There is a huge difference between living in a teepee and not living under a high tension line. Living in a teepee is doing a HUGE concession on you quality of life. Not living under a high tension line is not. What is the freaking big deal? Why don't no one get it? If you are to choose between two houses, why not taking the one not under a high tension line? You have nothing to loose.
I'm not saying, take no risk. But rather measure them. Why taking a risk for no reason? Even if the risk is small, or tiny?
Don't try to compare things that were not meant to be. Of course you can bring your 1958 Chevy to a Chevy dealer. Granted, depending on your dealer, you'll get laugh at, but my guess is that most of them will at least redirect you to a more proper place, if they don't take it themselves.
Man, in the glass example, you can't take both !!;-)
Anyways, my point is: If in doubt between two houses, if you like them equally and one has a high tension line just over it, then just go with the other one.
Of course, it might be worse for other factors, but you get to decide with what you know, as always.
The question is: Is there a point in living under a high tension power line?
Even if there is, let's say, a 3% risk of all this stuff to be true, what is the point in taking this risk? Life is at sake in this matter! There is plenty of other houses around! It's not like you're refusing to do something cool or something...
Plus, you will hardly find any relevant statistics about that. People move very often, and if there is any bad effect from it, it is clearly long term. In the village I was mentionning, only the old people (That have lived under the line for 50+ years) were affected, not everyone. And only one specific part of the village (The higher part) where the lines were very close from the houses.
I don't care about proving it. I life my life the way I want. If one day they prove to me that there is no risk, I'll gladly go and live under a high-tension power line. Until then, when in doubt between two houses, one of which being a "potential" risk, I'll go with the safe one. Maybe stupid.
Think about this one: I give you two glasses of water. One looks clean, the other one looks yellowish. But I garantee you that the yellowish one is as safe as the other one. However, you may choose freely either one of them. Are you going to go with the yellowish water? You would be crazy.
Why taking this risk - as small as it may be - when you have equivalent other alternatives ?
I remember some news in france a while ago, where a little village was suing EDF (French version of PG&E, but belong to the government) because they came up with a statistics that leukemia rates were just 1200% higher than anywhere else in France... Scary. Of course, it might just have been a hoax.
Ready to bet your life on the fact that it was? I am not. Let's say there is a 10% chance that these guys were right. Would I risk my life and the ones of my family just because the house in question is a little nicer than another one? No thanks.
I basically think you've got to reorder your priorities. Mine is order this way: Life first. House second. TV/Computer third.
Might it occur to you that I might not be an american, and hence, haven't been exposed in my young age to this beautifull culture that against all odds, generated a narrow-minded cretin like you?
This post was interesting anyways. You always assume you've seen the stupidiest post ever. It is always helpfull to remind people that stupidity has no limit.
"Should there be a reason to believe that code that comes from a variety of people around the world would be higher-quality than from people who do it professionally?..."
Linux people are geeks, that focus on technology (not even mentionning that they might be professionals themselves). Microsoft people are professionals, driven by marketing. Hence, from a technological standpoint, Linux/OSS is more likely to be/become superior than any Microsoft product. From a marketing standpoint, Microsoft will always be ahead of Linux. But... some other people are doing the marketting job on top of linux. That's what we call distros. So eventually, they'll bring to Linux the only remaining area in which Microsoft excell: Marketing.
The point is taken for the backup part. It's just that I've heard so many people saying that DVD (+ and -) is just not reliable that I'm still a little reluctant to burn that for a backup purpose.
In this case, the combo makes sense, but you're still saving pennies;-)
Well, not exactly... he specified that the IDE drive was the drive he wanted to upgrade, wo it must have been the drive on which his email lived before, hence a huge fragmentation.
Now to test on his old server, he copies the files over. To test on his new SCSI HDD, he also copies his directory over.
Voila! Huge fragmentation on the IDE drive, no frag on both SCSI drives.
For starters, it's hard to put that many IDE drives on a single machine. No it's not, and you seem to know it because you mention it later: ATA-RAID card
Once you do, you will start running out of PCI slots, or PCI bandwidth in a hurry (running out of PCI bandwidth is a good thing in one sense, but only if you are actually utilizing it well).
on the PC Mobo architecture, both IDE(SATA) and SCSI controllers are placed on the same PCI bus. So they obviously share the same PCI bandwidth. Did I miss anything?
You could move to a ATA-RAID card, which would save you some slots, but that starts to get into the SCSI price range.
Such a card cost between $50 and $100. While a IDE 100GB HDD cost $100 vs. $500 for a SCSI one. I'm not even mentionning the SCSI controller. So you say that $150 is at the same price range than $500+. Fine.
