Latinamerica declared itself a zone free of nuclear weapons many decades ago, as a consequence no nuclear weapons are pointed against our countries. If anything, that saved the ass of Argentina when they fought against the UK, a nuclear state. Had Argentina had WMDs, who knows if the war fought for the control of the Malvinas islands in the 80s would have been limited to conventional warfare.
The strategic importance of Latinamerica can't be denied, just remembre the Cuba misile crisis. My point is that Europe, being equally or even more important strategically could also decide to go neutral on the issue of nuclear weapons.
But when countries like the UK and Poland (amongst others) shamefully allow "rendition" of terrorism suspects and beg for the US to deploy missiles on their territories, well, there is little hope for Europe to stop being a board for the global monopoly game between RUssia and the US where European defense interests are decided in Washington and antgonized in Moscow.
You are not factoring his time and lack of service.
Risk is a cost that has to be covered, most of the people defending this simple solution are not factoring that hidden cost that has to be covered somehow if you are professional (spare parts, duplicate systems, downtime costs, etc).
Get all that factored and what looked like a good idea begins to stink a bit fishy. Unless you need a departamentla server with data that is not vital for your bussiness.
I will not point all the juicy ironies there, that is an exercise to the reader.
Anyway, conceding that there are no substantial differences between the different kind of disks when it comes to quality (yeah, right) you talk about predictive failure. Well I talk about a disk fucked.
Once it is fucked, I have hundreds of machines in which I need to do multiple activities.
Do I need to waste my time to change that disk, ensure it is mirrored, etc? No, I am a systems administrator, not a DRM (Disk Replacement Monkey). Big companies with hundreds of computers actually save money using a SAN, since specialist time can be focussed in higher level activities.
I do not want to have 3 copies of each important machine just to save $47000 per system (as if). The would just multiply the chances of something going wrong.
You truly believe that SAN providers are screwing over thei costumers (banks! the ones stingiest with money when you come to think about it) bu miserably fail to appreciate the environments and demands in which a SAN is a perfectly justifiable, cost efficient solution.
That Google developped their own SAN software (or equivalent) does not mean that SAN companies specialized in those services are redundnat.
Is that your only machine and alll your bussiness plan relies on it be up and running? Then yes, maybe you should plan for redundancy as you are saying.
Do you have 500 machines (or more) providing different services? THen you would be mad not to "outsource" the disk management to an specialist via SAN.
I keep my best (or more menaingful) pictures and throw all the rest away.
SInce I am not into design or something that needs access to a big archive of pictures, my bad photographs do not need to be stored forever.
As for music, todays software makes easy to check what one is actualy listening to, stuf I have never heard but that was dwonloaded or ripped because I could gets regularly removed, I only keep my fav music or stuff I go back to regularly.
As for movies, I have lets say 2 hours/day to watch TV and/or movies. That is no more than 8 movies a month or around 100 a year, and this without counting going to the cinema, etc. So I keep 100 movies at all time and once in a while I get rid of some. I just don't need them and most likely will never been watched again.
I happily survive with 160GB with plenty of space to spare.
With EMC I get full support for the storage solution. If a drive fails I don't have to diagnose it and I don't have to change it, all is done as part of the *service* they offer.
With your solution I have to waste my time diagnosing and replacing disks. With SAN solutions I do system administration and planning.
I do not want to be a disk replacing monkey (and when you have hundreds or thousends of computers, each with several disks, EMC is worth the price, you will have disks failing daily and the amount of time to deal with disk failures becomes substantial).
People that have not worked in big IT states forget that what is bought is not a machine but a service.
In other words, you are comparing apples and oranges.
I have used Linux professionally for 8 years, UNIX for 15.
I have knowledge of user interface design at post grad level.
I have tried the software and when it comes to configuration it is not intuitive. It does not follow a logic pattern and the more complicated settings are arcane to say the least.
What is necessary is to sit down and watch people installing and configuring the software, this will be enlightening.
For arcane configuration settings you need sensible defaults and on-screen help to clarify things. This reinforces the concepts and expedites configuration.
Only 10 year old kids think software has no political or social implications. Please grow up.
As for "those attitudes", what companies are doing is allowing people who "don't give a shit about patents or copyright" (your words) to install the softwae they need themselves, and then thay can take the responsibility for those actions, if any.
Given the completely mental state of copyright and patent law in the US it is only sensible that Linux distributors do not monkey around about this issue.
If you stick to free formats all works out of the box, and as soon as the respective patents expire, it will become a non issue anyway.
The artists are being ripped off now by the labels. This has been amply documented and you can o adn find this information if you care to do so.
In your "fast forward" pseudo-exercise I don't see any elelments of abuse from the guy running the servers, if anything the abusive ones would be the artists he has helped, the thing we can rescue from your crappy writting is that the guy with the computer and the artists are in a more equitative position in regards to each other.
