The NIC that failed isn't the part that's at fault. NICs fail, and can be counted on to do so inevitably, if relatively unpredictably (MTBF is statistical).
The real problem NIC is the one that wasn't there as backup. Either a redundant one already online, or a hotswap one for a brief downtime, or just a spare that could be replaced after a quick diagnostic according to the system's exception handling runbook of emergency procedures.
Of course, we can't blame a NIC that doesn't exist, even if we're blaming it for not existing. We have to blame the people who designed and deployed the system with the single point of failure, and the managers and oversight staff who let the airport depend on that single point of failure.
But instead I'm sure we'll blame the dead NIC. Which gave its life in service to its country.
Maybe so. The substance of my comment still stands, even if it is off-topic.
But how do you know they're talking directly to twitter? Even if it's not front-paged, it's still published by Slashdot. Is there any evidence to believe that twitter fits the post's bill, having dismissed Forbes in the past, but now making a big deal of Forbes' current statements?
The study didn't even take into account whether the emails in question were urgent or not. Maybe the problem is that everyone is so overworked, not that the work is coming in email. If the messages weren't urgent, but people were as obsessed as that study concludes, then its conclusions would be valid. But if they are urgent, is that the fault of email? Has everyone been stressed out for a century by "the telephone", or by the transformation of our jobs into ones that are largely talking with each other about delegated and collaborated production work?
Are they freaked out that people are "driven" to get into cars and trains every day, sometimes for hours, as part of our work?
Really, what is the baseline against which this "abnormal email stress" is being measured? I suspect that it's the usual imaginary baseline in "the good old days" that tabloid newspapers have been inventing since... the good old days.
I agree with you 100% about the actual mechanism by which Forbes shills for MS.
But I note that I didn't say that Forbes is a paid shill. I merely quoted that sentence from a post which in turn quoted an original post which said that about Forbes. The post I quoted accused the OP of saying "paid shill" as if Forbes' status had consequence, though someone (the OP'er or Slashdot itself) has said that Forbes' status has no consequence. An accusation that someone was being contradictory.
My post said nothing about Forbes' status. I said only that the contradictions were irrelevant because of how Slashdot works.
Is this the same company you have repeatedly accused of being "paid M$ shills"? And now they're right on the money?
Who has accused Forbes, twitter? Or are you calling out Slashdot? Slashdot publishes all kinds of stories from all kinds of people who walk up and post. They're often contradictory, depending on the perspective of the submitter. Slashdot isn't a newspaper with an editorial board that decides it knows what the world is like, what's happening. It's a public printing press staffed by its readers. It doesn't have an Op-Ed page or an official position on any subject. Except maybe that "Nerds Matter".
Yeah, its quality kind of sucks, its news is fairly unreliable. But Slashdot isn't a basis for making decisions, it's a conversation piece. Like a fake unicorn horn in a 400 year old glass case: not authentic, but fun to talk about. With the benefit of links to the stories elsewhere on the Web, for you to check for corroboration. But with the downside of snipey discussions like these, peopled by the mis/uninformed, the inarticulate and even saboteurs.
The pickin's are slim, but there's plenty of 'em. If you need to get 'em at Slashdot, take what you can get.
Oh, and as for Powell wanting his family to have a "quiet life", that doesn't come with the territory they've staked out for themselves in politics.
His son, Michael Powell spent Bush's first term hooking up media cartels with as much ownership as they wanted, among many other corporate handouts at the expense of the American people, while running the FCC. He scored that gig because he was such a helpful part of Bush's transition team for his 2000 inauguration.
He has no integrity, but he's so slick that millions of people still believe he has credibility. So he has credibility, though he's dishonest. He's a Republican yesman.
Rove will continue to work for the Republican Party as he always has. Though of course the Party has mostly worked for him, or at least according to his designs, plans and instructions, especially since he became "Bush's Brain". All Republicans have Rove on their Party staff. Including Ron Paul, whose Republican Party membership is part of the Republican government, no matter how "contrarian" he likes to seem.