Putting extra RAM in the machine is not really fair.
Why not? I have $500 to spend on a 100GB HDD. If I choose IDE, I sitll have $400 to spare. Can't I get a better Mobo, more RAM, anything?
You normally buy enough RAM for your applications, not for spare buffering (at least on my databases that's the case, spare RAM there is a waste, because normally writes are sync'ed, or you have two copies, one in the DB cache, and one in the filesystem cache), so for most of my I/O performance needs, extra RAM is relatively wasteful. For HDD writes, RAM is useless. For reading, it could be usefull, don't you think? So it might depend on your needs...
Dude: 7 minutes vs 28 seconds. That's more than 1:14!!!
You will need a hell of a RAID array to beat that! Not mentionning that a RAID-0 array is just lowering the lifetime of your whole array (one disk crashes you loose all the data), while a RAID-1 array will reduce the write time. And please, let's not go to RAID-5 to have a factor of 14x in read times...
One of the argument for a combo burner is that you can get the cheapest media at any time. It is flawed by nature. If I do that, then I'll end up having DVD-R and DVD+R burned. That will dictate one thing that I don't want: That all DVD-players I'll ever buy will have to support both formats.
So the price argument doesn't count as a "free benefit", right?
The second argument is that I can choose what media to burn on on a case-to-case basis. I don't want to ask myself the question "ok, should I burn that on a DVD- or a DVD+" every time I burn a DVD!!! I'm going to go insane.
So we get to the point that even if I buy a combo drive, I will have to make that decision on DVD- or DVD+. In that respect, the "buy a combo" sentence doesn't answer my question.
I didn't ask "Which burner should I buy" but "Which technology should I commit to". If I buy a combo, I restrict my players choice to players that play both. It is a tradeoff, not a "Go for it, you have nothing to loose"!
My own experience. I live in california where it gets really hot in the summer. If I leave a CD in my car (Let's say all the time) which is in the sun all day long, my 16xCD is just gone in about a year. 1X burned CDs lasts usually around 2-3 years.
Note that "the faster the worse" is not true, because CDs burned at 4X with my old Yamaha 4x2x6 are the worst ones. But still 16X CDs are gone faster than 1X CDs with my new burner. The numbers might not be accurate because I didn't do a "test" really, I just happenned to notice it.
The effect on CD-RW is even worse. And the sun doesn't play in there, because they live inside my house.
Dude, there is drawbacks in being able to burn both formats! Let's say I buy this combo burner and buy the cheapest DVD*R out there every time I need some. Then I end up burning both DVD+R and DVD-R, which limit me to buy all my DVD players with the constraint that they MUST support both formats. So I probably don't want to do that. Then your argument that you can select the cheapest media at any time is flawed! That adds a new constraint on all further DVD players I will ever buy!
Burning both is not the answer I was looking for. Which format is the best (technically) is the answer I was looking for.
1xDVD is 1385 KB/s so technically, 8x is more like 11080 KB/s (10.8MB/s). If you look at the latest hard drives (ATA 100), you'll see a max throughput of around 30MB/s. That does mean that burning at 8X will basically drain your system out of its resources... It would be like burning a CD at 72X (not 72X MAX). Don't try to start photoshop!
Dude, you either need to buy a brain, or just learn how to read the story!!!
1) We don't know which format will "prevail". The point of the story is to point out that we don't care which format will prevail. Say I'm buying DVD- and in a few years DVD+ prevail. What have I lost? In a few years I'll buy another burner anyways, so my old DVD- burner is dead anyways. All the DVDs I burned will still play.
Why should I care which format will prevail?
2) Sometimes one format doesn't work in a DVD/etc. player, but the other will. Well, a lot more players play DVD- than DVD+. I really doubt that a lot of players play DVD+ but not DVD-, but might be possible, granted.
3) Sometimes one of the formats has cheaper media. This point is valid, but you're really saving peanuts here, you have to admit! Unless you burn TONS of DVDs of course...
4) Why NOT be able to burn both? If you answer to why? by why not? you're younger and more immature that I thought. Sometimes, there is just no point being able to burn both.
Slashdot Mirror
Just a small post to notify you that no lawsuit will "effect" mozilla. Some might "affect" it however.
Have a nice day.
There is a huge difference between living in a teepee and not living under a high tension line. Living in a teepee is doing a HUGE concession on you quality of life. Not living under a high tension line is not. What is the freaking big deal? Why don't no one get it? If you are to choose between two houses, why not taking the one not under a high tension line? You have nothing to loose.
