You're obviously quite clueless. Backups are not used in the way you suggest. Stop trying to re-define the meaning of the word reliability to suit your whacky desire to call tape more reliable. Just because we're considering tape, doesn't mean "reliability" suddenly becomes more lenient, to call something reliable when it's only reliable if never (or hardly ever used).
"Usually lasts 20 years if you don't do anything with it" has nothing at all to do with reliability. That's just a question of how something ages when it's not being operated, and tells nothing about the reliability of the thing while it is being operated.
IT departments do not stuff backup tapes in a closet and then need them 20 years later.
20 year old data is quite useless, there should be more intervening full backups, and restoring a transactional database with a 20 year old version is completely unacceptable.
Hell, a majority of businesses haven't been storing data for 20 years, let-alone needing to recover data from a 20 year old version.
When you are dealing with server backups, they need to be CURRENT not ancient.
That means you overwrite old backups with new ones, very frequently.
If you are suggesting you don't re-use tapes, then that's just more evidence that tapes are an unreliable.
Sorry, No. Wikipedia sucks.
Mean time between failures is from MIL-HDBK-217 S. 12.
Storage manfucaters calculate MTBF as the number of operation hours per year divided by the first-year annualized failure rate, based on reliability demonstration test of a sample of drives pulled from the production line.
These tests are typically performed on sample drives under thermal stress, as in 100 degrees ambient temp, at the highest possible load.
It indicates during analysis of a sample, (this many hours) was the average amount of time between failures of components.
It doesn't mean your hard drive will last that long (or that short), but higher MTBF is definitely better, and low MTBF would be very bad.
Right, incompetence. Every medium comes with advice on how often you should re-use it, and if you don't follow the advice, don't blame the medium.
The medium itself doesn't come with the advice.
The "advice" are actually workarounds people have learned due to fundamental weaknesses in the robustness of the medium.
If you are suggesting you would ever need to restore from a tape 20 years old, you've already violated the "advice" the medium comes with.
Important data should have more frequent media rotation than once every 20 years.
Now, tape is cheaper, which encourages you to do multiple backups, on and off-site (you do perform multiple backups kept on and off-site, don't you?).
What? The whole point of buying tape is it's cheaper. If you backup twice, you double the cost. If you keep many backups around, the cost of tapes is higher than HD backups.
At least everyone with an operating brain can agree that everything is more reliable than backups to CD/DVD.
Backups to CD-R are more reliable than backups to tape, your software can verify the burn, and inform you if anything is wrong, which tape drives cannot do (without further wearing of the tape). A successful restore is more likely, if you handle your CD-Rs properly, since you at least know that everything is recorded correctly. DVD-Rs are problematic for important data, because the error recovery algorithm isn't good enough, a minor scratch or smudge may make your entire volume unreadable.
Are you saying that every single person you know who has backed up to tape has run into the problem of damage to the tape preventing complete restore?
Eventually, yes.
When they needed to restore more than a few hundred GBs of data, that is.
In many cases, entire sections of tape were unreadable, some kind of recording error -- the tape itself turned out to be damaged, OR (my least favorite) one of the recording tape drives' writing mechanism was broken in some way, and nothing at all actually got written to some tapes during backups.
Example: Tape Cartridge, Quantum LTO-3 250,000 hours @ 100% duty cycle (Typical of the most reliable tapes)
Example: Seagate Barracuda ES.2 Hard Drive 1TB,
MBTF: 1.2 million hours to failure. @ 24/7 operation
(Not the most reliable of hard drives)
Tape cartridges may be a lot simpler, but they all eventually fail, especially when used in tape libraries for backup.
Usually when they fail its during a restore 6 months later.
The fact you've loaded data from tapes 20 years old is kind of irrelevent; of course some medium have longevity, which is different from reliability.
Backups have a shelf life of less than a year.
No medium other than optical can really be considered safe to keep backups with for much longer than a year.
Tapes are traditionally used because they are much cheaper, not because they are more reliable (which they are not)
In fact, hard drives are orders of magnitude more reliable than tapes.