So I take the good news that you will not be voting Republican in 2008. Which is certainly popular these days, as Americans say Democrats represent them on all the top issues.
The drive is the first to pack a trillion bytes into a standard 3.5" form factor
Hard drives used to be physically much bigger, when the interface tech was "MFM: 5.25" diameter, and "Full Height" was about 3.5".
Physically smaller discs have faster access times and lower power consumption. But why not use larger discs for their higher data capacity, without wrapping each smaller chunk in the same electronics overhead for rotation and data transfer? And get the faster data transfer at the outer cylinders from their faster angular velocity?
At a guess, I'd say that a 5.25" full height HD could have 2.5x the 3.5" capacity per platter, and probably at least 5x the platters, for about 12x the capacity. The access times across the large areas would be larger, but for large files that wouldn't matter as much (as long as they're kept defragmented).
These truly "large" drives could be the best for archiving, thrown back in place after an emergency and gradually replaced with 3.5" disks (if necessary) as they continue to run.
We could have 12TB drives with the same encoding tech as these Hitachis. And they'd cost less per TB than the 3.5" ones, because they'd have more storage per overhead hardware. Where can I get one?
P2P doesn't need a commercial aggregator, centralized systems or initial bandwidth. It's redundant, and can aggregate lots of tiny datasets into highly reliable data quality and uptime. That's the whole point.
Plus a good P2P system would have its Ps doing more than entering just the raw data: discussions, voting, independent videos, playlists. A P2P community is a powerful attraction, even if its initial reason for existence is just compiling an index.
If the US government were really interested in a competitive economy rather than merely protecting incumbent crony corporations, this Chinese competition would face even stiffer competition from American corporations knocking off stuff, too.
We could tell that the US government was interested in that competition, and not propping up incumbents with IP protectionism that only cripples American (and close economic allies like Western Europe and Japan) competition's chance to compete, if the IP controls like flimsy but unending patents and copyrights were discarded in favor of growth.
Not only would American competitors to these Chinese knockoffs benefit, but of course the consumers would benefit from the lower prices and innovations. Since consumers are most of the economy, along with the labor we sell to corporations, our economy would benefit.
Or, we can just let China eat our lunch, while we prohibit ourselves from fighting back.
They say that they buy their data from Tribune Media Services. Where does TMS get the data from?
There's lots of room for competition here. Others can buy from TMS. Or from where TMS gets the data. Or from TMS competition (who is that?).
Or use a P2P system like the old CDDB. If tens of thousands of people enter data for the next few days TV listings, then each person will have to enter only a few listings at random on average each day or so.
"What's on TV?" are facts about the real world, like the days the circus will be in town. They should be as copyrightable as any facts. Copying a complete, value-added compilation of them in bulk to another medium by one person could conceivably be prohibited. But one person posting a couple-few facts is too prohibitive. Especially when the listings are advertisements for the shows.
And there's the question of how to catch each person entering the data. Even if source listings include defects, fake data that can be copyrighted more strongly than can reports of fact, the sheer numbers of P2P can provide redundancy to eliminate those defects in automated data quality assurance techniques.
And what's to stop people from just pointing their own MythTV at free schedule data like IMDbTV? Why should the TV schedule publishers be unhappy that we've got automated ways to consume the exact same content in their index, but probably even more because it's easier to navigate and control our TV?
Many instances that can be found only in Creationist "museums" (roadside attractions). Which are funded and run by people who deny that science is even a valid way to learn and know things, but that faith (impossible to prove) is the only way.
Funny coincidence. That must prove that god exists, just like in their bibles.
I just felt my brain get bigger. Especially when looking at the Ackermann function of Graham's number, as recommended by the next reply pointing me at the XKCD cartoon.
Slashdot doesn't accept posts with the tag, though it does contain them in its own pages. Should have used the "Preview" button.
