Each bit, on a hard disk, is made up of a number of atoms. When the majority of them are magnetically oriented one way they read as a 1, and when they are oriented another, they read as a 0. When you write something, the majority of atoms, for that bit, flip. If you read in a series of those bits with a standard program, they will read back exactly what you wrote.
Now, assume someone has your hard drive in a clean room. They take off the lid, and use a very sensitive head to read all the atoms that make up each bit. The majority of them will say whatever you last wrote there, but a small handful will still say what they were from the write previous to that one. Digital is implemented on top of analog devices. Perhaps the drive head was a little closer to the spindle on the previous write, perhaps a little further out. At which point, 90% of the track will have the most recent file, and 10% of the track will have the second most recent file. Got it? Due to the way things work, the past several recent files may be recovered.
It's not one or two bits. It's several atoms per bit. And when you factor in file checksums (every operating system implements something that could work here, as well as the hardware level checksums), you have a more than fair chance at recovering some data. Hypothetically, anyway.
The Congress critters can believe whatever they want. It's the part where they think about cutting out science that will f*ck us later. All the faith in the world won't save the people from nuclear weapons if there aren't enough engineers to make that missile shield work.
On a conspiratorial note, you will notice that many a church is built to withstand a nuclear strike (those stone churches are probably shielded to withstand a gamma blast, and the lead windows aren't lost on me). Perhaps someone has a plan.
Unfortunately, I have to agree here. Free market seems to imply, sadly, that anything goes, as opposed to a marketplace that is free to enter, leave, and conduct business therein, with the general rules against theft, fraud, etc. still in play.
Sadly, it's true. It's hard for a scientist to own his own lab these days. What more, the years of hard work, learning that material, are wasted, as the proceeds from his work end up in someone else's hands. They say they want someone who loves their field, but in reality, they want someone who is willing to work perpetually for nothing. Greed here is a killer, and teaches the future generations that it's more important to screw the scientists out of their due than to invent something of worth. I'll let you imagine what kind of society that eventually gives rise to.
1.) We welcome all races and nationalities to the STEM majors. 2.) Foreign companies hire American engineers, and tend to pay them well. Why are our American companies failing to do the same? Why are our American companies failing to remain afloat without constant bailouts, protectionist policies, and outright bribery? That's not a STEM problem -> it's Americans running those companies, graduated from American universities, and yet they're the ones driving those companies into the ground. 3.) There is a perpetual scarcity of STEM majors at home. Why? Because they're difficult, hence the reason so few people graduate with a STEM degree. Lowering quality (in theory) to put out more STEM graduates isn't a good idea, unless you like airplanes that drop out of the sky. 4.) The decline in income, if any, is temporary, as those companies responsible for paying their people so poorly end up pulling an Enron and go under. We had an article the other day showing, what appears to be, a positive correlation between upper management slashing the IT department, and the company going over the edge.
'Tis not Sci-Fi's job to temper things one way or the other. Its job is to tell a story; if the author wishes to make their story fraught with the perils of technology, let them; if not, then no. And for the love of God, no more dressed-up bullsh*t journalistic human interest pieces. Bring back the aliens; let them be different from humans, really different. Let them fight with one another, or not; let them f*ck, or not; let them be interesting or dull. Let them have alien cultures, let them have alien morals, let them have alien languages.
What more, Sci-Fi isn't just about technology. Let them have their eco-terrorists and back to earth abolitionists. Fear of technology doesn't sell; an interesting story does.
Sci-Fi's role, if any, is to reflect one possible future. In reality, however, many utopian / dystopian novels are, sadly, commentaries on the present, with just enough elements changed so they aren't censored. 'Tis easier to say 'In a galaxy, far far away, lived an evil emperor,' than to say 'In this country, here and now, is a villain.' It's also useful to get around people's "filters" on perception: if someone actually presents a valid argument, but does so in a roundabout fashion, it may be weighed quietly for merit; if one labels a character a Republican, Democrat, Christian, or Atheist, then the filters kick in, and the argument is immediately agreed with or dismissed. A lot of what Star Trek TOS did was considered risque at the time, flouting social conventions -> which was okay, because a fictional show about the future.
