> I want to... live a lifetime where everyone in the world is a moron compared to me.
You really don't. Dealing with morons is frustrating. When everyone is a moron (regarding the subject at hand), every interaction is frustrating.
I don't *excuse* Linus's temperament when it comes to kernel goofs, but I do understand it. There are a couple of very specific topics that I've studied and researched for decades. When I have discuss to those topics with people who have other specialties, and let them have input and make decisions that are within my realm of expertise but not theirs, it can be very frustrating. Because Linus is the expert on the Linux kernel, and he's a perfectionist, I understand it may get very frustrating to continually deal with mistakes that are, to him, stupid mistakes.
> I don't know how a car would know, but a human would be able to see... Basically, humans can look at the totality of contextual clues and put it together.
Sunday night, a car honking at me clued me in that *something* was wrong. I therefore looked around for clues, and saw the types of clues that you listed.
This could have advantages over NFC and similar short-range communications. Someone can read an NFC chip in gour wallet by simply standing behind you in a crowded place. This would require direct contact with skin, rather than only being nearby.
Your smart watch could authenticate you to a fingerprint reader, with little risk that someone standing next to you could eavesdrop, because the signal goes through your flesh, not through the air.
By their words, most often. Kim Dotcom sent emails saying they needed to get the newest Hollywood movies on the site faster. Kick Ass Torrents had several categories listed on it's front page - "TV Shows", "Movies", etc, no category for "Linux Distributions". Therefore it's quite clearly intended for torrents of TV shows, no of Linux distributions. HRC instructed her staff to remove the classification markings from files before sending them via email.
The claim is that breaking security is cheaper than creating security. For $5,000, I can buy a steel safe reinforced with concrete. For $25, I can rent a saw designed for cutting steel and concrete.
Breaking things has always been cheaper than building them, and probably always will be. As you hinted, that's the wrong comparison. The comparison that drives decisions is: A) The cost to avoid a breech (the cost of security at a given level). Vs B) The cost of having a breech (reputation, down time, etc).
In almost all cases, the lowest total cost is a certain degree of security, neither ignoring security nor obsessing about it. You put a lock on your door, you don't normally hire armed guards to guard the door.
One of the best and cheapest approaches to information security is to reduce the cost of a breech - don't store plaintext passwords, don't store credit card numbers and social security numbers of you don't abaolutely have to. They can't steal what you don't have.
Certainly Chernobyl is the worst nuclear accident that has ever happened.
About 60 people died due to exposure after Chernobyl. Compare 300 for a plane crash. It's estimated that due to increased cancer risk another 4,000 might eventually die sooner than they otherwise would have. I don't think that's the worst-case scenario that scares some people. I think they are worried about something that has never happened, but theoretically could with older reactor designs.
That question was answered in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. We did put hydroelectric dams in most of the places where geography makes it attractive to do so.
There's a lot to be said good about hydro-electric, and some bad. Like nuclear, it provides steady, reliable, clean energy, and like nuclear a worst-case accident could be really bad. The collapse of the Banqiao hydroelectric dam killed about a quarter million people, for example.
Differences between hydro and nuclear include: Political feasibility: until recently, it was fashionable in environmental circles to bash nuclear and promote hydro. That's changing.
Scalablity/growth: As mentioned, most of the good hydro spots are already in use. New nuclear plants can be built in many places.
Safety record: While both could theoretically cause many causalties in worst-case scenario, hydro actually does have such accidents occassionally, and a million people have actually been affected. Nuclear has had three pretty scary close calls, but nothing has actually happened like Banqaio etc have for hydro.
You may recall 10 days ago, on Sept 20th, Krebs suffered a major DDOS. It's widely believed that was in retaliation for writing about a professional DDOS company on Sept 8 and Sept 12. He wrote about people who do DDOS for a living, and twelve days later he got hit.
> Days later when the cover story was something else?
Yeah, twelve days later, in the case of the most recent major attack, and that's from someone who was already set up to do DDOS. If someone else decides to do a DDOS, it might well take them two weeks or more to get the botnet reserved and paid for and coordinate everything.