Anyway, the question should read something like this:
"N+X" is called "addition": additive increase. "N+N" is called multiplication (2N): geometric increase, as is "N*X". "N*N" is called exponential (N^X). What is "N^N" called? And is there a higher order of increase?
And what are all those kinds of operations called?
If you read the link I posted, you'd see that "not a suicide pact" is a gem practically old as the Constituion, first attributed to Jefferson himself, and revisited periodically as the US government is in crisis.
"Just a goddamn piece of paper" is probably at least as old.
But neither of them are justification to ignore the Constitution, as I explained in detail.
"N+X" is called "addition": additive increase. "N+N" is called multiplication (2N): geometric increase, as is "N*X". "N*N" is called exponential (NX). What is "NN" called? And is there a higher order of increase?
And what are all those kinds of operations called?
In an ideal world, where everyone is shaped like platonic solids and everything happens perfectly, instantaneously, without heat or friction... maybe.
In fact, the government doesn't have any rights. People have rights which we create governments to protect. In the real world in which I live, sometimes those rights conflict with each other. We have to look at the real effects of the tradeoffs between the limits on protecting and exercising some of these rights. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
While the government has privileges to compel people, sometimes in conflict with our rights (mandatory: jail, [usually] voluntary: life in the the military), those compulsions are to be made only when absolutely necessary. Therefore there are all kinds of exceptions to those privileged compulsions. Conversely, there are exceptions to our freedom from compulsion.
That's why the Constitution isn't just some "50 Commandments" or something that's just a decree of our rights. Our Constitution specifies a strict due process for arbitrating our rights while actually living among each other. So we can protect our rights, while not living in a straitjacket of absolute rights that often conflict. Not a suicide pact, or a mutually assured destruction pact, either.
But you're right that the non/casual blogger distinction is worthless and contrived. That distinction says nothing about the value of the info that has already been leaked to them. In fact, if even a casual blogger, rather than a dedicated full time professional, has gotten secret info, then it's likely that others will have the info. The blogger does the public a favor by publishing it, rather than leave the info to circulate among the merely politically, economically or otherwise privileged. The public has a right to know that trumps the government's privilege to compel. Except in some rarer circumstances. Which must be decided by the due process that is our right.
The only criterion for who to protect as a "journalist" is whoever publishes. The only reason for the exception to the secrecy rules is because informing the public is more important than letting some arbitrary group of private people (a "conspiracy") talk about the secrets after they've escaped actual secrecy control. Therefore, no one who publishes the old secret is any more privileged than any other. No matter how much money their publishing corporation paid any politician, no matter who went to law school with whom.
This principle of protecting the publisher without any preference among them is essential to the open source movement. The 60-70 year old Baby Boomers running our government have finally started to catch up with current American culture and wisdom. But they need to drop the obsolete old boy protections for "journalists" with whom they have all kinds of "off the record" deals to protect their own secrets from informing the public, including the bribes that corporate mass media pay to keep both their sides of the secrecy rules in business.
Well, if all I ever wanted to do with the FPGA board was run a T2, I'd be a fool not to just buy a T2.
But are you saying that a $3K FPGA/PCI-e board could run one of these T2 cores? Right out of the tarfile, or with some work? Custom work? And just how slow? What if I bought a higher MHz FPGA board - how much % of HW T2 performance could I get, if I paid the money?
There's a lot of other things I could do with a board fast enough to run a T2 core fast, when I'm not running the T2, that is easily worth the money.
Slashdot Mirror
The NIC that failed isn't the part that's at fault. NICs fail, and can be counted on to do so inevitably, if relatively unpredictably (MTBF is statistical).
The real problem NIC is the one that wasn't there as backup. Either a redundant one already online, or a hotswap one for a brief downtime, or just a spare that could be replaced after a quick diagnostic according to the system's exception handling runbook of emergency procedures.
