines these days, that's a gigabit per second.
Basic is sensibly defined as being the bulk experience of users who are getting the lowest service the ISPs can provide using current facilities. What you are getting is very basic indeed. It's hard to deliver anything that slow unless you're using technology from the 1980s or 1990s. That's an experience, because that is by definition where most people will be.
Slow is anything that uses equipment that really can't be maintained because it's obsolete. That, too, is an experience. It limits your ability to do things by merit of nobody accounting for the possibility.
First, you're not going to get UHDTV over a 10 megabit link. You're not going to get very good HDTV over that.
Second, most of the world is on links faster than yours. What are you going to do, have broader band, broader-than-broad band and mega broadband? Sounds like a line of clothing for Texans. You have to rate things by what actually exists in the field. Gigabit to the home pioneered in Japan somewhere around 2000. You're eighteen years behind.
Ten gigabits to the home FOR LESS THAN YOU ARE PAYING can be found in some towns in America, although the cable companies have done their damnest to have such things banned. The fact is, those providers exist and you would not be paying more, you'd be paying less.
You don't think you'd use it? Don't be so sure. Even back in 1991, I was regularly maxing out a 100 megabit Ethernet. Between TV, telephony, X11, and software development with a NAS, you can generate a fair bit. (Yes, you could get TV on the Internet in '91. The application was nv, it supported PAL and NTSC transmissions, and was generally pretty good.)
...if it was done right. I would have no problems with one service per show, because then I'm buying the specific shows I want and don't have the overhead of effectively buying the lot. It would cost more than buying from a single vendor, but we don't have a universal vendor (be it a commonwealth or a cooperative or some vendor that has bought the rights to everything). If we did, that would be the best solution of all.
I want at most one or two shows from a large number of vendors. If I got to do micropayments and get just those shows, I'd save a fortune over the current situation. Of course, to be workable, you'd need a standardized protocol so that you've one aggregator that collected the shows that you wanted, regardless of vendor.
Since neither of these options is open to me, I do the only sane option left - I go back to reading books.
If their algorithms don't like the images, they're likely to lock the NYT out or delete the contents of the drive.
I'm not sure there are any vendors out there I'd trust. I'd suggest buying a large number of commodity drives (they don't have to be perfect) and place them in groups of six to make a RAID 6 drive. It's not that expensive, especially compared to rebuilding the archive if/when things go wrong.
If this is a do-once sort of thing, once it's done it's done and if it crashes it is lost forever, then the financial industry often uses mirrored RAID 6. It's not impossible for that to die, but it's very, very unlikely.
Let's say we use requirements. Almost no machine is going to handle a megabit per second without serious starvation problems. Computer busses typically run at 25-50 gigabits per second per lane, with up to 32 lanes. That's local speed.
We can measure speeds relative to that. That's a perfectly good method, lots of engineering is done in relative units.
Or we can use the speeds of competing systems. Broadband is intermediate. Chattanooga, TN, recently upgraded to 10 gigabits per second and parts of rural Sweden are at 50 gigabits per second.
I'd call 10-50 gigabit speeds fast. But if we do that, then CAT5-CAT6 Ethernet speeds (100 megabits - 10 gigabits) must be intermediate.
Everything below is ergo slow.
1.5 megabits DSL is ludicrous. I assume it's ADSL. My suspicion is that you'll find they're offering 10 Mbps SDSL to businesses in the area. ADSL could easily be run at the same speed as SDSL - actually, it could be run faster, as you've very little traffic coming the other way.
You are set at such a low speed because the provider can get away with it. If they didn't come to your house and adjust the speed to get maximum signal strength, you're being robbed. Even if they did, if they didn't bother with a decent modem at the office, you can't get decent speeds and are still being robbed.
Current speed on installed fibre is 111 terabits per second, but apparently they've just increased that five fold. Your area will be served by one cable. You need an awful lot of houses before the best you can do is 1 megabit per second.
Disney has produced two decent cartoons since 2000. DVD releases have been low-res transfers, heavily edited, of a fraction of the episodes. Online copies are ok, but still edited and their app is horrible.
The BBC learned - to an extent - how to get it right in the 1990s, due to the sheer flood of complaints. They weren't expecting a backlash. But, to give them credit, they really tried to learn. Disney have not.
The failure rate is not bad and can be improved on. Intel reckoned an 80 core CPU using wafers, you can disable 3/4s and still have the power of a high-end server. Odds are, you'd not drop below 64 cores.
Other methods apply. Since we're talking daughter cards, you can have some replace disabled logic on the chip.
Then here are some things you should never pay for: Cars, clothes, the Internet, chocolate, breakfast cereal, nuclear energy, solar energy, education, health, books, comics, aircraft/flights, computers, food containing grains, beer/wine/mead.
In fact, there's virtually nothing you can pay for. Those you object to invented it all.
