All of the mirrors show only pictures. There's absolutely no writeup about what kind of drives are used or anything.
Does anyone know where the writeup is about how this was done precisely, e.g. with what kind of case, drives, and at what cost... (For example, how does it compare to a super-redundant xraid solution from Apple?)
Thanks. P.S. I enjoyed the bottom of the last picture: Filesystem Size Used Avail /dev/1vm/site 1.8T 33M 1.7T
I'm sorry, what's RSS? I assume that's a unit of memory, but I can't find it...
Re:Issue as I see it...
on
RAMdisk RAID?
·
· Score: 1
"extremely fast" -- understatement of the century! Try saturated frontside bus:).
Just don't forget that it's volatile. Imagine this though:
There's a battery involved, and whenever you disconnect from power it warns you, beep-beep, that it's going to lose power, indicating that for hours and hours and hours (hey! I need to be plugged in!). And get this: THEN, with the last hour of the battery, it powers up an IDE hard-drive and dumps itself to the battery before finally dying!.
Whenever you next plug it in it says: Sorry, you'll have to wait until I load memory from the hard-drive (AND get enough power back to dump to hard-drive again, in case you unplug me just as finish doing so).
A poster above asked, "Why don't you just put all that RAM in his/her system, or, if the RAM is maxed out, buy a better motherboard."
Problem is, there's only so much RAM a "normal" motherboard can refer to, before you have to start doing ugly (and expensive, slower) hacks. 2^32 = 4294967296 bytes, or precisely 4 gigabytes.
After that, you're on your own.
So, my question is: Why don't we have "RAM banks" that interface over SCSI, firewire, or even IDE?
If it's firewire, it could even be external.
A RAM chip isn't that large. Why isn't there a slick "drive" about the size of an iBook that holds 40-60 modules.
I'm not sure I understand why PC800 is about the same price for 256 MB modules, but an order of magnitude more for 512 MB, while PC3200 (apparently the fastest of the lot?) is almost the same price as what I quoted for PC133.
There never has been a serious challenger to Google and there never will be -- I'm on the East Coast and I can hardly breathe from the vacuum of the hard computer science brain drain...
okay. But my question was why people pay so much for text editing anyway. Tell me about why you payed $89 for a text editor... (I'm not saying it is or isn't worth it -- I just want to know how you use it).
REALLY?? I mean, I know lots, and lots of Geeks use BBEdit (to the point that people say it's good form to install [I suppose the free version of] it even on systems you won't be using it yourself on), but I never imagined it was so expansively great that someone would shell out that much money. It's a text editor! (Isn't it?)
Can I hear from anyone who uses BBEdit -- what does it hvae that makes it so amazing?
it doesn't work for me (I have a clickable middle scroll wheel on a USB mouse -- right-clicking and scrolling work fine, but not middle-clicking). Are you sure you aren't thinking of navigator under windows or linux?
If you're talking about Mac OS X, can you tell me how you got middle-clicking working?
PLEASE remember to allow us to bookmark groups of tabs!
I'm writing on Safari now, but if I wanted to get serious work done I would have to open Chimera (where all my bookmarks are, almost all of them tab-groups).
...to ask whether anyone has gotten FreeNet working over Mac OS X. I started the daemon, but localhost's port 8081 (or whatever it is) wouldn't respond.
Has anyone had luck interfacing with the program after starting it?
The only, only thing you can expect to learn is who's communicating with whom [and when / how much information is exchanged] ( you probably know this already ) , and what protocol they're using ( it's probably unbreakable ).
Chances are, if you are intercepting an encrypted stream, you are intercepting an unbreakably encrypted stream.
Perhaps you are thinking that if only you knew what protocol the stream is using, you might look online and see if that protocol has been cracked.
Don't waste your time.
The chances are approximately 0 that the stream you are intercepting is using a protocol that has been cracked, or that it is using a keyspace you can brute-force for under a few hundred thousand dollars, or in under a matter of years.
Sorry -- you have a higher chance (almost infinitely higher -- as I said, the chance you will succeed in what you are asking to do is approximately 0) of port-scanning the machine at the source or the destination and 0wning it than you do of breaking the stream.
I don't say this to mean you should give up -- just that you're phrasing your question wrong. Don't discount the 0wning venue of attack.
