Perhaps if corporations used the "employed for life" strategy that the federal government practices, they would alleviate potential stressors to their employees
Yeah, along with any potential productivity. Why work when there are no real repercussions for slacking at all?
Well I can fill in your gaps on XFS. XFS has run flawlessly for me for over a year now, on a 1.9TB RAID volume. EXT2/3 seems to have rough edges in regard to large file systems, for example, by default mkfs will set aside 5% of your disk for root use. That's 97GB wasted! Another problem is that you need to specify -T largefile4 or it will try to create way too many inodes, taking forever to create the filesystem, or fsck if you ever need to.
XFS is a very mature file system, and file systems that are many TB work fine with its defaults. Performs more consistantly too. EXT2/3 was very sensitive to RAID stripe size, and things like that. Even setting the special stride option, you had to recreate the filesystem many times to make sure things worked right. XFS performed consistantly at any stripe size, with no strange dips in performance if boundaries didn't line up just right.
In all, if you are building a large RAID, I would go with XFS. For day-to-day use of 200GB or less on a single disk, EXT2/3 is fine. (You probably still don't want to let it waste 5% of the disk, that is such a retarded default, use -m 1 to help reduce it)
I submitted this to Ask Slashdot earlier, it's been accepted but not posted yet:
I have these small devices holding my computer case on. Basically they are small pegs made out of metal, with a small cap or "head" on top. The cap has a small indention that looks like a plus (+) sign. It appears you are supposed to rotate them to extract them and remove the case. My question is, is there a tool of some sort to extract these metal pegs? TIA.
I don't see how one would do that. There is a finite set of valid inputs, you agree with me on that. But there is an infinite set of invalid ones.
Suppose my black box is a HTTP proxy of some sort. Obviously valid inputs are GET, POST, etc.
Invalid inputs are infinite. GEET, GEEET, GEEEET, G(N+1)ET. That single series of invalid commands is infinite. There are an infinite number of these infinite series of invalid commands. There is no way to prove that one of these invalid commands won't trigger malicious or exploitable behavior.
MS has had text-to-speech as a object you can embed in your program with one line of VB code (same as you can embed IE) for a while now.
Apple has had text to speech entensions in tons of different voices for a long time. Some of the G4s used to read dialog boxes to you by default if you didn't click on them fast enough. Pretty unnerving the first couple times.
Several voice activated automated attendant systems I have called for my credit card and bank are amazing these days. They have insanely accurate speech recognition and really good text-to-speech.
So I wouldn't say the field is not advancing... it is.
Of course, a Google search for "open source text to speech" without quotes yields many promising looking hits, which I havn't evaluated. Why didn't you search there before asking Slashdot?
Be careful taking these kinds of lists from random people and dropping them in your firewall.
One list that was posted here on Slashdot about a year ago blacklisted several sites that I have noticed so far, including digitalblasphemy.com and avery.com (the people that make labels). A lot of these were/18 and/19 subnets that were in the blacklist. That is a pretty large chunk.
Since vandan is using only/23, assumedly it is more finegrained, but it's standard practice these days to hand out only 30 IPs per T1 customer unless they ask for more, that's/27, which means each/23 entry is banning 16 of these sized blocks.
I still use the list, so it wasn't too bad, but I'm considering pulling it back out of my ruleset now, or at least the larger blocks.
I am not denying that. But luckly with most systems - for exmaple if you want to do Internet communications - you can simply examine the input and the outputs. The internals are completly blackbox. Thats the whole point of good design techniques.
Yes, you can do that to verify proper input produces proper output. However, "proving" there isn't some hidden feature is impossible this way. There are an infinite number of invalid inputs, and a limited number of valid ones. Proving proper function with the valid inputs is relatively easy, proving that improper output will never happen with invalid inputs is impossible.
Any black box system therefore can never be trusted.
And the more important question, would the RIAA/MPAA ever let it happen? Imagine people selling discs of thousands of hours of music, or a whole year's popular films for $5 on the street.
I think we may be doomed to never have large capacity disposable/cheap removable media.
Good post, just need to break it up into paragraphs a little. One clarification though, you said:
These particles are not dangerous unless you ingest or breathe them into your lungs.