Large dies are good. You can do far more. I'd love to see wafer scale SoC at 15nm, more RAM than most machines have hard drive and more cores than most servers, in something the size of a kindle.
You wouldn't need it for all tasks, just semi-stable ones. TCP/IP doesn't change much, so putting a stack on ASIC makes a lot of sense.
If you shoved the Linux filesystems and VFS2 onto a series of ASICs that could be placed on the controller card, you'd have far better performance and all OS' would have access.
Chiplets are good, but what's wrong with wafer scale integration? You could even combine them, chiplets as daughter boards in a 2+1 dimensional arrangement.
What was published was not required by law. Instead, what was published was required by law to be kept private.
Don't go making excuses for your tribe when it does wrong. I don't excuse anyone for wrongdoing, nor do most others.
This is government intrusion, which I suspect you oppose when it affects you. When it causes physical harm to your imagined enemies, you're all for it.
This isn't about the law, this is about you wanting those of other political persuasions to come to harm.
Slashdot Mirror
Silver nitrate and the original magnetic core memory had about the same lifespan. However, you run into problems of size, speed of access, etc. For those youngsters who never encountered it, core memory was an improvement on the Williams memory device that had been used in previous generations of machines. It used slowly-decaying magnetic fields to store information for 100+ years. This made it the world's first electronic non-volatile storage. At a density of 32 kbits per cubic foot, it was also very inefficient.
So, whilst it's not quite correct to say that old-fashioned film is better than all digital in terms of longevity, it's better than most and those that come close in longevity don't come close in information density. High-grade medium film carries a LOT of information in a couple of square inches.
The vacuum does however violate the second law of thermodynamics, which is why quantum foam has been postulated.
The architecture and protocols, I have listed above.
A range of simulators that could be helpful:
https://github.com/mlab-upenn/...
http://ssfnet.org/homePage.htm...
https://www.nsnam.org/
UHDTV is 4K or 8K. 8.3 megapixels or 33.2 megapixels. 24 bits per pixel. 30 frames per second. 6 or 24 gigabits of data, respectively.
You can compress it, with loss of quality. But you're never going to compress it to the degree you're claiming.
No, because a name has to be in relation to something.
You basically have four lanes of Internet traffic - slow, basic, broadband and high-speed. You don't want more than four categories.
You peg the top of the highest category to the highest speed that can be accessed by residential users outside of any R&D scenario. That's currently 50 gigabits per second.
You peg the base of the highest category to the highest speed that can be accessed by a significant number of users. That's currently 10 gigabits per second.
This is perfectly reasonable, because it defines an actual meaningful experience and a non-trivial identifiable segment of the population. Because we're not using absolutes, it has nothing to do with computers, it has to do with relative experience of the user.
We peg the base of the next highest category to be the highest speed that both defines a significant number of population centres - cities, towns, etc - and can be meaningfully delivered to those machines these days, that's a gigabit per second.
Basic is sensibly defined as being the bulk experience of users who are getting the lowest service the ISPs can provide using current facilities. What you are getting is very basic indeed. It's hard to deliver anything that slow unless you're using technology from the 1980s or 1990s. That's an experience, because that is by definition where most people will be.
Slow is anything that uses equipment that really can't be maintained because it's obsolete. That, too, is an experience. It limits your ability to do things by merit of nobody accounting for the possibility.
First, you're not going to get UHDTV over a 10 megabit link. You're not going to get very good HDTV over that.
Second, most of the world is on links faster than yours. What are you going to do, have broader band, broader-than-broad band and mega broadband? Sounds like a line of clothing for Texans. You have to rate things by what actually exists in the field. Gigabit to the home pioneered in Japan somewhere around 2000. You're eighteen years behind.
Ten gigabits to the home FOR LESS THAN YOU ARE PAYING can be found in some towns in America, although the cable companies have done their damnest to have such things banned. The fact is, those providers exist and you would not be paying more, you'd be paying less.
You don't think you'd use it? Don't be so sure. Even back in 1991, I was regularly maxing out a 100 megabit Ethernet. Between TV, telephony, X11, and software development with a NAS, you can generate a fair bit. (Yes, you could get TV on the Internet in '91. The application was nv, it supported PAL and NTSC transmissions, and was generally pretty good.)
...if it was done right. I would have no problems with one service per show, because then I'm buying the specific shows I want and don't have the overhead of effectively buying the lot. It would cost more than buying from a single vendor, but we don't have a universal vendor (be it a commonwealth or a cooperative or some vendor that has bought the rights to everything). If we did, that would be the best solution of all.
I want at most one or two shows from a large number of vendors. If I got to do micropayments and get just those shows, I'd save a fortune over the current situation. Of course, to be workable, you'd need a standardized protocol so that you've one aggregator that collected the shows that you wanted, regardless of vendor.
Since neither of these options is open to me, I do the only sane option left - I go back to reading books.
If their algorithms don't like the images, they're likely to lock the NYT out or delete the contents of the drive.