I've actually yet to meet anyone whose ever done a successful restore of any significant amount of data from tape, beyond test restores of some files, without running into problems that prevented the restore from succeeding properly.
Tapes do not last very long, wear and tear is huge, and organizations generally like to re-use old tapes, which makes matters even worse.
As embarrasing as it may seem, a cloud of smoke in the server room needn't mean broaching the delicate subject of kicking the marijuana habit with a colleague. It can actually be a signal that something is about to go wrong with your server setup.
as this consultant discovered after days of assuming questionable personal habits were to blame. The culprit? A server whose board was in the process of being about to friggin explode!
Can you explain any plausible legitimate accidental reason whatsoever that there would be drugs or illegal weapons in the premises of your vehicle?
All of those bullet points of yours are extremely unlikely situations, and it makes sense that you would be expected to provide extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary explanations.
Policemen can plant anything, including porn, or murder evidence. You will have to prove they did that, in that case.
What you allow passengers to bring into your car is your responsibility.
If they left something in the glove box, that's your responsibility, and you possess it.
Don't leave your sunroof open. The chance of that happening is less than 1%.
You are probably not going to be charged with possession over some small amount of drug residue detected on your tire, again the chance of that happening to the average person is much less than 1%, more like winning lottery ticket odds.
No comment.
Those bills in your wallet have at some point in time been handled by cocain dealers -- A large portion of the bills in circulation have been handled by illicit dealers. I've yet to hear of anyone charged with a crime because they were in possession of a dollar bill with some miniscule trace evidence of the bill being exposed to drug material in the past
Because you can't display video on eInk, and people do an awful lot more video watching than book reading nowadays.
Yes, people do. However, we have a much better appliance already in place for that in almost every household, it's called a television, perhaps you've heard of it?
Likewise having controlled multi-tasking also allows much better use of resources. I suspect the will have new back-grounding API in 4.0 but only for applications that get approved for that usage, like Pandora (just about the only thing I ever see when people try to make the case that they need multi-tasking).
How about, checking your e-mail or using other tools while you are chatting using an IRC app, without getting disconnected from the IRC server, or annoying other users with numerous quits/rejoins ?
3rd party IM apps.
The canonical example would be your friend sends you a link and you want to check it out, and then return to the conversation in a few minutes without missing anything that was said.
Applications for monitoring when an event occurs, such as the progress of an eBay auction.
e.g. You want the app to be able to alert you while you are checking e-mail and for you to be able to seamlessly jump to the app, and jump back where you left off when done.
You're way off base.
Apple is still a computer company, and the iPad is being sold as a computer you can run applications on.
Your toaster, alarm clock, and TV are purpose built devices, each serve a specific purpose.
But it's not like the manufacturer goes out of their way to implement technology specifically designed to prevent you from running your own apps on it.
If there is any firmware in a Sony flat screen TV, you can probably dump it, and load your own modified version, without having 'binary signing' designed to prevent consumers from installing/building custom apps, and deploying without manufacturer's approval, to contend with.
Is that it's not an open platform.
It doesn't matter that much to me that it isn't the sake as a desktop OS X install, I am OK with that.
My issues are:
No multitasking in the iPhone OS. Even cell phone OSes can do that.
No way to easily develop complex applications for it
The platform is closed: executables have to be signed, can't share or download software from third parties.
Closed APIs that the platform developer users for their own tools, but doesn't let anyone else use
Apple has to approve every frigging application.
The folks at Apple are total dicks about what applications they accept/refuse.
The folks at Apple can deactivate or tamper apps you have already purchaed, and tamper with your device's settings/experience at any time they feel like it.
The folks at Apple make retroactive rejections for stupid reasons, for example deactivating Commodore emulator after it was already approved. Refusing Google Voice.
App approval process
It's not a simple "Is this program safe?", or has the developer tested it for stability check.
They demand apps meet a long list of criteria that are difficult to meet, AND ordinary people will want apps that inherently don't meet all their stringent criteria.
