The company said it successfully recorded micro-holographic marks approaching 1% reflectivity, that is, its laser was able to pick up the reflection of 1 bit burned with a diameter of approximately one micron (a millionth of a meter). It means a laser was able to pick up the reflection of 1 bit burned into a substrate. When using standard DVD or Blu-ray disc optics, the scaled down marks will have sufficient reflectivity to enable more than 500GB of total capacity in a CD-size disc.
Unlike today's DVDs and HD Blu-ray disks, holographic storage not only reads from the surface of the disc, but also into multiple layers of the substrate.
GE's technology uses holograms, or three-dimensional patterns, made up of bits of data written into the disc, which can then be read out.
GE said the micro-holographic storage technology is different from other optical-disc technology only in its capacity. The company claimed that its micro-holographic players will allow consumers to play back their CDs, DVDs and Blu-ray Discs as well as the holographic media.
If it is raw bandwidth on the main page and even the search results page they are concerned about, Google could store their inline CSS and javascript externally. The browser and proxy cache savings would be more than enough to make up for adding the doctype and standards code.
Personally I don't think Google cares enough to make their documents W3C standards compliant. But as long as everyone's browser works on it, no end user will care. (Someone writing a rendering engine might be annoyed.)
True, they compress the html, css, and javascript output, but they do it with some "compression" software. However, that does not mean the said compression/html/css generating software can't generate W3C valid documents.
I've checked the main page at a few of them including:
tom.com
qq.com
mozilla.com
google.com
wikipedia.org
They seem to either:
1) Fail w3c [x]html standards
2) Fail w3c css standards
Google's rarely been standards compliant, failing to publish doctypes. Even if they did, many of their pages are built with javascript which do not create w3c-valid documents either. (But that goes for most javascript toolkits.)
Mozilla uses several "-moz" prefixed CSS attributes that are not w3c either. Even Wikipedia has a minor CSS error.
Comparing websites to a standard depends on the standard. Microsoft doesn't have to write or test IE8 to the W3C's standards, but it would be great if they did. How many of the mainstream browsers even pass the ACID tests (v2 & 3)?
I think that microsoft.com being on the list shows a changing side to Microsoft. They may never be the friend of free and open source software, but everyone would appreciate Microsoft adhering to an open and popular standard. Of course they will always have their own quirks and extras beyond any standard, but raw web development could become pleasant again.
How far does the cable reach? And a lot of TVs currently used for gaming and video are standard-definition; what would you recommend using to connect HDMI or component out to those?
Uh, if you are building a media center PC, it's usually next to your TV. The cable is no different than from your DVD player. Use RCA, SVideo, or Composite if you don't want HDMI.
But a lot of people who use game consoles do not own such a dedicated PC. If I were selling products or services for HTPCs, how would I go about convincing potential customers to buy an HTPC in order to get enough customers to turn a profit?
The parent didn't say anything about using an HTPC in place of a game console. However, I do think the game consoles should play media the same as a PC. XBMC really is the shit.
Also, why would you sell products or services for home theater PCs? Dude, this is the age of everything online for free. (Although you could build the DRM-free streaming-only version of Netflix, I would totally pay monthly for that.)
What about this game?. It's an oldie, though slightly newer than Myst. The website is totally cheesy now, but the company used to be more bio-feedback hardware + game based, and less "feel goody". I think they even released some tools (OSS perhaps? was windows only if I remember) that would read and graph the input from their hardware. I joined the forums (which appear to be down now) and advocated for a hardware-only sale so others could write software for it -- they agreed on the forums, but never delivered. Anyway, supposedly people liked the music.
Great points of this post's parent and grandparent; especially relative to descendants.
Any questions involving genetic information should be examined with a long-term view. Perhaps not now, but think of future Clones. Should a cloned human pay the price of his/her predecessors genetic information? The mistakes they made in their previous life may affect their future life as a new individual. Communities of people, not just atomic families, may be singled out or "behaviorally predetermined" to commit crime simply on genetic heritage, of which they have no control. Perhaps that genetic heritage is combined with economic, credit, health and lifestyle information?