For every million desktop machines communicating over TCP/IP, only a matter of a few dozen will have 0 exploitable security weaknesses. (However, most security weaknesses are unknown.)
Find out what kind of machine is at the source and the destination, then 0wn one of them. Chances are almost overwhleming that it's possible, if not with a remote exploit, then through social engineering. (Send an attachment that will be opened on either end of the communication, or induce either end to visit a web page in a browser that is exploitable (=, basically, every browser except Lynx).
If they browse with Netscape or Internet Explorer, chances are almost overwhelming that they can be owned.
It's not that hard to get someone to browse to a certain page, if you know anything at all about who that person is.
Back to your original question: gone are the days that protocols were breakable by any hotshot think tank. Today only implementations are, and rarely at the level you're trying to address. Don't break the code -- break into the system.
software update has asked me a few times if I want 10.2.4. Uh, why? I have dozens of windows open, and uptime in the weeks. (This is an iBook -- are you on one? Open terminal and type 'uptime'.).
I read over the improvements, and there's nothing I need right now.
...that a resolution "endorsed by computer scientists" does not propose an instant run-off system, whereby each voter ranks the candidates in order of her preference. (She can vote traditionally by ranking only one candidate 1, and no one higher).
The benefits are enormous. The system is much less open to manipulation, and it is basically the only way for minority voices to be heard.
One cannot overemphasize the fact that today a rational voter will always choose the lesser of two evils, without considering candidates that are not evil, based on the mathematics governing her vote.
Let me repeat this: If you believe that a vote for the democratic candidate is a vote for evil, and you believe that a vote for the republican candidate is a vote for evil, and there is a third candidate whose views you agree with precisely, and who you think could fulfill the office perfectly were she elected (but there is zero probability of this, as there was zero probability of Nader's being elected) then under today's system your only rational choice is to forego your preference for the third candidate and vote instead for the lesser of the two evils. That is, you will be rationally impelled to vote for a candidate with whom you do not agree, when a minority candidate exists who could better represent you.
This is no less than mathematical extortion.
You can either participate in a two-party system, or "throw your vote away." It is, in effect, a mathematical equivalent of having a voting booth in which you are to choose betweeen seven candidates by putting your token either into the republican ballot box, the democrtatic ballot box, or the trash.
Everyone who voted for Nader in our last presidential election placed their vote in the trash, since there was zero probability of Nader's winning. (Exception: vote trading.)
Read more about instant run-offs here, or do a google search.
You forgot to mention tabs, so I will.
on
Safari Beta Updated
·
· Score: 0, Interesting
As in, the lack of them. I am now using Chimeron, which CRASHES on me, closing ALL MY WINDOWS, about once every thirty hours of surfing.
I use it because I can open new tabs in it, and bookmark groups of tabs.
There is NO other reason. I severely dislike chimeron because: 1. It's painfully slow with many windows open. 2. It's a memory hog. 3. As I mentioned, it CRASHES from time to time, losing my contexts, which sometimes include a great deal of surfing, which I then must painfully reconstruct using the history.
But I need tabs. I cannot work without tabs.
You don't need to allow all users to use tabs. Just hide them, as chimeron (navigator) does until you open them explicitly. Heck, you could have an 'advanced' preferences option "present option of opening new tab upon command-clicking (right clicking) link".
But I CANNOT use Safari while it doesn't have tabs. It has features I love. It's small and robust. But it doesn't have a feature that I cannot surf efficiently without.
If you saw my tab-group bookmarks, you'd understand.
i was going to look it up, but figured, whatever. I've only ever done raid-5, with various numbers of disks (3-5, but only at work). i thought I remembered that raid-0 meant "not really raid" in terms of the idea that you get no speed increase, only redundancy. i.e. I thought I remembered the mnemonic: raid-0: Not really RAID, just mirroring.
Rather, it means "not really raid" in terms of, it's not actually (r)edundant -- you only get a speed increase (from striping) without redundancy. (Obviously,t his interpretation makes more sense than my lapse in memory). Because I didn't stop for a second to look up my usage (as, obviously, I would before building a raid configuration), no fewer than FIVE people corrected me (no one wrote anything else) on this one number (writing zero for one), including one who said that my bad luck is surpassed only by my stupidity. (Not knowing that MIRRORED raid is raid 1 and STRIPED raid is raid 0, off the top of your head, you STUPID goddamn MORON. I hope you get FIRED for your gross INCOMPTENCE. YOU, sir/madam, are a professional LIABILITY.)