From Wikipedia: "In the 1968 episode "Plato's Stepchildren", Uhura and Captain Kirk kiss. The episode is popularly cited as the first example of a scripted inter-racial kiss on United States television.[12][13][14] Originally, the scene was meant to be filmed with and without the kiss, so that the network could later decide whether to air the kiss. However, Shatner and Nichols deliberately flubbed every take of the shot without the kiss so that they could not be used."
Inter-racial kissing was a big thing then. How far we've come...
But yes, a lot of the prominent Sci-Fi being pushed today is either bland, or is politics dressed up for more than it's worth. And yes, BSG (the remake) was terrible: I wanted to like it, had been told it was great, but it left me with the same feeling as Lost. It was just...pointless. I suppose the biggest problem with Sci-Fi (television) is the lack of humor that needs to go with them. Star Wars (not the prequels) -> the actors had a great time off-screen, and didn't take it too seriously. Stargate SG-1 -> the humor can be seen on screen. Firefly -> more of the same. Farscape, The Invisible Man, etc. -> they all had that campy sense of humor.
On a separate note, our comedians are hurting. Seriously, they are. It's painful to see the new blood that Comedy Central is drawing upon these days, and their inability to make me laugh. I get smirks, maybe an odd chuckle, but no outright laughs, let alone a deep-throaty one which ends up with me having difficulty breathing. Anyone else experiencing this?
Still, for those interested in shorting a company stock, doing a quick Google search to see if a company is cutting back on IT should be relatively easy.
Forget to answer your question -> multiple overwrites, greater chance of getting those bit stragglers that refused to flip the previous times.
I prefer the paranoid approach: just don't store anything supremely dangerous on a computer. Take the CIA's approach -> anything important is stored in people's heads only. And by people, I mean your head, and your head alone. And don't tell anyone about it. Sadly, it's the only safe thing you can do, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly failed to uphold your hypothetical right to privacy (and people looking for stuff won't care about that either -> they work on the mentality that it's only illegal if they get caught).
Magnetic domains. The data forensic's kids have this idea (it may or may not be true) that when bits are flipped, some random atoms that make up that bit do not flip. I.e. the majority will flip, but some may not. As such, it is possible to extract previously written data by reading the 'minority report' of the data on the disk (I assume they extract all possible minority reports per bit, then try to match the file checksum; if / when it matches, there is a fair chance they've recovered the original file).
Supposedly, using a SSD prevents them from doing this. But who knows: the data forensics field is, from what I can tell, filled with spooks, con-men, and scammers of every color. As such, it's hard to tell when someone actually 'found' something that 1.) wasn't placed there by a crooked member of the recovery team (no one is above corruption), and 2.) it's not the interrogator bluffing for more than he's worth (99% of all cases, I imagine).
Still, it would explain the CIA's paranoid approach to hard drive disposal (grind it, melt it, etc.).
'Tis easy to understand IT. It's the spinal cord of your company. Feel free to cut as many nerves to it as you feel the need to, it's only the brain that's going to suffer.
Efficiency only works if everyone is playing by the agreed upon rules; this is where things break down -> someone is always changing the rules.
Who wants to play a game of chess where your opponent gets to change the rules randomly, and to his / her benefit? And there's the rub: there are no rules. You all agree on outlawing theft, and your opponent plays the eminent domain card. You all agree on outlawing murder, and your opponent plays the accidental death card. The only thing you all agree on is that you can do whatever you like, but your opponent must play by the rules you have decided upon.
I liken it all to a giant casino, where you are compelled to place bets, but can never leave. Of course, the door is always there, but it's hidden behind a bunch of false walls, and hasn't been used much in its lifetime.