Nowadays the artists are screwed over and over and yet some more (even the biog names that actually make some money, the immense majority make no money at all from recordings), while the labels get richer and richer irrespective of the luck or lack therof of their numbers.
You were doing so well and then, blam! You start to talk about things you don't know, and it shows. Badly.
In the XXth century orchestras playing classical music got *bigger*, not smaller. The demands of the likes of Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Mahler and many ohers (and here, I mean many, if you don't know them is not our fault).
Several important composers like Vivaldi were revived from literally nowhere thanks to recored music.
In the XXth century we had our Beethovens, Mozarts and Bachs. They were called Shostakovich, Prokofiev and Stravinsky (pretty much that would be their equivalent roles in classical music: the experimentalist, the one that consolidates a movement and the pioneer) and many others.
If you wanted to talk about dead professions related to music you should have tried other things, I don't know, trovateurs or viola da gamba players, but your example is so catastrophically stupid that it hurts. Classical music perfromances and composition are alive and well to this day, most towns in civilized countries will have at least one decent orchestra which in many ocassions pulls more people to concerts tha a professsional sports team does to matches.
ANd they should not treat us as potentail thieves, we are their costumers, and what the costumers are saying by droves is that they want music without DRM on demand.
Yes, people want the ease of use and convineince of P2P sharing networks, and yes, they may not want to pay for it.
The challenge is for the labels to square that circle, suing anybody with ears and a fucntioning auditory system is not a bussiness model, is a protection racket.
British industry is suffering because the strong pound make British exports expensive (we will have less tourists visiting the UK this year, the psichological point in which one pays $2.00 for a pound is weighing heavily on British industry).
Let the scientists play. They will bring us joys and worries.
Many very interesting and useful advancements have come from what at the time looked like idle thinking.
In our materialistic society nowadays many people forget that vacinnation, molecular biology and space travel started with people looking at bugs or at the stars for the sheer pleasure of doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
Firmly in the US side.
Latinamerica declared itself a zone free of nuclear weapons many decades ago, as a consequence no nuclear weapons are pointed against our countries. If anything, that saved the ass of Argentina when they fought against the UK, a nuclear state. Had Argentina had WMDs, who knows if the war fought for the control of the Malvinas islands in the 80s would have been limited to conventional warfare.
The strategic importance of Latinamerica can't be denied, just remembre the Cuba misile crisis. My point is that Europe, being equally or even more important strategically could also decide to go neutral on the issue of nuclear weapons.
But when countries like the UK and Poland (amongst others) shamefully allow "rendition" of terrorism suspects and beg for the US to deploy missiles on their territories, well, there is little hope for Europe to stop being a board for the global monopoly game between RUssia and the US where European defense interests are decided in Washington and antgonized in Moscow.
Your family are acting as go between for a third party using the slingbox.
You know you are worng, thus preempt the mods.
Try backstabbing.
You are not factoring his time and lack of service.
Risk is a cost that has to be covered, most of the people defending this simple solution are not factoring that hidden cost that has to be covered somehow if you are professional (spare parts, duplicate systems, downtime costs, etc).
Get all that factored and what looked like a good idea begins to stink a bit fishy. Unless you need a departamentla server with data that is not vital for your bussiness.
I will not point all the juicy ironies there, that is an exercise to the reader.
Anyway, conceding that there are no substantial differences between the different kind of disks when it comes to quality (yeah, right) you talk about predictive failure. Well I talk about a disk fucked.
Once it is fucked, I have hundreds of machines in which I need to do multiple activities.
Do I need to waste my time to change that disk, ensure it is mirrored, etc? No, I am a systems administrator, not a DRM (Disk Replacement Monkey). Big companies with hundreds of computers actually save money using a SAN, since specialist time can be focussed in higher level activities.
I do not want to have 3 copies of each important machine just to save $47000 per system (as if). The would just multiply the chances of something going wrong.
You truly believe that SAN providers are screwing over thei costumers (banks! the ones stingiest with money when you come to think about it) bu miserably fail to appreciate the environments and demands in which a SAN is a perfectly justifiable, cost efficient solution.
That Google developped their own SAN software (or equivalent) does not mean that SAN companies specialized in those services are redundnat.
Is that your only machine and alll your bussiness plan relies on it be up and running? Then yes, maybe you should plan for redundancy as you are saying.
Do you have 500 machines (or more) providing different services? THen you would be mad not to "outsource" the disk management to an specialist via SAN.
All technology has hiccups when it is first introduced.
It is completely irrational to abandon a new technology that clearly has advantages on the strength of *one* bad experience.
.... that does not matter. What I don't want is something that brakes on me easily. Both methods achieve this.
You will never revisit 99% of tha information.
I keep my best (or more menaingful) pictures and throw all the rest away.
SInce I am not into design or something that needs access to a big archive of pictures, my bad photographs do not need to be stored forever.
As for music, todays software makes easy to check what one is actualy listening to, stuf I have never heard but that was dwonloaded or ripped because I could gets regularly removed, I only keep my fav music or stuff I go back to regularly.