Since it takes a major professional DDOS company twelve days to coordinate and launch an attack, that's evidence that these attackers probably did NOT manage one just a few hours after the Trump story. In all likelihood, they aren't hundreds of times faster than VDOS and friends, so they would have need more than 12 days, not less than one day.
I have no doubt this story got the most attention in the mainstream press. The attack was also a few days after a Julian Assange story, for example, and Clinton/DNC stories (we know hackers have an interest in the DNC.) Might some hacker respond to a Julian Assange story? Maybe. There's simply no evidence at all as to what the hacker's motive was.
It's also *very* possible that the attack has absolutely nothing to do with that particular story. The site an probably a hundred stories or more just in the past week alone. So far I've heard zero evidence that the attack has anything at all with that particular story or any story about any political jerkoff.
Today, MH is mostly relevant for the same reason pkzip is - it's storage format is used by many, many other programs. Most imap servers and email clients can use MH format and the derivative Maildir to store mail. So it's kind of like the zip of email storage.
To see just HOW innovative this idea is, MH had folders, and even subfolders, by 1979. Also, certainly by 1990 procmail was automatically putting mail into different folders. I have no doubt other commenters will point out much earlier implementations.
On the other hand, UPS and FedEx are deisgned for any customer to send any type of package from anywhere to anywhere, using any of many services. Amazon's will be designed for only Amazon to send packages from the places they choose, and they need not deliver everywhere - they can have UPS deliver to small towns for them. Amazon doesn't need to ship those cookies grandma made for you and she's shipping from Tiny Town, Colorado, paying by check. Amazon Shipping will have one customer sending packages, and sending only from Amazon's warehouses, using the standardized box sizes that Amazon chooses.
There may be enough differences that although Amazon can't make a better retail shipping company, they can make one that works better FOR AMAZON, for some packages. You may have seen the back of a UPS truck looks a bit chaotic because there are all these different sizes and shapes of boxes. On Amazon trucks, they'll all fit neatly and efficiently on the shelf, with one medium box being exactly same the same size as two small boxes.
No doubt some Palestinians got a raw deal in 1967. Now their grandchildren are bombing schoolkids, hospitals, and paramedics. Neither group is the good guy in that conflict, if you look at it with any intellectual honesty.
As far as "most people concerned", voting suggests that most in the US support Israel, though some support the Palestinians (most of *those* do in fact prattle on about the Jews' conspiracies to take over the US), and some see that two groups killing each other is just bad all around.
It seems to be the nature of warriors, Social Justice warriors and most other kinds, to always take sides. In this case, they've picked the Israeli side. I find that neither surprising nor inconsistent with their core world view that the world is full of weak victims who need a SJW to ride in on a white horse and save them.
In fact it uses multiple hashes, called checksums in rsync lingo. It uses a very fast rolling checksum to quickly identify the parts that HAVE changed. It uses a more accurate, but slower checksum to verify the parts that have NOT changed.
>> >You know, insurance, a system that covers unexpected high costs that I can't readily cover out-of-pocket.
> Yes, that's what we have in Canada.
I'm specifically saying NOT we you describe in Canada, NOT this:
>> Did you know that hospitals and clinics in Canada don't even have POS systems or cash registers?
Insurance covers unexpected high costs, NOT routine, day-to-day expenses. Consider home insurance. You use home insurance if your house burns down, or floods, not to change a light bulb or fix a leaky faucet.
I can afford a $25 visit, for a flu shot or whatever. That's a routine, expected day-to-day expense. I used to pay for $25 and that was that. Now, the flu shot goes through multiple levels of huge bureaucracies, so it has a total cost of $75-$150 an it takes three months for the doctor to get paid.
I think you misunderstood. GP simply said that ADL is a bunch of social justice warriors. That's entirely correct, according to ADL. He didn't "blame" the SJWs for anything, he said ADL is SJWs, and it is, they say they are. A few references from the ADL web site for you:
Cable is actually a type of DSL, but here we'll talk about phone-line DSL. There are many, many versions of phone-line DSL. IDSL, CDSL, and DSL Lite can provide about *up to* 1 Mbps for absolutely no more than 18,000 feet (2.5 miles). VDSL has an "up to" bandwidth of 51.84 Mbps, with a maximum distance of 1,000 feet.