Yeesh.
So, yeah: I love slashdot.
I love you I love you I love you.
Re:I Want This For All Apps
on
Tabs for Safari
·
· Score: 3, Informative
command-tilde switches between open windows of a given app. As long as you only have 3-4 that's okay, but the point is that each of those 3-4 safari windows should be able to hold potentially dozens of tabs.
Ever since those big drives started dropping like flies (IBM ones I think? It was all over slashdot) I vowed that if my primary computer ever becomes a desktop system again, it will have at least mirrored RAID. (I just mean raid-0).
I've had way too many hard drives fail in my lifetime. (Three).
I mean, these days any schmo with an iBook goes/Applications/Utilities/Disk Copy, clicks File | New | Blank Image and chooses a name for the file, the desktop for its location, and AES 128 for encryption (recommended).
Then just unmount the drive image (drag it in the finder from your desktop to the trash -- which will turn into an eject button) before you leave your computer for the day, or whenever somebody's using it who shouldn't have access to the contents of that drive -- even if they're using your account, cuz' you're letting them sit at your computer.
Double-clicking the drive image prompts for a password (don't check 'save to keyring') before mounting it and once more you're good to go.
You don't even ever have to turn your computer off.
Um, yeah. (Eyes dart around the room looking for a way not to receive a bunch of off-topic downmods. Um....)
Wait! Got it!
"You know, this wouldn't happen if hard-drives were encrypted by default, and the OS needed a password from the HARDWARE (or a hash) such that on bootup if your configuration is different radically from what it was before, your valuable information becomes unreachable.
This still leads to the absurd conclusion that people are somehow making progress by running around in circles (breaking and replacing windows). A clearer analogy might be paying half of the population to dig holes in the ground and the other half to fill them in again -- by your reasoning, the economy is somehow better off than if they just left the ground undisturbed, which is preposterous on its face. No, because we haven't been counting "breaking the windows" (ie digging holes in the ground) as work.
The supposition is: If suddenly holes appeared in everyone's back yard, or suddenly everyone's windows broke, or suddenly people needed to pay money for a service that has no reason for being (license costs for things that should be out of copyright), it stimulates the economy.
Obviously, if everyone fixes their OWN windows, fills their OWN ditches, creates their OWN artwork instead of doing an intermediate task to give them money with which to buy the goods/labor associated with each of these, the argument breaks down.
The reason the argument stands (as I see it) is that people DON'T fill their own ditches: they do whatever the economy will pay them to do.
So, yes, it would be better for the ecnomy if suddenly holes appeared in everyone's back-yards, that needed to be manually filled, if only 10% of the population does the filling, and the rest PAY for the filling by doing something intermediate, depending on their skills and on the market. (ie what goods and labors are in demand).
I never said the work had any value. The value isn't in window-repairing or art-making: The value is what someone does to GET someone to do the (ridiculous, meaningless) work.
If I want a window repaired, I need to CREATE something that the economy NEEDS (people will exchange goods and labor for).
If I want to license something from the public domain (pay extortionist media cartels), I need to CREATE something that the economyh NEEDS.
It's just as ridiculous to have to license something that ought to be in the public domain as it is to have to pay someone to repair a window that should not be broken.
All the same, it could very well true that making a law that requires people to replace their windows even when nothing is wrong with them, in the same way that making a law that requires people to pay for content that is (ought to be) in the public domain, COULD STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.
Your ditch-filling argument doesn't work: If suddenly holes appeared in backyards everywhere, but MOST people didn't feel like filling it themselves, and also MOST people, instead of paying for hole-filling INSTEAD of paying for something else, proactively CREATE goods and services they never would have if they didn't have a need for hole-filling.
You're right about paying someone to fill a ditch instead of paying for something else INSTEAD. You're NOT right about paying someone to fill a ditch from money that you CREATE (through intermediate goods and services) that you never would have if you hadn't had a need to have your ditch filled.
In other words, the argument I'm trying to consider is this: Perhaps if entertainment were free, people wouldn't feel a need to CREATE as much worth to sell into the economy. The total value of the economy would go down.