Of course, we can't blame a NIC that doesn't exist, even if we're blaming it for not existing. We have to blame the people who designed and deployed the system with the single point of failure, and the managers and oversight staff who let the airport depend on that single point of failure.
But instead I'm sure we'll blame the dead NIC. Which gave its life in service to its country.
Moderation +1
20% Insightful
40% Troll
20% Informative
Republican TrollMods want more MyLais, less truth. Who better than TrollMods to worship a yesman like Powell?
Maybe so. The substance of my comment still stands, even if it is off-topic.
But how do you know they're talking directly to twitter? Even if it's not front-paged, it's still published by Slashdot. Is there any evidence to believe that twitter fits the post's bill, having dismissed Forbes in the past, but now making a big deal of Forbes' current statements?
The study didn't even take into account whether the emails in question were urgent or not. Maybe the problem is that everyone is so overworked, not that the work is coming in email. If the messages weren't urgent, but people were as obsessed as that study concludes, then its conclusions would be valid. But if they are urgent, is that the fault of email? Has everyone been stressed out for a century by "the telephone", or by the transformation of our jobs into ones that are largely talking with each other about delegated and collaborated production work?
Are they freaked out that people are "driven" to get into cars and trains every day, sometimes for hours, as part of our work?
Really, what is the baseline against which this "abnormal email stress" is being measured? I suspect that it's the usual imaginary baseline in "the good old days" that tabloid newspapers have been inventing since... the good old days.
I agree with you 100% about the actual mechanism by which Forbes shills for MS.
But I note that I didn't say that Forbes is a paid shill. I merely quoted that sentence from a post which in turn quoted an original post which said that about Forbes. The post I quoted accused the OP of saying "paid shill" as if Forbes' status had consequence, though someone (the OP'er or Slashdot itself) has said that Forbes' status has no consequence. An accusation that someone was being contradictory.
My post said nothing about Forbes' status. I said only that the contradictions were irrelevant because of how Slashdot works.
In short, I think you replied to the wrong post.
Who has accused Forbes, twitter? Or are you calling out Slashdot? Slashdot publishes all kinds of stories from all kinds of people who walk up and post. They're often contradictory, depending on the perspective of the submitter. Slashdot isn't a newspaper with an editorial board that decides it knows what the world is like, what's happening. It's a public printing press staffed by its readers. It doesn't have an Op-Ed page or an official position on any subject. Except maybe that "Nerds Matter".
Yeah, its quality kind of sucks, its news is fairly unreliable. But Slashdot isn't a basis for making decisions, it's a conversation piece. Like a fake unicorn horn in a 400 year old glass case: not authentic, but fun to talk about. With the benefit of links to the stories elsewhere on the Web, for you to check for corroboration. But with the downside of snipey discussions like these, peopled by the mis/uninformed, the inarticulate and even saboteurs.
The pickin's are slim, but there's plenty of 'em. If you need to get 'em at Slashdot, take what you can get.
Oh, and as for Powell wanting his family to have a "quiet life", that doesn't come with the territory they've staked out for themselves in politics.
His son, Michael Powell spent Bush's first term hooking up media cartels with as much ownership as they wanted, among many other corporate handouts at the expense of the American people, while running the FCC. He scored that gig because he was such a helpful part of Bush's transition team for his 2000 inauguration.
Powell sat in front of the UN and lied about Iraqi WMD to get us to invade.
Powell kicked off his career whitewashing the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.
He has no integrity, but he's so slick that millions of people still believe he has credibility. So he has credibility, though he's dishonest. He's a Republican yesman.
Rove will continue to work for the Republican Party as he always has. Though of course the Party has mostly worked for him, or at least according to his designs, plans and instructions, especially since he became "Bush's Brain". All Republicans have Rove on their Party staff. Including Ron Paul, whose Republican Party membership is part of the Republican government, no matter how "contrarian" he likes to seem.