Next, can we get courts to consider deleted files, snippets, or unexpected objects in an archive, or on a FTP server, downloaded (but never reviewed) not to be possessed next?
In particular, if some unknown user uploads an illegal file to a public FTP server's public-writable uploads directory (for whatever reason), and the FTP server operator deletes the file, when another FTP server reports it to them, or when reviewing to move from new uploads dir to a suitable place.
The FTP server operator, and the person who reported the incident ought to be indemnified, assuming they either didn't know about, or fully destroyed the object.
I'd say and they 'reported the incident to authorities', but that is difficult to do, because authorities don't provide a standard online form for uploading suspicious objects and reporting circumstances behind them -----
also reporting to authorities in itself would seem to be so dangerous to the reporting person legally, since the reporter and possibly other entities did come to handle the illegal file accidentally in that case -- (risk of causing themselves to be severely inconvenienced by being subject to investigation themselves), that they should be held blameless even if they do not report to authorities out of fear.
Can you explain any legitimate accidental reason whatsoever that there would be drugs or illegal weapons in the premises of your vehicle?
The differences between this and having an object in cache in your vehicle are obvious. Everything you place in your vehicle is your responsibility, if it poses a safety hazard on the road, you are in direct control over everything that gets placed in there, you can inspect any item at any time, and you have a legal responsibility to do so, in order to ascertain the safe operation of your vehicle on public property.
With a browser cache it is obvious -- any URL object that the browser ever sees reference too may be eligible to be cached (depending on its size, and how long ago it was accessed): it is automatic, and being in the cache does not necessarily indicate that a human has ever seen it.
Web sites may cache objects in the background, antivirus software may load objects in the background to pre-scan. Another person may have touched the computer and visited something on accident they didn't to, and immediately closed the window, with no knowledge about any copy being retained.
Very often those children are kidnapped, raped, assaulted or even murdered.
Have some people completely lost the ability to distinguish crimes from each other?
Some people possess money.
Very often those dollars had been stolen, involved in a bank robbery where innocent people are murdered, involved in drug trafficing where people are murdered..
Therefore anyone found possessing dollar bills should be tossed in jail for life.
They were responsible for murder after all, right?
No. Commiting false advertising or fraud is lying in your presentation of goods to change hands and not particularly an exercise of press freedom.
In that case, the speech is not specifically the issue, it is the use of deception to bring someone into a financial transaction
Fraud or False advertising causes a target to participate in a transaction under a false pretense, that they would not want to participate in, if the other party expressed the true nature of the transaction.
Basically, if you are selling something, there can be regulations on how you present that particular product for sale.
This is different from restricting what may be said inside the product, if it's a news publication, for example!
[*] Addendum: freedom of the press is specifically mentioned by the amendment as well, and the 'website' being 'ordered' to not publish stock tips is definitely the press (hence use of the word 'news').
The effect of the order is directly, indisputably contrary to the 1st amendment: they are abridging the freedom of the press.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the Recommendations are not objective facts, but rather, subjective judgments
The fact that person X has indicated opinion Y, is an objective fact.
If I tell you that I think Obama's approval rating will go up by 3.68% next week.
Then your first ammendment right guarantees you can tell your friends "Mysidia thinks Obama's approval is going up 3.68% next week"
etc, etc.
That's not to say I can't claim copyright to my words, or that you could reproduce my statement exactly for that purpose, without infringing on copyrights.
But there is this matter: when a person is a public figure, or an organization is a large corporate entity, whose every word is of public concern --- then the fact they expressed an opinion, is an objective fact, that should fully enjoy the ironclad protection of free speech rights provided by the 1st amendment of the US constitution.
Uh, fresh normal coffee is typically brewed somewhere between 94 to 96 Degrees celsius. This can cause that amount of damage, to some people, especially if they spill large amounts of it on themselves.
Consumer expectations are that the coffee is hot enough to be dangerous.
Until you have let your cup sit around for 20 minutes to release some heat, you should always consider fresh hot coffee dangerous.
This is the norm coffee drinkers demand though.