You assume others aren't actively lighting those fires. Nothing like the head of marketing or human resources creating problems to make your life hell.
Indeed. Part of the problem with a too exact / descriptive patent is that someone will research said patent, replace one minor piece, and be able to produce widgets that do not violate said patent. That annoys everyone who had spent hundreds of hours of research cooking up said design, and results in the proliferation in trade secrets (something the government / society loathes).
Think of it this way: if you're a book author, and you put out a work that someone else changes a few words to, then claims copyright to, how pissed would you be? That's how many patent holders feel when someone does the above. If I spend 300+ hours working out a new, awesome tennis racket that doesn't induce tennis elbow, I'd be pissed if a lawyer took the words of my patent, found some inconsequential component ("cross-stitching"), changed it to something equally inconsequential ("horizontal-stitching"), and started making tennis rackets based 99% off my design. It's the equivalent of copying the design of one of BMW's new cars, replacing the tires with a different brand, then claiming it doesn't violate BMW's patents. And it happens all the time (but is seldom reported in the press, let alone the tech press).
The only patents that are considered derivative, but are somewhat welcomed, are ones which actually improve on the earlier ones. Like the idea of "rifling" being added to the patent for a "musket" -> in which case the owners of the musket patent will often times cross-license with the owners of the rifle (derivative) patent. Intel and AMD did that a while ago, when Intel got caught with its pants down in the whole x86-64 thing.
Slashdot Mirror
The sad part being that this only confirms what everyone already thinks about them.
There are two ways to read the GP's quote. Guess which one most Mac-heads use?
Each bit, on a hard disk, is made up of a number of atoms. When the majority of them are magnetically oriented one way they read as a 1, and when they are oriented another, they read as a 0. When you write something, the majority of atoms, for that bit, flip. If you read in a series of those bits with a standard program, they will read back exactly what you wrote.
Now, assume someone has your hard drive in a clean room. They take off the lid, and use a very sensitive head to read all the atoms that make up each bit. The majority of them will say whatever you last wrote there, but a small handful will still say what they were from the write previous to that one. Digital is implemented on top of analog devices. Perhaps the drive head was a little closer to the spindle on the previous write, perhaps a little further out. At which point, 90% of the track will have the most recent file, and 10% of the track will have the second most recent file. Got it? Due to the way things work, the past several recent files may be recovered.
It's not one or two bits. It's several atoms per bit. And when you factor in file checksums (every operating system implements something that could work here, as well as the hardware level checksums), you have a more than fair chance at recovering some data. Hypothetically, anyway.
The Congress critters can believe whatever they want. It's the part where they think about cutting out science that will f*ck us later. All the faith in the world won't save the people from nuclear weapons if there aren't enough engineers to make that missile shield work.
On a conspiratorial note, you will notice that many a church is built to withstand a nuclear strike (those stone churches are probably shielded to withstand a gamma blast, and the lead windows aren't lost on me). Perhaps someone has a plan.
Nothing wrong with some mad scientists. There's a manga, Hollowfields, that I wouldn't mind seeing as a live-action series.
Unfortunately, I have to agree here. Free market seems to imply, sadly, that anything goes, as opposed to a marketplace that is free to enter, leave, and conduct business therein, with the general rules against theft, fraud, etc. still in play.
'Tis quite alright. The powerful mismanagement of the tech sectors is causing crashes everywhere. Everyone is just coasting on what's left.
Sadly, it's true. It's hard for a scientist to own his own lab these days. What more, the years of hard work, learning that material, are wasted, as the proceeds from his work end up in someone else's hands. They say they want someone who loves their field, but in reality, they want someone who is willing to work perpetually for nothing. Greed here is a killer, and teaches the future generations that it's more important to screw the scientists out of their due than to invent something of worth. I'll let you imagine what kind of society that eventually gives rise to.
I've had (limited) experience with both in the workplace, and it has nothing to do with race, but style of code.