So basically you have a DSL connection between your house and the end of the block. At the end of the street, your DSL connection ends at a DSLAM, where it's connected to a segment shared by you and your neighbors.
The SLAs have three costs associated with them. As you suggested, they may have higher repair and maintenance costs, because problems get fixed faster. Rarely, the ISP may have to pay out on the SLA. More importantly, bandwidth usage is very peaky - demand is much higher than average for short periods. If I have an X Mbps line, I can use that to provide X Mbps to 1 customer 100% of the time, or X Mbps to 10 customers 99% of the time, or X Mbps to 40 customers 90% of the time. In other words, the ISP can serve many more customers per fiber if congestion is allowed occasionally, during peak periods. There's a big cost difference between "you'll have 10 Mbps dedicated to you all the time" and "you'll have 10 Mbps most of the time, but it may slow a bit during peak hours".
I have no doubt that your cap is set lower than what you'd like it to be. Hopefully you have the option to upgrade by paying $10 more to get the plan you want, or a new competitor entering your market.
> arbitrarily and artificially low, compared to the available bandwidth.
During peak times, available bandwidth is in fact pretty well saturated at many points. If it weren't, ISPs would be stupid - they would have spent money on equipment that they didn't need, and aren't fully using. The ISPs aren't stupid - their marketing departments may be a bit slimy, but their engineers know how to provision a network.
> SOME employers. Many do not. Or many only partially pay.
There's a little law here in the US that says employers MUST provide health coverage for full-time employees. If you're not aware of the Affordable Care Act, no need to try to discuss the finer details with you.
What kinda pissed me off about ACA is that I preferred health INSURANCE, not a comprehensive health *plan*. You know, insurance, a system that covers unexpected high costs that I can't readily cover out-of-pocket. ACA basically made health *insurance* illegal, now everyone has to pay for "the system" to handle a $25 flu shot, doubling it's cost.
If both the source and destination are local disks, copying the file is faster than comparing, so it copies. Over a network, comparing byes is faster (unless your network is faster than your disks), so it when used over a network it compares bytes by default.
> I've only tinkered with it in VM environments but I would like to give it a spin as an offsite backup sync solution.
In all my years on Slashdot I've never done this, but since you said you would like to give something like this a spin:
We've spent many years developing a pretty bad ass offsite backup solution based on this concept. One reason it's bad ass is that I found some cool ways to make it very efficient (cheap). You can boot up your backups live in our DC and SSH to them (or however you like to access them, they are exact replicas of the original, other than IP address). If your need is enough that you might be interested in spending about $30 / month for a really nice solution, let me know.
Of course if that "large amounts of data" of data is multiple files, rsync doesn't have to read the unchanged the files. It can see by the file modification time and size that it matches the remote copy.
You mentioned ZFS, and offsite backup. For our business grade offsite backup and hot spare, we use LVM (logical volume manager). If you have a very large file, particularly a drive image, you'll get significantly better performance by creating it as a logical volume rather than as a file* on another filesystem, and LVM can easily list the blocks that have changed since the last snapshot. In fact, you don't even have to list the blocks, you can just transfer the copied-on-write parts directly because they are stored as a separate volume.
* A logical volume is of course still a file, because on *nix everything is a file. Whether you call it/home/ubuntu.img or/dev/mapper/images/ubuntu, it's a file either way, and you can do file things with it. By skipping the step of putting on ext4 filesystem underneath to hold this large file, you have less indirection and better performance, as well as enhanced data recovery options if bad things happen. (Having a filesystem inside another filesystem tends to confuse some data recovery operations).
Slashdot Mirror
> I want to ... live a lifetime where everyone in the world is a moron compared to me.
You really don't. Dealing with morons is frustrating. When everyone is a moron (regarding the subject at hand), every interaction is frustrating.