Restaurants are selling a product that has to be very hot.
Most coffee drinkers do not want a cold or merely warm drink, that's not what the product is.
Slashdot Mirror
You're obviously quite clueless. Backups are not used in the way you suggest. Stop trying to re-define the meaning of the word reliability to suit your whacky desire to call tape more reliable. Just because we're considering tape, doesn't mean "reliability" suddenly becomes more lenient, to call something reliable when it's only reliable if never (or hardly ever used).
"Usually lasts 20 years if you don't do anything with it" has nothing at all to do with reliability. That's just a question of how something ages when it's not being operated, and tells nothing about the reliability of the thing while it is being operated.
IT departments do not stuff backup tapes in a closet and then need them 20 years later. 20 year old data is quite useless, there should be more intervening full backups, and restoring a transactional database with a 20 year old version is completely unacceptable.
Hell, a majority of businesses haven't been storing data for 20 years, let-alone needing to recover data from a 20 year old version.
When you are dealing with server backups, they need to be CURRENT not ancient.
That means you overwrite old backups with new ones, very frequently.
If you are suggesting you don't re-use tapes, then that's just more evidence that tapes are an unreliable.
Sorry, No. Wikipedia sucks. Mean time between failures is from MIL-HDBK-217 S. 12.
Storage manfucaters calculate MTBF as the number of operation hours per year divided by the first-year annualized failure rate, based on reliability demonstration test of a sample of drives pulled from the production line. These tests are typically performed on sample drives under thermal stress, as in 100 degrees ambient temp, at the highest possible load.
It indicates during analysis of a sample, (this many hours) was the average amount of time between failures of components.
It doesn't mean your hard drive will last that long (or that short), but higher MTBF is definitely better, and low MTBF would be very bad.
Right, incompetence. Every medium comes with advice on how often you should re-use it, and if you don't follow the advice, don't blame the medium.
The medium itself doesn't come with the advice. The "advice" are actually workarounds people have learned due to fundamental weaknesses in the robustness of the medium.
If you are suggesting you would ever need to restore from a tape 20 years old, you've already violated the "advice" the medium comes with. Important data should have more frequent media rotation than once every 20 years.
Now, tape is cheaper, which encourages you to do multiple backups, on and off-site (you do perform multiple backups kept on and off-site, don't you?).
What? The whole point of buying tape is it's cheaper. If you backup twice, you double the cost. If you keep many backups around, the cost of tapes is higher than HD backups.
At least everyone with an operating brain can agree that everything is more reliable than backups to CD/DVD.
Backups to CD-R are more reliable than backups to tape, your software can verify the burn, and inform you if anything is wrong, which tape drives cannot do (without further wearing of the tape). A successful restore is more likely, if you handle your CD-Rs properly, since you at least know that everything is recorded correctly. DVD-Rs are problematic for important data, because the error recovery algorithm isn't good enough, a minor scratch or smudge may make your entire volume unreadable.
Are you saying that every single person you know who has backed up to tape has run into the problem of damage to the tape preventing complete restore?
Eventually, yes. When they needed to restore more than a few hundred GBs of data, that is. In many cases, entire sections of tape were unreadable, some kind of recording error -- the tape itself turned out to be damaged, OR (my least favorite) one of the recording tape drives' writing mechanism was broken in some way, and nothing at all actually got written to some tapes during backups.
With your iPod touch, iPhone, or something portable enough to bring on the bus?
Surely you aren't going to carry the huge iPad with you everywhere you go, that would be a pain...
Contrary example:
Example: Tape Cartridge, Quantum LTO-3 250,000 hours @ 100% duty cycle (Typical of the most reliable tapes)
Example: Seagate Barracuda ES.2 Hard Drive 1TB, MBTF: 1.2 million hours to failure. @ 24/7 operation
(Not the most reliable of hard drives)
Tape cartridges may be a lot simpler, but they all eventually fail, especially when used in tape libraries for backup.
Usually when they fail its during a restore 6 months later.