The Indian guys learned to adapt, but the one Chinese woman I am thinking of caused my coworkers to curse.
1.) We welcome all races and nationalities to the STEM majors.
2.) Foreign companies hire American engineers, and tend to pay them well. Why are our American companies failing to do the same? Why are our American companies failing to remain afloat without constant bailouts, protectionist policies, and outright bribery? That's not a STEM problem -> it's Americans running those companies, graduated from American universities, and yet they're the ones driving those companies into the ground.
3.) There is a perpetual scarcity of STEM majors at home. Why? Because they're difficult, hence the reason so few people graduate with a STEM degree. Lowering quality (in theory) to put out more STEM graduates isn't a good idea, unless you like airplanes that drop out of the sky.
4.) The decline in income, if any, is temporary, as those companies responsible for paying their people so poorly end up pulling an Enron and go under. We had an article the other day showing, what appears to be, a positive correlation between upper management slashing the IT department, and the company going over the edge.
'Tis not Sci-Fi's job to temper things one way or the other. Its job is to tell a story; if the author wishes to make their story fraught with the perils of technology, let them; if not, then no. And for the love of God, no more dressed-up bullsh*t journalistic human interest pieces. Bring back the aliens; let them be different from humans, really different. Let them fight with one another, or not; let them f*ck, or not; let them be interesting or dull. Let them have alien cultures, let them have alien morals, let them have alien languages.
What more, Sci-Fi isn't just about technology. Let them have their eco-terrorists and back to earth abolitionists. Fear of technology doesn't sell; an interesting story does.
Sci-Fi's role, if any, is to reflect one possible future. In reality, however, many utopian / dystopian novels are, sadly, commentaries on the present, with just enough elements changed so they aren't censored. 'Tis easier to say 'In a galaxy, far far away, lived an evil emperor,' than to say 'In this country, here and now, is a villain.' It's also useful to get around people's "filters" on perception: if someone actually presents a valid argument, but does so in a roundabout fashion, it may be weighed quietly for merit; if one labels a character a Republican, Democrat, Christian, or Atheist, then the filters kick in, and the argument is immediately agreed with or dismissed. A lot of what Star Trek TOS did was considered risque at the time, flouting social conventions -> which was okay, because a fictional show about the future.
From Wikipedia:
"In the 1968 episode "Plato's Stepchildren", Uhura and Captain Kirk kiss. The episode is popularly cited as the first example of a scripted inter-racial kiss on United States television.[12][13][14] Originally, the scene was meant to be filmed with and without the kiss, so that the network could later decide whether to air the kiss. However, Shatner and Nichols deliberately flubbed every take of the shot without the kiss so that they could not be used."
Inter-racial kissing was a big thing then. How far we've come...
But yes, a lot of the prominent Sci-Fi being pushed today is either bland, or is politics dressed up for more than it's worth. And yes, BSG (the remake) was terrible: I wanted to like it, had been told it was great, but it left me with the same feeling as Lost. It was just...pointless. I suppose the biggest problem with Sci-Fi (television) is the lack of humor that needs to go with them. Star Wars (not the prequels) -> the actors had a great time off-screen, and didn't take it too seriously. Stargate SG-1 -> the humor can be seen on screen. Firefly -> more of the same. Farscape, The Invisible Man, etc. -> they all had that campy sense of humor.
On a separate note, our comedians are hurting. Seriously, they are. It's painful to see the new blood that Comedy Central is drawing upon these days, and their inability to make me laugh. I get smirks, maybe an odd chuckle, but no outright laughs, let alone a deep-throaty one which ends up with me having difficulty breathing. Anyone else experiencing this?
Still, for those interested in shorting a company stock, doing a quick Google search to see if a company is cutting back on IT should be relatively easy.
Forget to answer your question -> multiple overwrites, greater chance of getting those bit stragglers that refused to flip the previous times.