I'm not saying, take no risk. But rather measure them. Why taking a risk for no reason? Even if the risk is small, or tiny?
Can you take your 1958 Chevy to a Chevy dealer?
Yes dammit! yes!
Don't try to compare things that were not meant to be. Of course you can bring your 1958 Chevy to a Chevy dealer. Granted, depending on your dealer, you'll get laugh at, but my guess is that most of them will at least redirect you to a more proper place, if they don't take it themselves.
I cannot say the same with my old Amstrad PC1512.
Man, in the glass example, you can't take both !! ;-)
Anyways, my point is: If in doubt between two houses, if you like them equally and one has a high tension line just over it, then just go with the other one.
Of course, it might be worse for other factors, but you get to decide with what you know, as always.
Whatever, I think (hope?) you got the idea. Plus, I hate replying to AC...
The question is: Is there a point in living under a high tension power line?
Even if there is, let's say, a 3% risk of all this stuff to be true, what is the point in taking this risk? Life is at sake in this matter! There is plenty of other houses around! It's not like you're refusing to do something cool or something...
Plus, you will hardly find any relevant statistics about that. People move very often, and if there is any bad effect from it, it is clearly long term. In the village I was mentionning, only the old people (That have lived under the line for 50+ years) were affected, not everyone. And only one specific part of the village (The higher part) where the lines were very close from the houses.
I don't care about proving it. I life my life the way I want. If one day they prove to me that there is no risk, I'll gladly go and live under a high-tension power line. Until then, when in doubt between two houses, one of which being a "potential" risk, I'll go with the safe one. Maybe stupid.
Think about this one: I give you two glasses of water. One looks clean, the other one looks yellowish. But I garantee you that the yellowish one is as safe as the other one. However, you may choose freely either one of them. Are you going to go with the yellowish water? You would be crazy.
Why taking this risk - as small as it may be - when you have equivalent other alternatives ?
I remember some news in france a while ago, where a little village was suing EDF (French version of PG&E, but belong to the government) because they came up with a statistics that leukemia rates were just 1200% higher than anywhere else in France... Scary. Of course, it might just have been a hoax.
Ready to bet your life on the fact that it was? I am not. Let's say there is a 10% chance that these guys were right. Would I risk my life and the ones of my family just because the house in question is a little nicer than another one? No thanks.
I basically think you've got to reorder your priorities. Mine is order this way: Life first. House second. TV/Computer third.
Should I say it? yes? allright. Cretin.
Might it occur to you that I might not be an american, and hence, haven't been exposed in my young age to this beautifull culture that against all odds, generated a narrow-minded cretin like you?
This post was interesting anyways. You always assume you've seen the stupidiest post ever. It is always helpfull to remind people that stupidity has no limit.
"Should there be a reason to believe that code that comes from a variety of people around the world would be higher-quality than from people who do it professionally? ..."
Linux people are geeks, that focus on technology (not even mentionning that they might be professionals themselves). Microsoft people are professionals, driven by marketing.
Hence, from a technological standpoint, Linux/OSS is more likely to be/become superior than any Microsoft product.
From a marketing standpoint, Microsoft will always be ahead of Linux.
But... some other people are doing the marketting job on top of linux. That's what we call distros. So eventually, they'll bring to Linux the only remaining area in which Microsoft excell: Marketing.
What does that mean?
Maybe it has built-in speakers. But you can still copy your music, with a decent microphone. What's next?
Giving that the first one is obviously Chinese, I doubt it...
The point is taken for the backup part. It's just that I've heard so many people saying that DVD (+ and -) is just not reliable that I'm still a little reluctant to burn that for a backup purpose.
;-)
In this case, the combo makes sense, but you're still saving pennies
Care to say more?
Well, not exactly... he specified that the IDE drive was the drive he wanted to upgrade, wo it must have been the drive on which his email lived before, hence a huge fragmentation.
Now to test on his old server, he copies the files over. To test on his new SCSI HDD, he also copies his directory over.
Voila! Huge fragmentation on the IDE drive, no frag on both SCSI drives.
Smiking Crack Hmmm ?
For starters, it's hard to put that many IDE drives on a single machine.
No it's not, and you seem to know it because you mention it later: ATA-RAID card
Once you do, you will start running out of PCI slots, or PCI bandwidth in a hurry (running out of PCI bandwidth is a good thing in one sense, but only if you are actually utilizing it well).
on the PC Mobo architecture, both IDE(SATA) and SCSI controllers are placed on the same PCI bus. So they obviously share the same PCI bandwidth. Did I miss anything?