So I take the good news that you will not be voting Republican in 2008. Which is certainly popular these days, as Americans say Democrats represent them on all the top issues.
Hard drives used to be physically much bigger, when the interface tech was "MFM: 5.25" diameter, and "Full Height" was about 3.5".
Physically smaller discs have faster access times and lower power consumption. But why not use larger discs for their higher data capacity, without wrapping each smaller chunk in the same electronics overhead for rotation and data transfer? And get the faster data transfer at the outer cylinders from their faster angular velocity?
At a guess, I'd say that a 5.25" full height HD could have 2.5x the 3.5" capacity per platter, and probably at least 5x the platters, for about 12x the capacity. The access times across the large areas would be larger, but for large files that wouldn't matter as much (as long as they're kept defragmented).
These truly "large" drives could be the best for archiving, thrown back in place after an emergency and gradually replaced with 3.5" disks (if necessary) as they continue to run.
We could have 12TB drives with the same encoding tech as these Hitachis. And they'd cost less per TB than the 3.5" ones, because they'd have more storage per overhead hardware. Where can I get one?
Yes, because we don't have unlimited time and money to waste on folly when we have those pressing needs (the kittens can take care of themselves).
In that spirit, since your other arguments aren't worth reading, you're welcome now to wait in fear of the killer asteroid by yourself. Goodbye.
P2P doesn't need a commercial aggregator, centralized systems or initial bandwidth. It's redundant, and can aggregate lots of tiny datasets into highly reliable data quality and uptime. That's the whole point.
Plus a good P2P system would have its Ps doing more than entering just the raw data: discussions, voting, independent videos, playlists. A P2P community is a powerful attraction, even if its initial reason for existence is just compiling an index.
If the US government were really interested in a competitive economy rather than merely protecting incumbent crony corporations, this Chinese competition would face even stiffer competition from American corporations knocking off stuff, too.
We could tell that the US government was interested in that competition, and not propping up incumbents with IP protectionism that only cripples American (and close economic allies like Western Europe and Japan) competition's chance to compete, if the IP controls like flimsy but unending patents and copyrights were discarded in favor of growth.
Not only would American competitors to these Chinese knockoffs benefit, but of course the consumers would benefit from the lower prices and innovations. Since consumers are most of the economy, along with the labor we sell to corporations, our economy would benefit.
Or, we can just let China eat our lunch, while we prohibit ourselves from fighting back.
They say that they buy their data from Tribune Media Services. Where does TMS get the data from?
There's lots of room for competition here. Others can buy from TMS. Or from where TMS gets the data. Or from TMS competition (who is that?).
Or use a P2P system like the old CDDB. If tens of thousands of people enter data for the next few days TV listings, then each person will have to enter only a few listings at random on average each day or so.
"What's on TV?" are facts about the real world, like the days the circus will be in town. They should be as copyrightable as any facts. Copying a complete, value-added compilation of them in bulk to another medium by one person could conceivably be prohibited. But one person posting a couple-few facts is too prohibitive. Especially when the listings are advertisements for the shows.
And there's the question of how to catch each person entering the data. Even if source listings include defects, fake data that can be copyrighted more strongly than can reports of fact, the sheer numbers of P2P can provide redundancy to eliminate those defects in automated data quality assurance techniques.
And what's to stop people from just pointing their own MythTV at free schedule data like IMDbTV? Why should the TV schedule publishers be unhappy that we've got automated ways to consume the exact same content in their index, but probably even more because it's easier to navigate and control our TV?
Many instances that can be found only in Creationist "museums" (roadside attractions). Which are funded and run by people who deny that science is even a valid way to learn and know things, but that faith (impossible to prove) is the only way.
Funny coincidence. That must prove that god exists, just like in their bibles.
I just felt my brain get bigger. Especially when looking at the Ackermann function of Graham's number, as recommended by the next reply pointing me at the XKCD cartoon.
Related question: [super, hyper, XXX, {YYYY, ...}] what comes next? What comes last, "ultra"?