I prefer the paranoid approach: just don't store anything supremely dangerous on a computer. Take the CIA's approach -> anything important is stored in people's heads only. And by people, I mean your head, and your head alone. And don't tell anyone about it. Sadly, it's the only safe thing you can do, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly failed to uphold your hypothetical right to privacy (and people looking for stuff won't care about that either -> they work on the mentality that it's only illegal if they get caught).
Magnetic domains. The data forensic's kids have this idea (it may or may not be true) that when bits are flipped, some random atoms that make up that bit do not flip. I.e. the majority will flip, but some may not. As such, it is possible to extract previously written data by reading the 'minority report' of the data on the disk (I assume they extract all possible minority reports per bit, then try to match the file checksum; if / when it matches, there is a fair chance they've recovered the original file).
Supposedly, using a SSD prevents them from doing this. But who knows: the data forensics field is, from what I can tell, filled with spooks, con-men, and scammers of every color. As such, it's hard to tell when someone actually 'found' something that 1.) wasn't placed there by a crooked member of the recovery team (no one is above corruption), and 2.) it's not the interrogator bluffing for more than he's worth (99% of all cases, I imagine).
Still, it would explain the CIA's paranoid approach to hard drive disposal (grind it, melt it, etc.).
'Tis easy to understand IT. It's the spinal cord of your company. Feel free to cut as many nerves to it as you feel the need to, it's only the brain that's going to suffer.
Indeed. Not everyone waits until the wheel squeaks to give it the oil.
Efficiency only works if everyone is playing by the agreed upon rules; this is where things break down -> someone is always changing the rules.
Who wants to play a game of chess where your opponent gets to change the rules randomly, and to his / her benefit? And there's the rub: there are no rules. You all agree on outlawing theft, and your opponent plays the eminent domain card. You all agree on outlawing murder, and your opponent plays the accidental death card. The only thing you all agree on is that you can do whatever you like, but your opponent must play by the rules you have decided upon.
I liken it all to a giant casino, where you are compelled to place bets, but can never leave. Of course, the door is always there, but it's hidden behind a bunch of false walls, and hasn't been used much in its lifetime.
Lol, no. While a fair number of people liken IT to a trade, reality dictates otherwise.
Wonderous. So there is a positive correlation between gutting the IT department, and the company going bankrupt a few years later.
You assume others aren't actively lighting those fires. Nothing like the head of marketing or human resources creating problems to make your life hell.
Indeed. Part of the problem with a too exact / descriptive patent is that someone will research said patent, replace one minor piece, and be able to produce widgets that do not violate said patent. That annoys everyone who had spent hundreds of hours of research cooking up said design, and results in the proliferation in trade secrets (something the government / society loathes).
Think of it this way: if you're a book author, and you put out a work that someone else changes a few words to, then claims copyright to, how pissed would you be? That's how many patent holders feel when someone does the above. If I spend 300+ hours working out a new, awesome tennis racket that doesn't induce tennis elbow, I'd be pissed if a lawyer took the words of my patent, found some inconsequential component ("cross-stitching"), changed it to something equally inconsequential ("horizontal-stitching"), and started making tennis rackets based 99% off my design. It's the equivalent of copying the design of one of BMW's new cars, replacing the tires with a different brand, then claiming it doesn't violate BMW's patents. And it happens all the time (but is seldom reported in the press, let alone the tech press).
The only patents that are considered derivative, but are somewhat welcomed, are ones which actually improve on the earlier ones. Like the idea of "rifling" being added to the patent for a "musket" -> in which case the owners of the musket patent will often times cross-license with the owners of the rifle (derivative) patent. Intel and AMD did that a while ago, when Intel got caught with its pants down in the whole x86-64 thing.
Tastes like chicken.
*shrugs* He must be planning not to run for office next election. It happens.
Then the question is "Is having an unstable maniac in charge a better option that what we currently have available?"
The day draws closer when the answer is, sadly, yes.