You could move to a ATA-RAID card, which would save you some slots, but that starts to get into the SCSI price range.
Such a card cost between $50 and $100. While a IDE 100GB HDD cost $100 vs. $500 for a SCSI one. I'm not even mentionning the SCSI controller. So you say that $150 is at the same price range than $500+. Fine.
Putting extra RAM in the machine is not really fair.
Why not? I have $500 to spend on a 100GB HDD. If I choose IDE, I sitll have $400 to spare. Can't I get a better Mobo, more RAM, anything?
You normally buy enough RAM for your applications, not for spare buffering (at least on my databases that's the case, spare RAM there is a waste, because normally writes are sync'ed, or you have two copies, one in the DB cache, and one in the filesystem cache), so for most of my I/O performance needs, extra RAM is relatively wasteful.
For HDD writes, RAM is useless. For reading, it could be usefull, don't you think? So it might depend on your needs...
Dude: 7 minutes vs 28 seconds. That's more than 1:14!!!
You will need a hell of a RAID array to beat that! Not mentionning that a RAID-0 array is just lowering the lifetime of your whole array (one disk crashes you loose all the data), while a RAID-1 array will reduce the write time. And please, let's not go to RAID-5 to have a factor of 14x in read times...
Well, as a French guy, I can tell you it is not. French government is really that bad, stupid and irresponsible.
One of the argument for a combo burner is that you can get the cheapest media at any time. It is flawed by nature. If I do that, then I'll end up having DVD-R and DVD+R burned. That will dictate one thing that I don't want: That all DVD-players I'll ever buy will have to support both formats.
So the price argument doesn't count as a "free benefit", right?
The second argument is that I can choose what media to burn on on a case-to-case basis. I don't want to ask myself the question "ok, should I burn that on a DVD- or a DVD+" every time I burn a DVD!!! I'm going to go insane.
So we get to the point that even if I buy a combo drive, I will have to make that decision on DVD- or DVD+. In that respect, the "buy a combo" sentence doesn't answer my question.
I didn't ask "Which burner should I buy" but "Which technology should I commit to". If I buy a combo, I restrict my players choice to players that play both. It is a tradeoff, not a "Go for it, you have nothing to loose"!
My own experience. I live in california where it gets really hot in the summer. If I leave a CD in my car (Let's say all the time) which is in the sun all day long, my 16xCD is just gone in about a year. 1X burned CDs lasts usually around 2-3 years.
Note that "the faster the worse" is not true, because CDs burned at 4X with my old Yamaha 4x2x6 are the worst ones. But still 16X CDs are gone faster than 1X CDs with my new burner. The numbers might not be accurate because I didn't do a "test" really, I just happenned to notice it.
The effect on CD-RW is even worse. And the sun doesn't play in there, because they live inside my house.
Dude, there is drawbacks in being able to burn both formats! Let's say I buy this combo burner and buy the cheapest DVD*R out there every time I need some. Then I end up burning both DVD+R and DVD-R, which limit me to buy all my DVD players with the constraint that they MUST support both formats. So I probably don't want to do that. Then your argument that you can select the cheapest media at any time is flawed! That adds a new constraint on all further DVD players I will ever buy!
Burning both is not the answer I was looking for. Which format is the best (technically) is the answer I was looking for.
1xDVD is 1385 KB/s so technically, 8x is more like 11080 KB/s (10.8MB/s). If you look at the latest hard drives (ATA 100), you'll see a max throughput of around 30MB/s. That does mean that burning at 8X will basically drain your system out of its resources... It would be like burning a CD at 72X (not 72X MAX). Don't try to start photoshop!
Dude, you either need to buy a brain, or just learn how to read the story!!!
1) We don't know which format will "prevail".
The point of the story is to point out that we don't care which format will prevail. Say I'm buying DVD- and in a few years DVD+ prevail. What have I lost? In a few years I'll buy another burner anyways, so my old DVD- burner is dead anyways. All the DVDs I burned will still play.
Why should I care which format will prevail?
2) Sometimes one format doesn't work in a DVD/etc. player, but the other will.
Well, a lot more players play DVD- than DVD+. I really doubt that a lot of players play DVD+ but not DVD-, but might be possible, granted.
3) Sometimes one of the formats has cheaper media.
This point is valid, but you're really saving peanuts here, you have to admit! Unless you burn TONS of DVDs of course...
4) Why NOT be able to burn both?
If you answer to why? by why not? you're younger and more immature that I thought. Sometimes, there is just no point being able to burn both.