As you said, it's not as much about protecting against the radiation as it is protecting against contamination. Along that line, you wouldn't want to ingest a material that was emitting alpha particles, you don't have to worry about ingesting the particles themselves.:)
Free standards don't matter much if people use them wrong. This site would suck for usability in SVG or in Flash.
Re:Too bad it's unconstitutional -- and ill-advise
on
HomeSec In the News
·
· Score: 1
I'm not sure which USA you are in, but in my USA, there are maybe 3 members of congress and only two of them matter much... There is Mr. Democrat, Mr. Republican, and Mr. Independent.
The first two are incapable of any rational thought, lie constantly, and only are self serving, and often agree with each other about any issue that involves stealing freedom from the people, or keeping Mr. Independent from ever getting into power.
Is an oligarchy like this any much better than a Monarchy?
For those who are on Dish Network, look in the 9000 level channels for UWTV, they are running a MEMS class. Pretty interesting stuff. I was really surprised how far they have gotten in this field.
Know what, nevermind about showing me any rules, it's clear you don't even understand the basics of radio.
You can put out 1WATT of power into the antenna.
Only if your antenna has less than or equal to 6dbi gain.
From there you are allowed to put out a maximum of 36dB (that's 36dB total, not in addition to the 30dB into the antenna)
How exactly do you "put out" dB? dB in radio terms is a measure of gain, not power.
for an EIRP of 4WATTS.
This is the only part of your post that is remotely correct, since 6dBi is the limitation for point to point, and every 3 dB is a doubling of power, the max EIRP is 4 watts. 1watt * 2^2
If your antenna gain was 36dBi, which is quite a feat, and you put 1 watt into it, you would be putting out 4096 watts EIRP. Not quite within FCC limits.
The max EIRP for omnidirectional is 1 watt, period. This means if your antenna has any gain at all (even a shitty antenna has a little gain), you can't feed it a full watt legally.
Why would you assume a bunch of geologists know the FCC rules better than I do? What sort of fucked up acedemic elitism is that? You don't even know my qualifications. For all you know I could be Riley fucking Hollingsworth himself.
Who said anything about violating ERP (Effective Radiated Power) limits for FCC rules. The fellow in the article specifically mentioned abiding by those rules.
I seriously doubt it, they mention pushing out the full 1 watt, and using high gain antennas. The FCC limit on antennas at 1 watt is 6dBi... Do you consider 6 dBi high gain? Consider a plain dipole is 2.14 dDi...
No, they are likely using 20+ dBi dishes with 1 full watt of power, which is clearly in violation of the FCC rules. They either don't know better, or do not understand the rules.
and if you want to set up such a link, attend your local Amateur Radio shindig and you'll find piles of retired microwave enthusiasts, eager for the chance to lend a hand....
Heh, to an unlicensed operator, who is probably violating all kinds of ERP FCC limits? Not a chance.
If anything, the only thing hooking up with hams will do is convince you to get licensed, because they likely won't talk to you much until you do, especially if they think you are going to violate FCC rules and possibly cause QRM.
You havn't hit the section on barriers to entry yet apparently. Barriers to entry, incompletly informed consumers, and monopolies (and companies large enough to put pressure on their market) will prevent profit from going to zero.
Also, profit only goes to zero in a commodity market, any sort of differentiation in the products makes the rule not apply.
Not necessarily, there is something to be said for being a generalist. A specialist often will fall to the "everything looks like a nail" syndrome, because they only know how to solve problems one way.
For example, the submitter might think of a hardware solution that is better than a software one, when a specialized computer programmer would only think in terms of what software he had to write to address the problem.
The thing about being a generalist is that you need to find jobs where you are either semi-management, or have enough latitude and influence to be able to propose the solutions you want to implement. A generalist won't last long in a rigid top-down organization where the management wants to control every detail of implemention.
I don't know that this helps the original submitter much... Really my advice to him is to just not worry about learning new skills just because a bunch of people think they are hot... Just keep it to the basics of job hunting, personal networking, keep your eyes open... and learn whatever you are interested in. If you are interested in the field, then you will learn much more about it than if you are doing it just because you think it is a hot skill to have.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps if corporations used the "employed for life" strategy that the federal government practices, they would alleviate potential stressors to their employees
Yeah, along with any potential productivity. Why work when there are no real repercussions for slacking at all?