In this same way, mafia extortionists could be GOOD for the economy: If a business has to pay $1000/month protection fees, then even if the proprietor might have been happy to work only ten hours/a week, living off of $800/month, which is all she or he needs to be a happy person, this way, she or he needs to work 22.5 hours/week, to make the SAME $800. There are then 1000 dollars being spent by the mafia that WOULDN"T EXIST otherwise. The economy is NOT a zero-sum game.
What do you think?
Re:What the People In Charge don't mention,
on
Copyright Rumblings
·
· Score: 1
The difference is between "working extra" and "paying for windows instead of for something else".
The broken window argument for helping the economy is NOT wrong when we really are talking about "extra" work. Allow me to illustrate:
Imagine every city in the world has several acres of housing in which retired artists live. They don't produce art anymore, and live off of potatoes that they grow in their basement, supplemented by rainwater they collect. Their only entertainment is free entertainment. (Things out of copyright.)
Now, the way things are now, about once a year they produce a work of art, which they sell for $x. That $x allows them to buy the media on which their out-of-copyright entertainment comes.
Except for that one work of art per year, they DO NOT WORK.
Now someone comes along and breaks all their windows. That is, imagining these acres of housing in which retired artists live all over the country, ALL of these artists now suddenly produce artistic output, which they pump into the economy, in exchange for glass and labor. The people buying the works of art, of course, also are doing work so they will have money for it.
In this case (working extra), breaking windows stimulates the economy in EXACTLY THE SAME way as if the artists had to produce more than one work of art a year to pay the MEDIA EXTORTIONISTS for what should be free, out-of-copyright material.
Do you see?
Whenever we're talking about working EXTRA, the window argument is NOT broken. (So to speak.)
I mean, it's quite simple if you consider the corner case. Imagine everyone in America lives at home and nobody needs anything. They grow potatoes in their basement and drink rainwater. They don't even read books. Imagine if people were able to subsist on nothing but potatoes, and could choose to sleep all day.
Imagine if EVERY American chose to sleep all day - if they don't happen to have homes, they do it outside. No one needs any goods or services. People cease passing each other money - everyone just goes home. The banks don't care how much money is in what account, because they just go home.
Now what would that do for the economy?
Now imagine if everyone suddenly realized that they needed windows! Not everyone wants to manufacture glass, make windows out of it, or install it, so we would go right back to a division of labor, with people finding something they CAN sell, and then selling it in exchange for a currency they can use to get the service they (now) need.
The window-breaking argument is perfectly valid in those cases in which the window-breaking results in participation in the economy (money-making) that would not happen otherwise. Not money-spending (that would happen either way.) Money-making.
The only question is justice.
Obviously, I don't consider window-breaking JUST. I also don't consider what the media cartels do JUST.
The only question I posed was, Is it possible that this helps the economy?
To be perfectly honest with you, if there were no copyright today then except for food and rent I would hardly spend a dime. (Just production cost on books; CD's).
Re:What the People In Charge don't mention,
on
Copyright Rumblings
·
· Score: 1
re: your broken window argument.
Except that if today people need to work 100 hours a year to finance their entertainment, then if entertainment were free those 100 hours of work would be instead 100 hours of leisure. Work PRODUCES money (or its equivalent.) If you didn't have to work to pay money into an economy in exchange for something that has 0 production cost, there would be less work done in the world. Your argument would be true if people worked 8 hours a day, for the highest wage they could get doing work they liked to do, no matter what. But why would someone work eight hours a day when something minimal on the side finances near infinite happiness. (Through lots of entertainment and learning).
My question is, could it be that it's ultimately bad for there to be less work done in the world? (If enough entertainment were free that nobody needed to work extra hours in a capitalist corporation to pay for more.)
I'm sorry, I'm not the opposite of a capitalist. I really can't talk about what I "am" because my very uttering of the word would discredit me immediately. It's a modified form of the word, actually, but it would be a new -- just think chomsky, k?
Slashdot Mirror
...unix is the "unix" that we used to write u*nix for or un*x, etc, because it was supposed to be trademarked or something.
it's not *BDS, including OS X.
It's not Linux.
And, honestly, when was the lastt ime you heard anything about Unix, proper.
I agree: unix is dead.
All of the mirrors show only pictures. There's absolutely no writeup about what kind of drives are used or anything.