Slashdot doesn't accept posts with the tag, though it does contain them in its own pages. Should have used the "Preview" button.
Anyway, the question should read something like this:
"N+X" is called "addition": additive increase. "N+N" is called multiplication (2N): geometric increase, as is "N*X". "N*N" is called exponential (N^X). What is "N^N" called? And is there a higher order of increase?
And what are all those kinds of operations called?
If you read the link I posted, you'd see that "not a suicide pact" is a gem practically old as the Constituion, first attributed to Jefferson himself, and revisited periodically as the US government is in crisis.
"Just a goddamn piece of paper" is probably at least as old.
But neither of them are justification to ignore the Constitution, as I explained in detail.
"N+X" is called "addition": additive increase. "N+N" is called multiplication (2N): geometric increase, as is "N*X". "N*N" is called exponential (NX). What is "NN" called? And is there a higher order of increase?
And what are all those kinds of operations called?
Dell's gonna have a hell of a time supporting these complex features while it's closing down its call centers.
Look out, Switzerland, your flag is close enough to the trademark for Johnson & Johnson to invade.
Finally we'll see whose kung fu is stronger: Swiss Army Knife(TM) vs Band-Aid(TM)!
In an ideal world, where everyone is shaped like platonic solids and everything happens perfectly, instantaneously, without heat or friction... maybe.
In fact, the government doesn't have any rights. People have rights which we create governments to protect. In the real world in which I live, sometimes those rights conflict with each other. We have to look at the real effects of the tradeoffs between the limits on protecting and exercising some of these rights. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
While the government has privileges to compel people, sometimes in conflict with our rights (mandatory: jail, [usually] voluntary: life in the the military), those compulsions are to be made only when absolutely necessary. Therefore there are all kinds of exceptions to those privileged compulsions. Conversely, there are exceptions to our freedom from compulsion.
That's why the Constitution isn't just some "50 Commandments" or something that's just a decree of our rights. Our Constitution specifies a strict due process for arbitrating our rights while actually living among each other. So we can protect our rights, while not living in a straitjacket of absolute rights that often conflict. Not a suicide pact, or a mutually assured destruction pact, either.
But you're right that the non/casual blogger distinction is worthless and contrived. That distinction says nothing about the value of the info that has already been leaked to them. In fact, if even a casual blogger, rather than a dedicated full time professional, has gotten secret info, then it's likely that others will have the info. The blogger does the public a favor by publishing it, rather than leave the info to circulate among the merely politically, economically or otherwise privileged. The public has a right to know that trumps the government's privilege to compel. Except in some rarer circumstances. Which must be decided by the due process that is our right.
The only criterion for who to protect as a "journalist" is whoever publishes. The only reason for the exception to the secrecy rules is because informing the public is more important than letting some arbitrary group of private people (a "conspiracy") talk about the secrets after they've escaped actual secrecy control. Therefore, no one who publishes the old secret is any more privileged than any other. No matter how much money their publishing corporation paid any politician, no matter who went to law school with whom.
This principle of protecting the publisher without any preference among them is essential to the open source movement. The 60-70 year old Baby Boomers running our government have finally started to catch up with current American culture and wisdom. But they need to drop the obsolete old boy protections for "journalists" with whom they have all kinds of "off the record" deals to protect their own secrets from informing the public, including the bribes that corporate mass media pay to keep both their sides of the secrecy rules in business.
Well, if all I ever wanted to do with the FPGA board was run a T2, I'd be a fool not to just buy a T2.
But are you saying that a $3K FPGA/PCI-e board could run one of these T2 cores? Right out of the tarfile, or with some work? Custom work? And just how slow? What if I bought a higher MHz FPGA board - how much % of HW T2 performance could I get, if I paid the money?
There's a lot of other things I could do with a board fast enough to run a T2 core fast, when I'm not running the T2, that is easily worth the money.