As for movies, I have lets say 2 hours/day to watch TV and/or movies. That is no more than 8 movies a month or around 100 a year, and this without counting going to the cinema, etc. So I keep 100 movies at all time and once in a while I get rid of some. I just don't need them and most likely will never been watched again.
I happily survive with 160GB with plenty of space to spare.
You can replicate accross data centres....
System administrator or disk changer (or machine changer, your pick) monkey?
When you state comprises more than a few servers you want everything standarized and rationalized. This saves time and money.
What are you going to offer us next? World peace?
With EMC I get full support for the storage solution. If a drive fails I don't have to diagnose it and I don't have to change it, all is done as part of the *service* they offer.
With your solution I have to waste my time diagnosing and replacing disks. With SAN solutions I do system administration and planning.
I do not want to be a disk replacing monkey (and when you have hundreds or thousends of computers, each with several disks, EMC is worth the price, you will have disks failing daily and the amount of time to deal with disk failures becomes substantial).
People that have not worked in big IT states forget that what is bought is not a machine but a service.
In other words, you are comparing apples and oranges.
Let me tell you were I am comming from.
I have used Linux professionally for 8 years, UNIX for 15.
I have knowledge of user interface design at post grad level.
I have tried the software and when it comes to configuration it is not intuitive. It does not follow a logic pattern and the more complicated settings are arcane to say the least.
What is necessary is to sit down and watch people installing and configuring the software, this will be enlightening.
For arcane configuration settings you need sensible defaults and on-screen help to clarify things. This reinforces the concepts and expedites configuration.
Only 10 year old kids think software has no political or social implications. Please grow up.
As for "those attitudes", what companies are doing is allowing people who "don't give a shit about patents or copyright" (your words) to install the softwae they need themselves, and then thay can take the responsibility for those actions, if any.
Given the completely mental state of copyright and patent law in the US it is only sensible that Linux distributors do not monkey around about this issue.
If you stick to free formats all works out of the box, and as soon as the respective patents expire, it will become a non issue anyway.
I do regularly. The more the merrier.
The artists are being ripped off now by the labels. This has been amply documented and you can o adn find this information if you care to do so.
In your "fast forward" pseudo-exercise I don't see any elelments of abuse from the guy running the servers, if anything the abusive ones would be the artists he has helped, the thing we can rescue from your crappy writting is that the guy with the computer and the artists are in a more equitative position in regards to each other.
Nowadays the artists are screwed over and over and yet some more (even the biog names that actually make some money, the immense majority make no money at all from recordings), while the labels get richer and richer irrespective of the luck or lack therof of their numbers.
You were doing so well and then, blam! You start to talk about things you don't know, and it shows. Badly.
In the XXth century orchestras playing classical music got *bigger*, not smaller. The demands of the likes of Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Mahler and many ohers (and here, I mean many, if you don't know them is not our fault).
Several important composers like Vivaldi were revived from literally nowhere thanks to recored music.
In the XXth century we had our Beethovens, Mozarts and Bachs. They were called Shostakovich, Prokofiev and Stravinsky (pretty much that would be their equivalent roles in classical music: the experimentalist, the one that consolidates a movement and the pioneer) and many others.
If you wanted to talk about dead professions related to music you should have tried other things, I don't know, trovateurs or viola da gamba players, but your example is so catastrophically stupid that it hurts. Classical music perfromances and composition are alive and well to this day, most towns in civilized countries will have at least one decent orchestra which in many ocassions pulls more people to concerts tha a professsional sports team does to matches.
ANd they should not treat us as potentail thieves, we are their costumers, and what the costumers are saying by droves is that they want music without DRM on demand.
Yes, people want the ease of use and convineince of P2P sharing networks, and yes, they may not want to pay for it.
The challenge is for the labels to square that circle, suing anybody with ears and a fucntioning auditory system is not a bussiness model, is a protection racket.
British industry is suffering because the strong pound make British exports expensive (we will have less tourists visiting the UK this year, the psichological point in which one pays $2.00 for a pound is weighing heavily on British industry).
You are simply pulling that "social norm" out of your a@@.
There is no such thing in the US neither. You simply are paranoid and over sensitive.
I have seen no Linux deployment at all stopped for this FUD.
And here I am talking about blue chips companies I am familiar with in several industries.
The FUD did not work, that is the part of the scam the did not pan out as expected.
It you are crap at being sarcastic don't blame others for not getting your brilliance.
We probe these questions because it is interesting and because we can.
And very often knowledge for knowledge sake generates science that is useful in ways we did not imagine.
What you are advocating is oscurantism of the worst kind and I, for one, will not surrender to such facile and defeatist attitude.
Let the scientists play. They will bring us joys and worries.
Many very interesting and useful advancements have come from what at the time looked like idle thinking.
In our materialistic society nowadays many people forget that vacinnation, molecular biology and space travel started with people looking at bugs or at the stars for the sheer pleasure of doing so.