/dev/1vm/site 1.8T 33M 1.7T
Does anyone know where the writeup is about how this was done precisely, e.g. with what kind of case, drives, and at what cost... (For example, how does it compare to a super-redundant xraid solution from Apple?)
Thanks.
P.S. I enjoyed the bottom of the last picture:
Filesystem Size Used Avail
I'm sorry, what's RSS? I assume that's a unit of memory, but I can't find it...
"extremely fast" -- understatement of the century! Try saturated frontside bus :).
Just don't forget that it's volatile. Imagine this though:
There's a battery involved, and whenever you disconnect from power it warns you, beep-beep, that it's going to lose power, indicating that for hours and hours and hours (hey! I need to be plugged in!). And get this: THEN, with the last hour of the battery, it powers up an IDE hard-drive and dumps itself to the battery before finally dying!.
Whenever you next plug it in it says: Sorry, you'll have to wait until I load memory from the hard-drive (AND get enough power back to dump to hard-drive again, in case you unplug me just as finish doing so).
Am I a genius or what,DiSKiLLeR?
A poster above asked, "Why don't you just put all that RAM in his/her system, or, if the RAM is maxed out, buy a better motherboard."
Problem is, there's only so much RAM a "normal" motherboard can refer to, before you have to start doing ugly (and expensive, slower) hacks. 2^32 = 4294967296 bytes, or precisely 4 gigabytes.
After that, you're on your own.
So, my question is: Why don't we have "RAM banks" that interface over SCSI, firewire, or even IDE?
If it's firewire, it could even be external.
A RAM chip isn't that large. Why isn't there a slick "drive" about the size of an iBook that holds 40-60 modules.
The RAM itself, according to this week's memory prices is $80 for 512 MB PCC133 ECC, which means 5 gigabytes (more than enough probably for whatever work you want to do -- remember, this is volatile memory, so you can't store anything permanent on it!) is only $800 for the chips themselves.
I'm not sure I understand why PC800 is about the same price for 256 MB modules, but an order of magnitude more for 512 MB, while PC3200 (apparently the fastest of the lot?) is almost the same price as what I quoted for PC133.
Anyone?
oldest ever or oldest as of Monday? (Has an American died at an older age before?)
...makes me wodner why the hell I should care.
There never has been a serious challenger to Google and there never will be -- I'm on the East Coast and I can hardly breathe from the vacuum of the hard computer science brain drain...
okay. But my question was why people pay so much for text editing anyway. Tell me about why you payed $89 for a text editor... (I'm not saying it is or isn't worth it -- I just want to know how you use it).
Thanks, Golias.
REALLY??
I mean, I know lots, and lots of Geeks use BBEdit (to the point that people say it's good form to install [I suppose the free version of] it even on systems you won't be using it yourself on), but I never imagined it was so expansively great that someone would shell out that much money. It's a text editor! (Isn't it?)
Can I hear from anyone who uses BBEdit -- what does it hvae that makes it so amazing?
it doesn't work for me (I have a clickable middle scroll wheel on a USB mouse -- right-clicking and scrolling work fine, but not middle-clicking). Are you sure you aren't thinking of navigator under windows or linux?
If you're talking about Mac OS X, can you tell me how you got middle-clicking working?
Thanks.
remember to allow us to bookmark tab-groups.
Tabbed bookmarks are live-and-die for me.
PLEASE remember to allow us to bookmark groups of tabs!
I'm writing on Safari now, but if I wanted to get serious work done I would have to open Chimera (where all my bookmarks are, almost all of them tab-groups).
Thanks a million for listening to us!
...to ask whether anyone has gotten FreeNet working over Mac OS X. I started the daemon, but localhost's port 8081 (or whatever it is) wouldn't respond.
Has anyone had luck interfacing with the program after starting it?
The only, only thing you can expect to learn is who's communicating with whom [and when / how much information is exchanged] ( you probably know this already ) , and what protocol they're using ( it's probably unbreakable ).
Chances are, if you are intercepting an encrypted stream, you are intercepting an unbreakably encrypted stream.
Perhaps you are thinking that if only you knew what protocol the stream is using, you might look online and see if that protocol has been cracked.
Don't waste your time.
The chances are approximately 0 that the stream you are intercepting is using a protocol that has been cracked, or that it is using a keyspace you can brute-force for under a few hundred thousand dollars, or in under a matter of years.