The fact you've loaded data from tapes 20 years old is kind of irrelevent; of course some medium have longevity, which is different from reliability.
Backups have a shelf life of less than a year. No medium other than optical can really be considered safe to keep backups with for much longer than a year.
Tapes are traditionally used because they are much cheaper, not because they are more reliable (which they are not)
In fact, hard drives are orders of magnitude more reliable than tapes.
I've actually yet to meet anyone whose ever done a successful restore of any significant amount of data from tape, beyond test restores of some files, without running into problems that prevented the restore from succeeding properly.
Tapes do not last very long, wear and tear is huge, and organizations generally like to re-use old tapes, which makes matters even worse.
Server Room Smoke can be an Early warning, also.
As embarrasing as it may seem, a cloud of smoke in the server room needn't mean broaching the delicate subject of kicking the marijuana habit with a colleague. It can actually be a signal that something is about to go wrong with your server setup.
as this consultant discovered after days of assuming questionable personal habits were to blame. The culprit? A server whose board was in the process of being about to friggin explode!
Tapes: so unreliable, when cheap hard drives for backup are readily available....
Sorry.. let me revise my statement:
Can you explain any plausible legitimate accidental reason whatsoever that there would be drugs or illegal weapons in the premises of your vehicle?
All of those bullet points of yours are extremely unlikely situations, and it makes sense that you would be expected to provide extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary explanations.
Because you can't display video on eInk, and people do an awful lot more video watching than book reading nowadays.
Yes, people do. However, we have a much better appliance already in place for that in almost every household, it's called a television, perhaps you've heard of it?
The Playstation 3 is locked down heavily in a (vain) effort to crack down on game piracy.
I don't like the PS3 very much, either, by the way.
Likewise having controlled multi-tasking also allows much better use of resources. I suspect the will have new back-grounding API in 4.0 but only for applications that get approved for that usage, like Pandora (just about the only thing I ever see when people try to make the case that they need multi-tasking).
How about, checking your e-mail or using other tools while you are chatting using an IRC app, without getting disconnected from the IRC server, or annoying other users with numerous quits/rejoins ?
3rd party IM apps.
The canonical example would be your friend sends you a link and you want to check it out, and then return to the conversation in a few minutes without missing anything that was said.
Applications for monitoring when an event occurs, such as the progress of an eBay auction. e.g. You want the app to be able to alert you while you are checking e-mail and for you to be able to seamlessly jump to the app, and jump back where you left off when done.
They ran into the number of characters limit on the subject line.
I'm sure they mean 5 Reasons Tablets Suck, and Why we think you won't buy one
Then why doesn't it have an eInk or other non-backlit display suitable for staring at for long periods of time?
You're way off base. Apple is still a computer company, and the iPad is being sold as a computer you can run applications on.
Your toaster, alarm clock, and TV are purpose built devices, each serve a specific purpose. But it's not like the manufacturer goes out of their way to implement technology specifically designed to prevent you from running your own apps on it.
If there is any firmware in a Sony flat screen TV, you can probably dump it, and load your own modified version, without having 'binary signing' designed to prevent consumers from installing/building custom apps, and deploying without manufacturer's approval, to contend with.
Is that it's not an open platform. It doesn't matter that much to me that it isn't the sake as a desktop OS X install, I am OK with that.
My issues are:
Next, can we get courts to consider deleted files, snippets, or unexpected objects in an archive, or on a FTP server, downloaded (but never reviewed) not to be possessed next?
In particular, if some unknown user uploads an illegal file to a public FTP server's public-writable uploads directory (for whatever reason), and the FTP server operator deletes the file, when another FTP server reports it to them, or when reviewing to move from new uploads dir to a suitable place. The FTP server operator, and the person who reported the incident ought to be indemnified, assuming they either didn't know about, or fully destroyed the object.
I'd say and they 'reported the incident to authorities', but that is difficult to do, because authorities don't provide a standard online form for uploading suspicious objects and reporting circumstances behind them -----
also reporting to authorities in itself would seem to be so dangerous to the reporting person legally, since the reporter and possibly other entities did come to handle the illegal file accidentally in that case -- (risk of causing themselves to be severely inconvenienced by being subject to investigation themselves), that they should be held blameless even if they do not report to authorities out of fear.