I don't *excuse* Linus's temperament when it comes to kernel goofs, but I do understand it. There are a couple of very specific topics that I've studied and researched for decades. When I have discuss to those topics with people who have other specialties, and let them have input and make decisions that are within my realm of expertise but not theirs, it can be very frustrating. Because Linus is the expert on the Linux kernel, and he's a perfectionist, I understand it may get very frustrating to continually deal with mistakes that are, to him, stupid mistakes.
nm
> I don't know how a car would know, but a human would be able to see ... Basically, humans can look at the totality of contextual clues and put it together.
Sunday night, a car honking at me clued me in that *something* was wrong. I therefore looked around for clues, and saw the types of clues that you listed.
This could have advantages over NFC and similar short-range communications. Someone can read an NFC chip in gour wallet by simply standing behind you in a crowded place. This would require direct contact with skin, rather than only being nearby.
Your smart watch could authenticate you to a fingerprint reader, with little risk that someone standing next to you could eavesdrop, because the signal goes through your flesh, not through the air.
> How do you provably establish someone's intent?
By their words, most often. Kim Dotcom sent emails saying they needed to get the newest Hollywood movies on the site faster. Kick Ass Torrents had several categories listed on it's front page - "TV Shows", "Movies", etc, no category for "Linux Distributions". Therefore it's quite clearly intended for torrents of TV shows, no of Linux distributions. HRC instructed her staff to remove the classification markings from files before sending them via email.
The claim is that breaking security is cheaper than creating security. For $5,000, I can buy a steel safe reinforced with concrete. For $25, I can rent a saw designed for cutting steel and concrete.
Breaking things has always been cheaper than building them, and probably always will be. As you hinted, that's the wrong comparison. The comparison that drives decisions is:
A) The cost to avoid a breech (the cost of security at a given level).
Vs
B) The cost of having a breech (reputation, down time, etc).
In almost all cases, the lowest total cost is a certain degree of security, neither ignoring security nor obsessing about it. You put a lock on your door, you don't normally hire armed guards to guard the door.
One of the best and cheapest approaches to information security is to reduce the cost of a breech - don't store plaintext passwords, don't store credit card numbers and social security numbers of you don't abaolutely have to. They can't steal what you don't have.
Certainly Chernobyl is the worst nuclear accident that has ever happened.
About 60 people died due to exposure after Chernobyl. Compare 300 for a plane crash. It's estimated that due to increased cancer risk another 4,000 might eventually die sooner than they otherwise would have. I don't think that's the worst-case scenario that scares some people. I think they are worried about something that has never happened, but theoretically could with older reactor designs.
I'm not nearly as poetic as you, but:
> To hydro, or not to hydro--that is the question
That question was answered in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. We did put hydroelectric dams in most of the places where geography makes it attractive to do so.
There's a lot to be said good about hydro-electric, and some bad. Like nuclear, it provides steady, reliable, clean energy, and like nuclear a worst-case accident could be really bad. The collapse of the Banqiao hydroelectric dam killed about a quarter million people, for example.
Differences between hydro and nuclear include:
Political feasibility: until recently, it was fashionable in environmental circles to bash nuclear and promote hydro. That's changing.
Scalablity/growth: As mentioned, most of the good hydro spots are already in use. New nuclear plants can be built in many places.
Safety record: While both could theoretically cause many causalties in worst-case scenario, hydro actually does have such accidents occassionally, and a million people have actually been affected. Nuclear has had three pretty scary close calls, but nothing has actually happened like Banqaio etc have for hydro.
You may recall 10 days ago, on Sept 20th, Krebs suffered a major DDOS. It's widely believed that was in retaliation for writing about a professional DDOS company on Sept 8 and Sept 12. He wrote about people who do DDOS for a living, and twelve days later he got hit.
> Days later when the cover story was something else?
Yeah, twelve days later, in the case of the most recent major attack, and that's from someone who was already set up to do DDOS. If someone else decides to do a DDOS, it might well take them two weeks or more to get the botnet reserved and paid for and coordinate everything.