Sorry -- you have a higher chance (almost infinitely higher -- as I said, the chance you will succeed in what you are asking to do is approximately 0) of port-scanning the machine at the source or the destination and 0wning it than you do of breaking the stream.
I don't say this to mean you should give up -- just that you're phrasing your question wrong. Don't discount the 0wning venue of attack.
For every million desktop machines communicating over TCP/IP, only a matter of a few dozen will have 0 exploitable security weaknesses. (However, most security weaknesses are unknown.)
Find out what kind of machine is at the source and the destination, then 0wn one of them. Chances are almost overwhleming that it's possible, if not with a remote exploit, then through social engineering. (Send an attachment that will be opened on either end of the communication, or induce either end to visit a web page in a browser that is exploitable (=, basically, every browser except Lynx).
If they browse with Netscape or Internet Explorer, chances are almost overwhelming that they can be owned.
It's not that hard to get someone to browse to a certain page, if you know anything at all about who that person is.
Back to your original question: gone are the days that protocols were breakable by any hotshot think tank. Today only implementations are, and rarely at the level you're trying to address. Don't break the code -- break into the system.
Hope this helps.
software update has asked me a few times if I want 10.2.4.
Uh, why? I have dozens of windows open, and uptime in the weeks. (This is an iBook -- are you on one? Open terminal and type 'uptime'.).
I read over the improvements, and there's nothing I need right now.
C'mon people. Get with BSD style.
Thanks for the link! I will now say "Condercet" versus "Instant Run-Off" in any future speeches I make.
Quite useful!
...that a resolution "endorsed by computer scientists" does not propose an instant run-off system, whereby each voter ranks the candidates in order of her preference. (She can vote traditionally by ranking only one candidate 1, and no one higher).
The benefits are enormous. The system is much less open to manipulation, and it is basically the only way for minority voices to be heard.
One cannot overemphasize the fact that today a rational voter will always choose the lesser of two evils, without considering candidates that are not evil, based on the mathematics governing her vote.
Let me repeat this: If you believe that a vote for the democratic candidate is a vote for evil, and you believe that a vote for the republican candidate is a vote for evil, and there is a third candidate whose views you agree with precisely, and who you think could fulfill the office perfectly were she elected (but there is zero probability of this, as there was zero probability of Nader's being elected) then under today's system your only rational choice is to forego your preference for the third candidate and vote instead for the lesser of the two evils. That is, you will be rationally impelled to vote for a candidate with whom you do not agree, when a minority candidate exists who could better represent you.
This is no less than mathematical extortion.
You can either participate in a two-party system, or "throw your vote away." It is, in effect, a mathematical equivalent of having a voting booth in which you are to choose betweeen seven candidates by putting your token either into the republican ballot box, the democrtatic ballot box, or the trash.
Everyone who voted for Nader in our last presidential election placed their vote in the trash, since there was zero probability of Nader's winning. (Exception: vote trading.)
Read more about instant run-offs here, or do a google search.
As in, the lack of them.
I am now using Chimeron, which CRASHES on me, closing ALL MY WINDOWS, about once every thirty hours of surfing.
I use it because I can open new tabs in it, and bookmark groups of tabs.
There is NO other reason.
I severely dislike chimeron because:
1. It's painfully slow with many windows open.
2. It's a memory hog.
3. As I mentioned, it CRASHES from time to time, losing my contexts, which sometimes include a great deal of surfing, which I then must painfully reconstruct using the history.
But I need tabs. I cannot work without tabs.
You don't need to allow all users to use tabs. Just hide them, as chimeron (navigator) does until you open them explicitly. Heck, you could have an 'advanced' preferences option "present option of opening new tab upon command-clicking (right clicking) link".
But I CANNOT use Safari while it doesn't have tabs.
It has features I love. It's small and robust. But it doesn't have a feature that I cannot surf efficiently without.
If you saw my tab-group bookmarks, you'd understand.
i was going to look it up, but figured, whatever. I've only ever done raid-5, with various numbers of disks (3-5, but only at work). i thought I remembered that raid-0 meant "not really raid" in terms of the idea that you get no speed increase, only redundancy. i.e. I thought I remembered the mnemonic: raid-0: Not really RAID, just mirroring.
Rather, it means "not really raid" in terms of, it's not actually (r)edundant -- you only get a speed increase (from striping) without redundancy. (Obviously,t his interpretation makes more sense than my lapse in memory).