It is only a matter of time until the cost of mapping 'enough'* of every living human's genome will be 'worth it'*. Shortly after, the cost of genome-mapping all available deceased humans will be negligible. The field of medicine will flourish with this information. (You may even gain heath insurance discounts with a year's proof of purchase at the grocery store -- you are rewarded for eating relative to your pre-determined health risks.)
Yet every individual's privacy will diminish with access (any access) to a history of humanity's genetic information. Thus, thinking about DNA databases must be done with a long-term perspective.
* = Where the information's value to society --be it a friendly or otherwise group of people-- outweighs the cost of gathering it. Perhaps the equivalent cost of fingerprinting every newborn baby equals the cost of genome mapping every newborn baby.
Most of the water that people drink from the oceans has evaporated then condensed, then been filtered through layers of soil and pumped up as groundwater.
RAID isn't a "backup", but if your RAID array is large enough (say 1.5T * 3 Drives = 3T space), you can backup your data simply by copying files. A scripted rsync or tar will protect against corruption and user error.
The only thing you need to worry about then is mucking with the filesystem or losing two+ drives at once.
External media backups are still a good idea. But backing up onto the raid array itself will buy you time between external backups.
Re:People like this keep my billable hours up
on
Head First SQL
·
· Score: 1
And I wish I could do a quick: s/MySQL/PostgreSQL/ig on this entire page.
Slashdot Mirror
Ever since Galeon had tabs on the side, that feature has been a must have for me.
Opera has supported it for awhile, for Firefox 1.5 there was TabBrowserExtension, and now for Firefox 3.0 I recommend Tabkit.
Having grouped, colored, and a hierarchy of tabs on the side is the only way to browse.
Note to Ubuntu Jaunty users with Firefox 3.0.10:
To get tabkit working on the side, you need to disable the "Ubuntu Firefox Modification 0.7" extension.
Then you can get beautifully colored, grouped, treed tabs along the side. 30+ tabs are trivial to manage, especially if you middle-click often.
What? Shots? NuvaRing, anyone?
(Change it once a month, seems pretty easy.)
I suppose bash can forcibly remove it, but it's never happened to me. I just tried it.
Um, instead of running that as a constant cron job, which means history data is still being written to disk, try changing the mode of the file.
example:
echo > ~/.bash_history
chmod ugo-w ~/.bash_history
Interestingly, it would be easier to store all my data in Freenet and have all my PCs form a darknet with each other.
I guess it would be cool to have a darkLAN, but with Freenet, you have to duplicate your data.
It may make more sense to use GlusterFS or Hadoop for your LAN.
If you want to add crypto, you could store the above data volumes on plain ol EXT(3|4) filesystems inside a TrueCrypt partition.
An ISP could put its logging servers in Germany or France though. If the logs are out of reach, the gov can pound sand.
Not if you want to continue doing business in the UK.
Above quote from Computer World
The Wayback machine has a pretty good snapshots of GeoShitties
cssh is great for a handful of computers, but for the 40,000 boxen, try cfengine
I had the same problem (64bit hardy) until I manually installed Flash 10 beta (64bit). Browser has not greyed out since.
If it is raw bandwidth on the main page and even the search results page they are concerned about, Google could store their inline CSS and javascript externally. The browser and proxy cache savings would be more than enough to make up for adding the doctype and standards code.
Personally I don't think Google cares enough to make their documents W3C standards compliant. But as long as everyone's browser works on it, no end user will care. (Someone writing a rendering engine might be annoyed.)
IE8 passes ACID 2:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2007/12/19/internet-explorer-8-and-acid2-a-milestone.aspx
But in September, IE8 lags in the ACID 3 test:
http://www.anomalousanomaly.com/2008/03/06/acid-3/
The closer they all get to standards (any standards) the better.
True, they compress the html, css, and javascript output, but they do it with some "compression" software. However, that does not mean the said compression/html/css generating software can't generate W3C valid documents.
I've checked the main page at a few of them including:
tom.com
qq.com
mozilla.com
google.com
wikipedia.org
They seem to either:
1) Fail w3c [x]html standards
2) Fail w3c css standards
Google's rarely been standards compliant, failing to publish doctypes. Even if they did, many of their pages are built with javascript which do not create w3c-valid documents either. (But that goes for most javascript toolkits.)