Since it takes a major professional DDOS company twelve days to coordinate and launch an attack, that's evidence that these attackers probably did NOT manage one just a few hours after the Trump story. In all likelihood, they aren't hundreds of times faster than VDOS and friends, so they would have need more than 12 days, not less than one day.
I have no doubt this story got the most attention in the mainstream press. The attack was also a few days after a Julian Assange story, for example, and Clinton/DNC stories (we know hackers have an interest in the DNC.) Might some hacker respond to a Julian Assange story? Maybe. There's simply no evidence at all as to what the hacker's motive was.
It's also *very* possible that the attack has absolutely nothing to do with that particular story. The site an probably a hundred stories or more just in the past week alone. So far I've heard zero evidence that the attack has anything at all with that particular story or any story about any political jerkoff.
Today, MH is mostly relevant for the same reason pkzip is - it's storage format is used by many, many other programs. Most imap servers and email clients can use MH format and the derivative Maildir to store mail. So it's kind of like the zip of email storage.
To see just HOW innovative this idea is, MH had folders, and even subfolders, by 1979. Also, certainly by 1990 procmail was automatically putting mail into different folders. I have no doubt other commenters will point out much earlier implementations.
> Innovative ... sorts email into stacks, such as "travel," "photos," "files," "shopping,"
So .. folders? Very innovative.
You make a good point.
On the other hand, UPS and FedEx are deisgned for any customer to send any type of package from anywhere to anywhere, using any of many services. Amazon's will be designed for only Amazon to send packages from the places they choose, and they need not deliver everywhere - they can have UPS deliver to small towns for them. Amazon doesn't need to ship those cookies grandma made for you and she's shipping from Tiny Town, Colorado, paying by check. Amazon Shipping will have one customer sending packages, and sending only from Amazon's warehouses, using the standardized box sizes that Amazon chooses.
There may be enough differences that although Amazon can't make a better retail shipping company, they can make one that works better FOR AMAZON, for some packages. You may have seen the back of a UPS truck looks a bit chaotic because there are all these different sizes and shapes of boxes. On Amazon trucks, they'll all fit neatly and efficiently on the shelf, with one medium box being exactly same the same size as two small boxes.
No doubt some Palestinians got a raw deal in 1967. Now their grandchildren are bombing schoolkids, hospitals, and paramedics. Neither group is the good guy in that conflict, if you look at it with any intellectual honesty.
As far as "most people concerned", voting suggests that most in the US support Israel, though some support the Palestinians (most of *those* do in fact prattle on about the Jews' conspiracies to take over the US), and some see that two groups killing each other is just bad all around.
It seems to be the nature of warriors, Social Justice warriors and most other kinds, to always take sides. In this case, they've picked the Israeli side. I find that neither surprising nor inconsistent with their core world view that the world is full of weak victims who need a SJW to ride in on a white horse and save them.
In fact it uses multiple hashes, called checksums in rsync lingo. It uses a very fast rolling checksum to quickly identify the parts that HAVE changed. It uses a more accurate, but slower checksum to verify the parts that have NOT changed.
>> >You know, insurance, a system that covers unexpected high costs that I can't readily cover out-of-pocket.
> Yes, that's what we have in Canada.
I'm specifically saying NOT we you describe in Canada, NOT this:
>> Did you know that hospitals and clinics in Canada don't even have POS systems or cash registers?
Insurance covers unexpected high costs, NOT routine, day-to-day expenses. Consider home insurance. You use home insurance if your house burns down, or floods, not to change a light bulb or fix a leaky faucet.
I can afford a $25 visit, for a flu shot or whatever. That's a routine, expected day-to-day expense. I used to pay for $25 and that was that. Now, the flu shot goes through multiple levels of huge bureaucracies, so it has a total cost of $75-$150 an it takes three months for the doctor to get paid.
I think you misunderstood. GP simply said that ADL is a bunch of social justice warriors. That's entirely correct, according to ADL. He didn't "blame" the SJWs for anything, he said ADL is SJWs, and it is, they say they are. A few references from the ADL web site for you:
http://blog.adl.org/tags/socia...
http://www.adl.org/education-o...
http://stlouis.adl.org/the-fut...
http://blog.adl.org/education/...
http://www.adl.org/education-o...