Because I didn't stop for a second to look up my usage (as, obviously, I would before building a raid configuration), no fewer than FIVE people corrected me (no one wrote anything else) on this one number (writing zero for one), including one who said that my bad luck is surpassed only by my stupidity. (Not knowing that MIRRORED raid is raid 1 and STRIPED raid is raid 0, off the top of your head, you STUPID goddamn MORON. I hope you get FIRED for your gross INCOMPTENCE. YOU, sir/madam, are a professional LIABILITY.)
Yeesh.
So, yeah: I love slashdot.
I love you I love you I love you.
command-tilde switches between open windows of a given app. As long as you only have 3-4 that's okay, but the point is that each of those 3-4 safari windows should be able to hold potentially dozens of tabs.
Ever since those big drives started dropping like flies (IBM ones I think? It was all over slashdot) I vowed that if my primary computer ever becomes a desktop system again, it will have at least mirrored RAID. (I just mean raid-0).
I've had way too many hard drives fail in my lifetime. (Three).
And I'm only 19.
What a sad, sad, world.
So, yeah.
It was encrypted, right?
/Applications/Utilities/Disk Copy, clicks File | New | Blank Image and chooses a name for the file, the desktop for its location, and AES 128 for encryption (recommended).
I mean, these days any schmo with an iBook goes
Then just unmount the drive image (drag it in the finder from your desktop to the trash -- which will turn into an eject button) before you leave your computer for the day, or whenever somebody's using it who shouldn't have access to the contents of that drive -- even if they're using your account, cuz' you're letting them sit at your computer.
Double-clicking the drive image prompts for a password (don't check 'save to keyring') before mounting it and once more you're good to go.
You don't even ever have to turn your computer off.
Um, yeah. (Eyes dart around the room looking for a way not to receive a bunch of off-topic downmods. Um....)
Wait! Got it!
"You know, this wouldn't happen if hard-drives were encrypted by default, and the OS needed a password from the HARDWARE (or a hash) such that on bootup if your configuration is different radically from what it was before, your valuable information becomes unreachable.
Oh wait, XP does this already.."
So that's why Circuit City recently stopped stocking VHS.
I'll be looking into my local outlet every few days, I can tell you that much...
Vindication at last!!!
This still leads to the absurd conclusion that people are somehow making progress by running around in circles (breaking and replacing windows). A clearer analogy might be paying half of the population to dig holes in the ground and the other half to fill them in again -- by your reasoning, the economy is somehow better off than if they just left the ground undisturbed, which is preposterous on its face.
No, because we haven't been counting "breaking the windows" (ie digging holes in the ground) as work.
The supposition is: If suddenly holes appeared in everyone's back yard, or suddenly everyone's windows broke, or suddenly people needed to pay money for a service that has no reason for being (license costs for things that should be out of copyright), it stimulates the economy.
Obviously, if everyone fixes their OWN windows, fills their OWN ditches, creates their OWN artwork instead of doing an intermediate task to give them money with which to buy the goods/labor associated with each of these, the argument breaks down.
The reason the argument stands (as I see it) is that people DON'T fill their own ditches: they do whatever the economy will pay them to do.
So, yes, it would be better for the ecnomy if suddenly holes appeared in everyone's back-yards, that needed to be manually filled, if only 10% of the population does the filling, and the rest PAY for the filling by doing something intermediate, depending on their skills and on the market. (ie what goods and labors are in demand).
I never said the work had any value. The value isn't in window-repairing or art-making: The value is what someone does to GET someone to do the (ridiculous, meaningless) work.
If I want a window repaired, I need to CREATE something that the economy NEEDS (people will exchange goods and labor for).
If I want to license something from the public domain (pay extortionist media cartels), I need to CREATE something that the economyh NEEDS.
It's just as ridiculous to have to license something that ought to be in the public domain as it is to have to pay someone to repair a window that should not be broken.
All the same, it could very well true that making a law that requires people to replace their windows even when nothing is wrong with them, in the same way that making a law that requires people to pay for content that is (ought to be) in the public domain, COULD STIMULATE THE ECONOMY.