Mozilla uses several "-moz" prefixed CSS attributes that are not w3c either. Even Wikipedia has a minor CSS error.
Comparing websites to a standard depends on the standard. Microsoft doesn't have to write or test IE8 to the W3C's standards, but it would be great if they did. How many of the mainstream browsers even pass the ACID tests (v2 & 3)?
I think that microsoft.com being on the list shows a changing side to Microsoft. They may never be the friend of free and open source software, but everyone would appreciate Microsoft adhering to an open and popular standard. Of course they will always have their own quirks and extras beyond any standard, but raw web development could become pleasant again.
How far does the cable reach? And a lot of TVs currently used for gaming and video are standard-definition; what would you recommend using to connect HDMI or component out to those?
Uh, if you are building a media center PC, it's usually next to your TV. The cable is no different than from your DVD player. Use RCA, SVideo, or Composite if you don't want HDMI.
But a lot of people who use game consoles do not own such a dedicated PC. If I were selling products or services for HTPCs, how would I go about convincing potential customers to buy an HTPC in order to get enough customers to turn a profit?
The parent didn't say anything about using an HTPC in place of a game console. However, I do think the game consoles should play media the same as a PC. XBMC really is the shit.
Also, why would you sell products or services for home theater PCs? Dude, this is the age of everything online for free. (Although you could build the DRM-free streaming-only version of Netflix, I would totally pay monthly for that.)
What about this game?. It's an oldie, though slightly newer than Myst. The website is totally cheesy now, but the company used to be more bio-feedback hardware + game based, and less "feel goody". I think they even released some tools (OSS perhaps? was windows only if I remember) that would read and graph the input from their hardware. I joined the forums (which appear to be down now) and advocated for a hardware-only sale so others could write software for it -- they agreed on the forums, but never delivered. Anyway, supposedly people liked the music.
Great points of this post's parent and grandparent; especially relative to descendants.
Any questions involving genetic information should be examined with a long-term view. Perhaps not now, but think of future Clones. Should a cloned human pay the price of his/her predecessors genetic information? The mistakes they made in their previous life may affect their future life as a new individual. Communities of people, not just atomic families, may be singled out or "behaviorally predetermined" to commit crime simply on genetic heritage, of which they have no control. Perhaps that genetic heritage is combined with economic, credit, health and lifestyle information?
It is only a matter of time until the cost of mapping 'enough'* of every living human's genome will be 'worth it'*. Shortly after, the cost of genome-mapping all available deceased humans will be negligible. The field of medicine will flourish with this information. (You may even gain heath insurance discounts with a year's proof of purchase at the grocery store -- you are rewarded for eating relative to your pre-determined health risks.)
Yet every individual's privacy will diminish with access (any access) to a history of humanity's genetic information. Thus, thinking about DNA databases must be done with a long-term perspective.
* = Where the information's value to society --be it a friendly or otherwise group of people-- outweighs the cost of gathering it. Perhaps the equivalent cost of fingerprinting every newborn baby equals the cost of genome mapping every newborn baby.
Most of the water that people drink from the oceans has evaporated then condensed, then been filtered through layers of soil and pumped up as groundwater.
So I'm not sure if your fermi-math works here.
The CA just signs your cert. Only you hold the private key.
Why is using stored procedures [to prevent SQL injections by creating an in-DB 'api'] so taboo?
ORM (object relational mapping) tools can't speak your stored procedure API.
The other LHC
But a big point of RAID is the "I" = Inexpensive. When one platter dies, how will you easily (and inexpensively) replace it?
RAID isn't a "backup", but if your RAID array is large enough (say 1.5T * 3 Drives = 3T space), you can backup your data simply by copying files. A scripted rsync or tar will protect against corruption and user error.
The only thing you need to worry about then is mucking with the filesystem or losing two+ drives at once.
External media backups are still a good idea. But backing up onto the raid array itself will buy you time between external backups.
And I wish I could do a quick: s/MySQL/PostgreSQL/ig on this entire page.