Cable is actually a type of DSL, but here we'll talk about phone-line DSL. There are many, many versions of phone-line DSL. IDSL, CDSL, and DSL Lite can provide about *up to* 1 Mbps for absolutely no more than 18,000 feet (2.5 miles). VDSL has an "up to" bandwidth of 51.84 Mbps, with a maximum distance of 1,000 feet.
So basically you have a DSL connection between your house and the end of the block. At the end of the street, your DSL connection ends at a DSLAM, where it's connected to a segment shared by you and your neighbors.
The SLAs have three costs associated with them. As you suggested, they may have higher repair and maintenance costs, because problems get fixed faster. Rarely, the ISP may have to pay out on the SLA. More importantly, bandwidth usage is very peaky - demand is much higher than average for short periods. If I have an X Mbps line, I can use that to provide X Mbps to 1 customer 100% of the time, or X Mbps to 10 customers 99% of the time, or X Mbps to 40 customers 90% of the time. In other words, the ISP can serve many more customers per fiber if congestion is allowed occasionally, during peak periods. There's a big cost difference between "you'll have 10 Mbps dedicated to you all the time" and "you'll have 10 Mbps most of the time, but it may slow a bit during peak hours".
I have no doubt that your cap is set lower than what you'd like it to be. Hopefully you have the option to upgrade by paying $10 more to get the plan you want, or a new competitor entering your market.
> arbitrarily and artificially low, compared to the available bandwidth.
During peak times, available bandwidth is in fact pretty well saturated at many points. If it weren't, ISPs would be stupid - they would have spent money on equipment that they didn't need, and aren't fully using. The ISPs aren't stupid - their marketing departments may be a bit slimy, but their engineers know how to provision a network.
> SOME employers. Many do not. Or many only partially pay.
There's a little law here in the US that says employers MUST provide health coverage for full-time employees. If you're not aware of the Affordable Care Act, no need to try to discuss the finer details with you.
What kinda pissed me off about ACA is that I preferred health INSURANCE, not a comprehensive health *plan*. You know, insurance, a system that covers unexpected high costs that I can't readily cover out-of-pocket. ACA basically made health *insurance* illegal, now everyone has to pay for "the system" to handle a $25 flu shot, doubling it's cost.
If both the source and destination are local disks, copying the file is faster than comparing, so it copies. Over a network, comparing byes is faster (unless your network is faster than your disks), so it when used over a network it compares bytes by default.
PS:
> I've only tinkered with it in VM environments but I would like to give it a spin as an offsite backup sync solution.
In all my years on Slashdot I've never done this, but since you said you would like to give something like this a spin:
We've spent many years developing a pretty bad ass offsite backup solution based on this concept. One reason it's bad ass is that I found some cool ways to make it very efficient (cheap). You can boot up your backups live in our DC and SSH to them (or however you like to access them, they are exact replicas of the original, other than IP address). If your need is enough that you might be interested in spending about $30 / month for a really nice solution, let me know.
Of course if that "large amounts of data" of data is multiple files, rsync doesn't have to read the unchanged the files. It can see by the file modification time and size that it matches the remote copy.
You mentioned ZFS, and offsite backup. For our business grade offsite backup and hot spare, we use LVM (logical volume manager). If you have a very large file, particularly a drive image, you'll get significantly better performance by creating it as a logical volume rather than as a file* on another filesystem, and LVM can easily list the blocks that have changed since the last snapshot. In fact, you don't even have to list the blocks, you can just transfer the copied-on-write parts directly because they are stored as a separate volume.
* A logical volume is of course still a file, because on *nix everything is a file. Whether you call it /home/ubuntu.img or /dev/mapper/images/ubuntu, it's a file either way, and you can do file things with it. By skipping the step of putting on ext4 filesystem underneath to hold this large file, you have less indirection and better performance, as well as enhanced data recovery options if bad things happen. (Having a filesystem inside another filesystem tends to confuse some data recovery operations).