I've had several crashes over the years with Windows XP but the files, data and system files were never corrupted.
In linux it seems that file systems are not very resilient, and the least crash can corrupt your files.
Is NTFS such a good well designed file system compared to linux file systems ?
Linux supports a wide array of filesystems. Which ones have you used? I have used ext3 and ext4 and have never run into file corruption problems. Both of those are journaling filesystems. Journaling filesystems helps prevent corruption in the even of power failure.
Beside the filesystem, one other possibility for corrupted files is a bad hard drive. I know someone who reinstalled Windows on his desktop on a regular basis because key files would go missing or get corrupted. I took a look at it and found out that he simply had a bad hard drive. After getting a new one, he didn't have anymore problems.
Why hasn't someone created 911 video chat for mobile phones yet. Such a feature could be life saving. Rather than someone having to explain how bad the wounds are and what is happening, they can show the dispatcher and EMTs. The dispatcher can give better advice to the victim or victim's friend and even have quick videos on how to complete the action. Meanwhile, the EMTs can use the video feed to better figure out the best course of action before they get on site. If nothing else, a face is probably more reassuring than just a voice when you have an emergency.
However, there is one salient point to remember about offering a 'net censorship service: if you filter content for users, you lose Common Carrier Immunity.
I was talking about home network level filtering. The business would sell its users a router loaded with the software and subscription to the whitelist database. The ISP would still be a common carrier. It might be wise for a ISP to simply partner with a separate company for the filtering options in order to avoid losing Common Carrier Immunity.
Each airline simply needs their own terminals and security lines at the airport. I don't know why the airport owner would want to get involved after that.
I always wondered why I have never seen a business/organization that offers consumers a verified whitelist and filters accordingly. They could sell routers with their filtering software loaded. If the administrator of the home network wants access to a site that is not whitelisted for the chosen categories, they type in their credentials to open up the site for their home and the system automatically sends an anonymous review request to the company. Eventually, an employee pulls the request off the queue and reviews it. They categories the site and update the system. These updates would regularly get sent to all the home routers. That way, the next guy doesn't have to go through the trouble of opening up a site that is perfectly legitimate for the categories he has checked in his home router. The router could even be designed to filter by internal IP address, MAC, or keys. Plenty of parents would pay for this.
I would wonder what else they are blocking. Also, I would rather have full control of my internet connection. If I want to filter my internet, I will do it myself.
There are plenty of good reason to treat them different. For one, back in the day, most criminals could not start their own telephone network. It would have been pretty much impossible to run a telephone system for any real distance without getting caught. The internet; however, has lowered the barrier significantly. It is fairly easy to run your own services. It would not even take that much capital. If you start wiretapping websites, emails, VOIP, etc., you will have a system that only has the ability to wiretap innocents and criminals that would probably been caught anyway through other means since they are idiots. The smart criminals would have no trouble at all avoiding such a system. Since almost nothing is gained, why risk the abuse of such a system? The internet is designed to be open and resilient not tappable. The only way to keep the criminals from starting their own services is to complete change the structure of the internet. Such a thought I am completely against.
Who will demand better paid screeners? It doesn't happen.
They don't have to demand higher paid screeners. They would most likely demand higher quality screeners. In order to get high quality screeners to agree to work for them, the airlines would have to be willing to pay the screeners accordingly. It is the same reason why you can't hire an experience software developer to build an app for you at minimum wage. You might; however, get a CS student who wants to pad their resume to do so.
A private firm will also more than likely have actual hiring standards.
No, that means a private company will pay the least it possibly can to hire employees.
While this is usually true, the customers can drive up the amount that is considered "the least". If an airline finds that their market is wants highly trained screeners and the their customers are willing to pay for it, the airline will most likely start using highly trained screeners.
Private companies lose business to other companies when they provide bad goods and services. What is the recourse for bad goods and services from the government? There would be more accountability with privately funded screeners not less. If you don't feel safe unless your balls are groped, use an airline that believes that is what their customers want; otherwise, use an airline that believes that their customers should not have to be irradiated or intrusively searched. If screeners become privatized, I wonder if we will see slogans such as "If you can't cope, we grope!" or "We don't irritate or irradiate!".