Well I can fill in your gaps on XFS. XFS has run flawlessly for me for over a year now, on a 1.9TB RAID volume. EXT2/3 seems to have rough edges in regard to large file systems, for example, by default mkfs will set aside 5% of your disk for root use. That's 97GB wasted! Another problem is that you need to specify -T largefile4 or it will try to create way too many inodes, taking forever to create the filesystem, or fsck if you ever need to.
XFS is a very mature file system, and file systems that are many TB work fine with its defaults. Performs more consistantly too. EXT2/3 was very sensitive to RAID stripe size, and things like that. Even setting the special stride option, you had to recreate the filesystem many times to make sure things worked right. XFS performed consistantly at any stripe size, with no strange dips in performance if boundaries didn't line up just right.
In all, if you are building a large RAID, I would go with XFS. For day-to-day use of 200GB or less on a single disk, EXT2/3 is fine. (You probably still don't want to let it waste 5% of the disk, that is such a retarded default, use -m 1 to help reduce it)
I submitted this to Ask Slashdot earlier, it's been accepted but not posted yet:
I have these small devices holding my computer case on. Basically they are small pegs made out of metal, with a small cap or "head" on top. The cap has a small indention that looks like a plus (+) sign. It appears you are supposed to rotate them to extract them and remove the case. My question is, is there a tool of some sort to extract these metal pegs? TIA.
I don't see how one would do that. There is a finite set of valid inputs, you agree with me on that. But there is an infinite set of invalid ones.
Suppose my black box is a HTTP proxy of some sort. Obviously valid inputs are GET, POST, etc.
Invalid inputs are infinite. GEET, GEEET, GEEEET, G(N+1)ET. That single series of invalid commands is infinite. There are an infinite number of these infinite series of invalid commands. There is no way to prove that one of these invalid commands won't trigger malicious or exploitable behavior.
That won't work, because you wouldn't know which of the 16 /27s to ban out of the /23.
Yeah, closed source :)
MS has had text-to-speech as a object you can embed in your program with one line of VB code (same as you can embed IE) for a while now.
Apple has had text to speech entensions in tons of different voices for a long time. Some of the G4s used to read dialog boxes to you by default if you didn't click on them fast enough. Pretty unnerving the first couple times.
Several voice activated automated attendant systems I have called for my credit card and bank are amazing these days. They have insanely accurate speech recognition and really good text-to-speech.
So I wouldn't say the field is not advancing... it is.
Of course, a Google search for "open source text to speech" without quotes yields many promising looking hits, which I havn't evaluated. Why didn't you search there before asking Slashdot?
Be careful taking these kinds of lists from random people and dropping them in your firewall.
/18 and /19 subnets that were in the blacklist. That is a pretty large chunk.
/23, assumedly it is more finegrained, but it's standard practice these days to hand out only 30 IPs per T1 customer unless they ask for more, that's /27, which means each /23 entry is banning 16 of these sized blocks.
One list that was posted here on Slashdot about a year ago blacklisted several sites that I have noticed so far, including digitalblasphemy.com and avery.com (the people that make labels). A lot of these were
Since vandan is using only
I still use the list, so it wasn't too bad, but I'm considering pulling it back out of my ruleset now, or at least the larger blocks.
I am not denying that. But luckly with most systems - for exmaple if you want to do Internet communications - you can simply examine the input and the outputs. The internals are completly blackbox. Thats the whole point of good design techniques.
Yes, you can do that to verify proper input produces proper output. However, "proving" there isn't some hidden feature is impossible this way. There are an infinite number of invalid inputs, and a limited number of valid ones. Proving proper function with the valid inputs is relatively easy, proving that improper output will never happen with invalid inputs is impossible.
Any black box system therefore can never be trusted.
What's your ttcp raw TCP throughputs?
And the more important question, would the RIAA/MPAA ever let it happen? Imagine people selling discs of thousands of hours of music, or a whole year's popular films for $5 on the street.
I think we may be doomed to never have large capacity disposable/cheap removable media.
Good post, just need to break it up into paragraphs a little. One clarification though, you said:
:)
These particles are not dangerous unless you ingest or breathe them into your lungs.