Your ditch-filling argument doesn't work: If suddenly holes appeared in backyards everywhere, but MOST people didn't feel like filling it themselves, and also MOST people, instead of paying for hole-filling INSTEAD of paying for something else, proactively CREATE goods and services they never would have if they didn't have a need for hole-filling.
You're right about paying someone to fill a ditch instead of paying for something else INSTEAD. You're NOT right about paying someone to fill a ditch from money that you CREATE (through intermediate goods and services) that you never would have if you hadn't had a need to have your ditch filled.
In other words, the argument I'm trying to consider is this: Perhaps if entertainment were free, people wouldn't feel a need to CREATE as much worth to sell into the economy. The total value of the economy would go down.
In this same way, mafia extortionists could be GOOD for the economy: If a business has to pay $1000/month protection fees, then even if the proprietor might have been happy to work only ten hours/a week, living off of $800/month, which is all she or he needs to be a happy person, this way, she or he needs to work 22.5 hours/week, to make the SAME $800.
There are then 1000 dollars being spent by the mafia that WOULDN"T EXIST otherwise. The economy is NOT a zero-sum game.
What do you think?
The difference is between "working extra" and "paying for windows instead of for something else".
The broken window argument for helping the economy is NOT wrong when we really are talking about "extra" work. Allow me to illustrate:
Imagine every city in the world has several acres of housing in which retired artists live. They don't produce art anymore, and live off of potatoes that they grow in their basement, supplemented by rainwater they collect. Their only entertainment is free entertainment. (Things out of copyright.)
Now, the way things are now, about once a year they produce a work of art, which they sell for $x. That $x allows them to buy the media on which their out-of-copyright entertainment comes.
Except for that one work of art per year, they DO NOT WORK.
Now someone comes along and breaks all their windows. That is, imagining these acres of housing in which retired artists live all over the country, ALL of these artists now suddenly produce artistic output, which they pump into the economy, in exchange for glass and labor. The people buying the works of art, of course, also are doing work so they will have money for it.
In this case (working extra), breaking windows stimulates the economy in EXACTLY THE SAME way as if the artists had to produce more than one work of art a year to pay the MEDIA EXTORTIONISTS for what should be free, out-of-copyright material.
Do you see?
Whenever we're talking about working EXTRA, the window argument is NOT broken. (So to speak.)
I mean, it's quite simple if you consider the corner case. Imagine everyone in America lives at home and nobody needs anything. They grow potatoes in their basement and drink rainwater. They don't even read books. Imagine if people were able to subsist on nothing but potatoes, and could choose to sleep all day.
Imagine if EVERY American chose to sleep all day - if they don't happen to have homes, they do it outside. No one needs any goods or services. People cease passing each other money - everyone just goes home. The banks don't care how much money is in what account, because they just go home.
Now what would that do for the economy?
Now imagine if everyone suddenly realized that they needed windows! Not everyone wants to manufacture glass, make windows out of it, or install it, so we would go right back to a division of labor, with people finding something they CAN sell, and then selling it in exchange for a currency they can use to get the service they (now) need.
The window-breaking argument is perfectly valid in those cases in which the window-breaking results in participation in the economy (money-making) that would not happen otherwise. Not money-spending (that would happen either way.) Money-making.
The only question is justice.
Obviously, I don't consider window-breaking JUST. I also don't consider what the media cartels do JUST.
The only question I posed was, Is it possible that this helps the economy?
To be perfectly honest with you, if there were no copyright today then except for food and rent I would hardly spend a dime. (Just production cost on books; CD's).
re: your broken window argument.
Except that if today people need to work 100 hours a year to finance their entertainment, then if entertainment were free those 100 hours of work would be instead 100 hours of leisure. Work PRODUCES money (or its equivalent.) If you didn't have to work to pay money into an economy in exchange for something that has 0 production cost, there would be less work done in the world. Your argument would be true if people worked 8 hours a day, for the highest wage they could get doing work they liked to do, no matter what. But why would someone work eight hours a day when something minimal on the side finances near infinite happiness. (Through lots of entertainment and learning).
My question is, could it be that it's ultimately bad for there to be less work done in the world? (If enough entertainment were free that nobody needed to work extra hours in a capitalist corporation to pay for more.)
I'm sorry, I'm not the opposite of a capitalist. I really can't talk about what I "am" because my very uttering of the word would discredit me immediately. It's a modified form of the word, actually, but it would be a new -- just think chomsky, k?