It is possible. Unlikely that they are that far are ahead of everyone else, but possible. The government usually gets the cool toys before everyone else. Hell, some of the first programmable computers were created using government resources.
I think it would be safe to assume he had more sensitive information around. While the NSA might be able to crack the encryption, many times, sensitive information has a half-life. If the files did hold secret plans, it doesn't help the NSA if by the time they decrypted them, the plans have already been executed.
It is the similarities are that important here. Why should someone who sells network access to a lot of people have less responsibility than those who give it away to a few. If I believed that either party was responsible, I would argue the reverse! People should only be responsible for their kids' actions and there own actions. Not someone else's.
I somehow doubt the NSA has back doors into the open source solutions out there. That said, they might have some secret piece of technology that can break all current encryption. Perhaps quantum computers are further along than the public knows.
The whole "stop buying fuel" thing is just stupid. They know you don't have any real choice. It is like saying you are going to boycott food. As for everything else, the majority's belief in your statement is what keeps it from happening. Also, it doesn't take any organization. People just have to be willing to potentially waste their vote in order to vote for the thing they really want.
I'd like to see a comparison outcomes for NFL players and their childhood peers. I.e., If the alternative to "volunteering" to significantly degrade their health and life expectancy is massive and disproportionate unemployment and/or incarceration.
That is a ridiculous jump. Even if that was true, you are saying there are only two paths: NFL or poverty/incarceration. Taking away one would force the person down the other.
If I don't trust someone to do things that I don't want them to, I shouldn't be letting them on my network.
If ISPs did this, no one would have interest. If an ISP was fined for every time someone else transferred bomb threats, child porn, or copyrighted material; they would go out of business by the next day. You are forgetting the only real different between the Internet and a home network is scale.
Slashdot Mirror
An honest question :
I've had several crashes over the years with Windows XP but the files, data and system files were never corrupted. In linux it seems that file systems are not very resilient, and the least crash can corrupt your files. Is NTFS such a good well designed file system compared to linux file systems ?
Linux supports a wide array of filesystems. Which ones have you used? I have used ext3 and ext4 and have never run into file corruption problems. Both of those are journaling filesystems. Journaling filesystems helps prevent corruption in the even of power failure.
Beside the filesystem, one other possibility for corrupted files is a bad hard drive. I know someone who reinstalled Windows on his desktop on a regular basis because key files would go missing or get corrupted. I took a look at it and found out that he simply had a bad hard drive. After getting a new one, he didn't have anymore problems.
The Microsoft Research team is reporting a 90-100% accuracy rate for SoundWave, even in noisy environments.
I wonder if they tested the system when multiple of these computers were in the same room.
Why hasn't someone created 911 video chat for mobile phones yet. Such a feature could be life saving. Rather than someone having to explain how bad the wounds are and what is happening, they can show the dispatcher and EMTs. The dispatcher can give better advice to the victim or victim's friend and even have quick videos on how to complete the action. Meanwhile, the EMTs can use the video feed to better figure out the best course of action before they get on site. If nothing else, a face is probably more reassuring than just a voice when you have an emergency.
Why does it have to be nuclear? Why are you so intent on using nuclear, even if better options exist ...
What better option?
However, there is one salient point to remember about offering a 'net censorship service: if you filter content for users, you lose Common Carrier Immunity.
I was talking about home network level filtering. The business would sell its users a router loaded with the software and subscription to the whitelist database. The ISP would still be a common carrier. It might be wise for a ISP to simply partner with a separate company for the filtering options in order to avoid losing Common Carrier Immunity.
Each airline simply needs their own terminals and security lines at the airport. I don't know why the airport owner would want to get involved after that.
I always wondered why I have never seen a business/organization that offers consumers a verified whitelist and filters accordingly. They could sell routers with their filtering software loaded. If the administrator of the home network wants access to a site that is not whitelisted for the chosen categories, they type in their credentials to open up the site for their home and the system automatically sends an anonymous review request to the company. Eventually, an employee pulls the request off the queue and reviews it. They categories the site and update the system. These updates would regularly get sent to all the home routers. That way, the next guy doesn't have to go through the trouble of opening up a site that is perfectly legitimate for the categories he has checked in his home router. The router could even be designed to filter by internal IP address, MAC, or keys. Plenty of parents would pay for this.