As you said, it's not as much about protecting against the radiation as it is protecting against contamination. Along that line, you wouldn't want to ingest a material that was emitting alpha particles, you don't have to worry about ingesting the particles themselves.
Free standards don't matter much if people use them wrong. This site would suck for usability in SVG or in Flash.
I'm not sure which USA you are in, but in my USA, there are maybe 3 members of congress and only two of them matter much... There is Mr. Democrat, Mr. Republican, and Mr. Independent.
The first two are incapable of any rational thought, lie constantly, and only are self serving, and often agree with each other about any issue that involves stealing freedom from the people, or keeping Mr. Independent from ever getting into power.
Is an oligarchy like this any much better than a Monarchy?
Heh, yeah. You guys are right, I was just in a shitty mood last night.
For those who are on Dish Network, look in the 9000 level channels for UWTV, they are running a MEMS class. Pretty interesting stuff. I was really surprised how far they have gotten in this field.
Clarification:
6dbi is the limitation before you must start reducing power. Above that you must reduce power on a scale proportional to gain.
Know what, nevermind about showing me any rules, it's clear you don't even understand the basics of radio.
You can put out 1WATT of power into the antenna.
Only if your antenna has less than or equal to 6dbi gain.
From there you are allowed to put out a maximum of 36dB (that's 36dB total, not in addition to the 30dB into the antenna)
How exactly do you "put out" dB? dB in radio terms is a measure of gain, not power.
for an EIRP of 4WATTS.
This is the only part of your post that is remotely correct, since 6dBi is the limitation for point to point, and every 3 dB is a doubling of power, the max EIRP is 4 watts. 1watt * 2^2
If your antenna gain was 36dBi, which is quite a feat, and you put 1 watt into it, you would be putting out 4096 watts EIRP. Not quite within FCC limits.
The max EIRP for omnidirectional is 1 watt, period. This means if your antenna has any gain at all (even a shitty antenna has a little gain), you can't feed it a full watt legally.
Can you show me that section of the rules? My copy must have been missing those parts.
Why would you assume a bunch of geologists know the FCC rules better than I do? What sort of fucked up acedemic elitism is that? You don't even know my qualifications. For all you know I could be Riley fucking Hollingsworth himself.
OpenMosix MFS is also cache consistant for clustering.
Who said anything about violating ERP (Effective Radiated Power) limits for FCC rules. The fellow in the article specifically mentioned abiding by those rules.
I seriously doubt it, they mention pushing out the full 1 watt, and using high gain antennas. The FCC limit on antennas at 1 watt is 6dBi... Do you consider 6 dBi high gain? Consider a plain dipole is 2.14 dDi...
No, they are likely using 20+ dBi dishes with 1 full watt of power, which is clearly in violation of the FCC rules. They either don't know better, or do not understand the rules.
and if you want to set up such a link, attend your local Amateur Radio shindig and you'll find piles of retired microwave enthusiasts, eager for the chance to lend a hand....
Heh, to an unlicensed operator, who is probably violating all kinds of ERP FCC limits? Not a chance.
If anything, the only thing hooking up with hams will do is convince you to get licensed, because they likely won't talk to you much until you do, especially if they think you are going to violate FCC rules and possibly cause QRM.
You havn't hit the section on barriers to entry yet apparently. Barriers to entry, incompletly informed consumers, and monopolies (and companies large enough to put pressure on their market) will prevent profit from going to zero.
Also, profit only goes to zero in a commodity market, any sort of differentiation in the products makes the rule not apply.
Not necessarily, there is something to be said for being a generalist. A specialist often will fall to the "everything looks like a nail" syndrome, because they only know how to solve problems one way.
For example, the submitter might think of a hardware solution that is better than a software one, when a specialized computer programmer would only think in terms of what software he had to write to address the problem.
The thing about being a generalist is that you need to find jobs where you are either semi-management, or have enough latitude and influence to be able to propose the solutions you want to implement. A generalist won't last long in a rigid top-down organization where the management wants to control every detail of implemention.
I don't know that this helps the original submitter much... Really my advice to him is to just not worry about learning new skills just because a bunch of people think they are hot... Just keep it to the basics of job hunting, personal networking, keep your eyes open... and learn whatever you are interested in. If you are interested in the field, then you will learn much more about it than if you are doing it just because you think it is a hot skill to have.
Better now? :)