Can you explain any legitimate accidental reason whatsoever that there would be drugs or illegal weapons in the premises of your vehicle?
The differences between this and having an object in cache in your vehicle are obvious. Everything you place in your vehicle is your responsibility, if it poses a safety hazard on the road, you are in direct control over everything that gets placed in there, you can inspect any item at any time, and you have a legal responsibility to do so, in order to ascertain the safe operation of your vehicle on public property.
With a browser cache it is obvious -- any URL object that the browser ever sees reference too may be eligible to be cached (depending on its size, and how long ago it was accessed): it is automatic, and being in the cache does not necessarily indicate that a human has ever seen it.
Web sites may cache objects in the background, antivirus software may load objects in the background to pre-scan. Another person may have touched the computer and visited something on accident they didn't to, and immediately closed the window, with no knowledge about any copy being retained.
Very often those children are kidnapped, raped, assaulted or even murdered.
Have some people completely lost the ability to distinguish crimes from each other?
Some people possess money.
Very often those dollars had been stolen, involved in a bank robbery where innocent people are murdered, involved in drug trafficing where people are murdered..
Therefore anyone found possessing dollar bills should be tossed in jail for life. They were responsible for murder after all, right?
A Technician's testimony is probable cause to obtain a search warrant to find physical evidence of a crime the technician indicates exists.
And it would not be hearsay, it would be 1st party testimony about what they saw
Hearsay would only occur if the Technician testified someone else saw evidence of a crime, or someone else observed something suspicious.
What a witness themselves observed and testifies to the court is NOT hearsay, period.
No. Commiting false advertising or fraud is lying in your presentation of goods to change hands and not particularly an exercise of press freedom.
In that case, the speech is not specifically the issue, it is the use of deception to bring someone into a financial transaction
Fraud or False advertising causes a target to participate in a transaction under a false pretense, that they would not want to participate in, if the other party expressed the true nature of the transaction.
Basically, if you are selling something, there can be regulations on how you present that particular product for sale.
This is different from restricting what may be said inside the product, if it's a news publication, for example!
[*] Addendum: freedom of the press is specifically mentioned by the amendment as well, and the 'website' being 'ordered' to not publish stock tips is definitely the press (hence use of the word 'news').
The effect of the order is directly, indisputably contrary to the 1st amendment: they are abridging the freedom of the press.
This is in part because commercial speech is not as closely protected by the First Amendment as other kinds of speech.
The 1st amendment says congress may not abridge the freedom of any type of speech. There is no exception for commercial speech, and specifically:
"Congress shall make no law [...], or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; "
It is also worth bearing in mind that the Recommendations are not objective facts, but rather, subjective judgments
The fact that person X has indicated opinion Y, is an objective fact.
If I tell you that I think Obama's approval rating will go up by 3.68% next week. Then your first ammendment right guarantees you can tell your friends "Mysidia thinks Obama's approval is going up 3.68% next week"
etc, etc.
That's not to say I can't claim copyright to my words, or that you could reproduce my statement exactly for that purpose, without infringing on copyrights.
But there is this matter: when a person is a public figure, or an organization is a large corporate entity, whose every word is of public concern --- then the fact they expressed an opinion, is an objective fact, that should fully enjoy the ironclad protection of free speech rights provided by the 1st amendment of the US constitution.
Uh, fresh normal coffee is typically brewed somewhere between 94 to 96 Degrees celsius. This can cause that amount of damage, to some people, especially if they spill large amounts of it on themselves. Consumer expectations are that the coffee is hot enough to be dangerous.
Until you have let your cup sit around for 20 minutes to release some heat, you should always consider fresh hot coffee dangerous. This is the norm coffee drinkers demand though.
Restaurants are selling a product that has to be very hot. Most coffee drinkers do not want a cold or merely warm drink, that's not what the product is.