I would wonder what else they are blocking. Also, I would rather have full control of my internet connection. If I want to filter my internet, I will do it myself.
That's the government for you.
Funny thing is that works a lot of the time.
The fact is that there is a strong negative correlation between criminal activity and IQ.
The tendrils of the criminal world tend to have low IQs. The ones that we can't catch are the brains and they tend to have higher IQs.
There are plenty of good reason to treat them different. For one, back in the day, most criminals could not start their own telephone network. It would have been pretty much impossible to run a telephone system for any real distance without getting caught. The internet; however, has lowered the barrier significantly. It is fairly easy to run your own services. It would not even take that much capital. If you start wiretapping websites, emails, VOIP, etc., you will have a system that only has the ability to wiretap innocents and criminals that would probably been caught anyway through other means since they are idiots. The smart criminals would have no trouble at all avoiding such a system. Since almost nothing is gained, why risk the abuse of such a system? The internet is designed to be open and resilient not tappable. The only way to keep the criminals from starting their own services is to complete change the structure of the internet. Such a thought I am completely against.
Who will demand better paid screeners? It doesn't happen.
They don't have to demand higher paid screeners. They would most likely demand higher quality screeners. In order to get high quality screeners to agree to work for them, the airlines would have to be willing to pay the screeners accordingly. It is the same reason why you can't hire an experience software developer to build an app for you at minimum wage. You might; however, get a CS student who wants to pad their resume to do so.
A private firm will also more than likely have actual hiring standards.
No, that means a private company will pay the least it possibly can to hire employees.
While this is usually true, the customers can drive up the amount that is considered "the least". If an airline finds that their market is wants highly trained screeners and the their customers are willing to pay for it, the airline will most likely start using highly trained screeners.
Private companies lose business to other companies when they provide bad goods and services. What is the recourse for bad goods and services from the government? There would be more accountability with privately funded screeners not less. If you don't feel safe unless your balls are groped, use an airline that believes that is what their customers want; otherwise, use an airline that believes that their customers should not have to be irradiated or intrusively searched. If screeners become privatized, I wonder if we will see slogans such as "If you can't cope, we grope!" or "We don't irritate or irradiate!".
Also, you can argue a point without resorting to name calling.
It is possible. Unlikely that they are that far are ahead of everyone else, but possible. The government usually gets the cool toys before everyone else. Hell, some of the first programmable computers were created using government resources.
(although undoubtedly they are so far on the cutting edge of capability that they are probably in danger of falling off)
That made me laugh. Death by tech overdose. :)
I think it would be safe to assume he had more sensitive information around. While the NSA might be able to crack the encryption, many times, sensitive information has a half-life. If the files did hold secret plans, it doesn't help the NSA if by the time they decrypted them, the plans have already been executed.
It is the similarities are that important here. Why should someone who sells network access to a lot of people have less responsibility than those who give it away to a few. If I believed that either party was responsible, I would argue the reverse! People should only be responsible for their kids' actions and there own actions. Not someone else's.
I somehow doubt the NSA has back doors into the open source solutions out there. That said, they might have some secret piece of technology that can break all current encryption. Perhaps quantum computers are further along than the public knows.
But it doesn't hurt.
The whole "stop buying fuel" thing is just stupid. They know you don't have any real choice. It is like saying you are going to boycott food. As for everything else, the majority's belief in your statement is what keeps it from happening. Also, it doesn't take any organization. People just have to be willing to potentially waste their vote in order to vote for the thing they really want.
All NFL players volunteer to participate.
I'd like to see a comparison outcomes for NFL players and their childhood peers. I.e., If the alternative to "volunteering" to significantly degrade their health and life expectancy is massive and disproportionate unemployment and/or incarceration.
That is a ridiculous jump. Even if that was true, you are saying there are only two paths: NFL or poverty/incarceration. Taking away one would force the person down the other.
If I don't trust someone to do things that I don't want them to, I shouldn't be letting them on my network.
If ISPs did this, no one would have interest. If an ISP was fined for every time someone else transferred bomb threats, child porn, or copyrighted material; they would go out of business by the next day. You are forgetting the only real different between the Internet and a home network is scale.
By extension, that would make the ISP responsible for all the traffic that goes through their networks.