I'm not sure there are any vendors out there I'd trust. I'd suggest buying a large number of commodity drives (they don't have to be perfect) and place them in groups of six to make a RAID 6 drive. It's not that expensive, especially compared to rebuilding the archive if/when things go wrong.
If this is a do-once sort of thing, once it's done it's done and if it crashes it is lost forever, then the financial industry often uses mirrored RAID 6. It's not impossible for that to die, but it's very, very unlikely.
Fortunately, I have them.
Space Communications Protocol Specifications
Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems
CCSDS Technical Specifications
Space Assigned Numbers Authority
Spacecraft ID list and manual
Disruption Tolerant Networking
Exploration and Space Communications at NASA
Free Space Optical Communication
Not really, you're forgetting The Doctor regenerates a lot.
No, speeds have to be relative to something.
Let's say we use requirements. Almost no machine is going to handle a megabit per second without serious starvation problems. Computer busses typically run at 25-50 gigabits per second per lane, with up to 32 lanes. That's local speed.
We can measure speeds relative to that. That's a perfectly good method, lots of engineering is done in relative units.
Or we can use the speeds of competing systems. Broadband is intermediate. Chattanooga, TN, recently upgraded to 10 gigabits per second and parts of rural Sweden are at 50 gigabits per second.
I'd call 10-50 gigabit speeds fast. But if we do that, then CAT5-CAT6 Ethernet speeds (100 megabits - 10 gigabits) must be intermediate.
Everything below is ergo slow.
1.5 megabits DSL is ludicrous. I assume it's ADSL. My suspicion is that you'll find they're offering 10 Mbps SDSL to businesses in the area. ADSL could easily be run at the same speed as SDSL - actually, it could be run faster, as you've very little traffic coming the other way.
You are set at such a low speed because the provider can get away with it. If they didn't come to your house and adjust the speed to get maximum signal strength, you're being robbed. Even if they did, if they didn't bother with a decent modem at the office, you can't get decent speeds and are still being robbed.
Current speed on installed fibre is 111 terabits per second, but apparently they've just increased that five fold. Your area will be served by one cable. You need an awful lot of houses before the best you can do is 1 megabit per second.
Disney has produced two decent cartoons since 2000. DVD releases have been low-res transfers, heavily edited, of a fraction of the episodes. Online copies are ok, but still edited and their app is horrible.
The BBC learned - to an extent - how to get it right in the 1990s, due to the sheer flood of complaints. They weren't expecting a backlash. But, to give them credit, they really tried to learn. Disney have not.
The failure rate is not bad and can be improved on. Intel reckoned an 80 core CPU using wafers, you can disable 3/4s and still have the power of a high-end server. Odds are, you'd not drop below 64 cores.
Other methods apply. Since we're talking daughter cards, you can have some replace disabled logic on the chip.
So why do companies already do this for high-end cards?
Defect density is much, much lower these days. Different method of purifying silicon, the increased affordability of isotopically pure silicon, etc.
(You can now produce ultrapure single isotope silicon using benchtop apparatus. Indeed, that is being done.)
We've gone from an 80% pass rate in the 80s to a 99.5% pass rate today.
Really? Is that the best troll you can manage? I saw better trolls on alt.flame -- after people stopped using it.
The US defines anything faster than a Morse code buzzer as broadband, but speed is relative not to Comcast but to computers.
Anything less than a gigabit per second simply isn't broadband, whatever the FCC says.
Microsoft has built networks before. They failed because they care nothing for quality and hardware is unforgiving of failures.
Then here are some things you should never pay for: Cars, clothes, the Internet, chocolate, breakfast cereal, nuclear energy, solar energy, education, health, books, comics, aircraft/flights, computers, food containing grains, beer/wine/mead.
In fact, there's virtually nothing you can pay for. Those you object to invented it all.
The First Doctor does not run any country.
Large dies are good. You can do far more. I'd love to see wafer scale SoC at 15nm, more RAM than most machines have hard drive and more cores than most servers, in something the size of a kindle.
You wouldn't need it for all tasks, just semi-stable ones. TCP/IP doesn't change much, so putting a stack on ASIC makes a lot of sense.
If you shoved the Linux filesystems and VFS2 onto a series of ASICs that could be placed on the controller card, you'd have far better performance and all OS' would have access.
Chiplets are good, but what's wrong with wafer scale integration? You could even combine them, chiplets as daughter boards in a 2+1 dimensional arrangement.
Show me where the law requires medical information published
But not medical records, which were included.
What was published was not required by law. Instead, what was published was required by law to be kept private.
Don't go making excuses for your tribe when it does wrong. I don't excuse anyone for wrongdoing, nor do most others.
This is government intrusion, which I suspect you oppose when it affects you. When it causes physical harm to your imagined enemies, you're all for it.
This isn't about the law, this is about you wanting those of other political persuasions to come to harm.