Actually several states recently legislated that businesses (used CD stores, pawn shops) that deal in certain types of used goods (CDs, tools, hand guns, small electronics, etc.) are required to get ID and hold onto the goods for 30 days. The purpose is not to cut down on resale of your purchased CDs, but to cut down on the resale of stolen property. Ie. someone breaks into your car and steals your small CD collection and pries the head unit out of your dash and they can't just blindly go to the local pawnshop and sell it for crack money.
So far, absolutely no states have even suggested that they are going to regulate the resale of used CDs. The reason you may think this is the case is because, in classic stupiddot tradition, either the submitter or the special ed class, err, i mean the editors, figured they'd get more hits by saying The Man is trying to oppress hardworking, angelic music aficionados. In contrast to saying that several states are making it a little riskier (in the sense that you are more likely to be caught) to engage in petty theft. I mean, everybody is in favor of not having their shit stolen. If that story was posted, nobody'd post and then there would be less advertising revenue. So instead they engage in yellow bloggingism.
I can't imagine how to take this in a good way, but you're an idiot. Or lying. You've got a raid-5 group behind a raid-5 group behind a raid-0. You're adding mondo latency, wasting space, and adding unnecessary complexity. Put all your disks in a big, flat, raid-5 with two parity disks (eg. "raid-6".) You sound like those guys who make shit extra complicated just so they can sound smart/impressive/skilled.
No kidding. Without specific details there is no way to answer whether this is a good solution to his particular situation. However, even in the absence of details I can say this:
1) That case has twelve spindles. You aren't going to get the same performance from a dozen drives as you get from an hundred.
2) That system includes a small Celeron D processor with 512 MB RAM. You aren't going to get the same performance as you'll get from multiple dedicated RAID controllers with twenty+ gig of dedicated disk cache.
3) Your single gigabit ethernet interface won't even come close to the performance of the three or four (or ten) 2 gigabit fibre channel adapters involved in most SAN arrays.
4) Software iscsi initiators and targets aren't a replacement for dedicated adapters.
5) The Hitachi array at work never goes down. Ever. Not for expansions. Not for drive replacements. Not for relayouts. The reliability of a PC and the opportunity to do online maintenance won't approach that of a real array.
Don't get me wrong. That case makes me all tingly inside -- for personal use. But as a SAN replacement, fuck no. It's not the same thing. The original question just shows ignorance of what SANs are and the roles they fill in the data center.
As a workgroup storage solution for a handful of end users on their desktops, that solution probably may be a good fit. As a storage solution for ten (or two hundred) business critical server systems, no way.
When will people learn that parent's have an obligation (not a right, an obligation) to know what their kids are doing, where their kids are, who they are with, what they are reading, what movies they are watching, etc. "Spying" on your children isn't a replacement for good parenting, it just flat out is good parenting.
And before all the morons jump in with all their little single instance exceptions to their Kafka-esque concept of omnipresent spying and intrusions, let me point it that it's a spectrum. At 12 years old, a parent should pretty much know everything about the kid. Perhaps not the minutiae, but enough that the details are irrelevant. At 17 years old, if the parent hasn't learned that their kid is reasonably smart, honest and starting to gain some wisdom, then the amount of intrusiveness will be higher than if their child has shown good judgement.
And for all you kids who know you are smarter than your parents: a) you're not. b) as long as your parents are providing for your ass, they get to tell you what to do. c) the rules are not for there for all you unique and special flowers, but for the masses.
If I was the school, I'd go ahead and let the dumbass link as he pleases. Then when he decides he wants to go to college, the teachers can give an accurate and true account of the student's attitude. I'm sure there will be plenty of universities that want to accept a little craphead who shows such disrespect for his instructors. And yes, I mean the dumbass kid who merely linked to the video.
Let's face facts here, the vast majority of prison inmates, people whose lives have been ruined by our justice system, are in there for victimless crimes involving drugs.
Yes. Please let us face facts. Give a source for your claim. Assuming that Colorado (Colorado because a quick search resulted in Colorado on the first page) has a similar distribution of criminal offenses as the rest of the US, non-violent drug offenders are 19% of the prison population. Which is a far cry from "vast majority". From your description "vast majority", I would think that we'd be talking about 80% of the prison population.
MS doesn't have an open source business model. They have a "we'll give you almost anything if you pay us" business model.
You also should know that back in the 70s and 80s IBM had a multistory building full of lawyers for the sole purpose of fighting the US government. SCO is nothing.
BTW. IBM's market cap (source) is $159 US billion. Microsoft's is $297 US billion. Neither company could possibly litigate until their opponent went out of business.
...to go into serious, life crippling debt. We should be working on ways of getting out of debt, not ways to make consumerism even fucking worse than it is now. 50 years ago the average American was saving 10-30% of their income a year as savings. Today it's closer to 2%. To make matters worse banks are tossing out cards like a child molester does candy. Interest only loans are now normal. We're on the verge of a housing collapse because of all the shoddy loans to people over extended as it was.
You're very very confused. Today the average American doesn't save 2%. They don't save anything and haven't for several years.
Secondly, interest only loans are not only not normal, they're not even common. Subprime specialty loans are in the single digits percentage wise. If the housing market is a bubble it is not because of the lenders. It's because people thought that their house was a short-term investment.
...but your employer can force you to do it to get a job...
First, if you don't have the job yet, they're not your employer. Second, I don't think you have a very clear idea of what force is. Third, if you don't like the requirements of the job, go work for a dot-com. Nobody is forcing you to work for a bank.
Science Friday's digital libraries story, approximately 13:45 through 15:00 minutes. Google's work in this case is entirely non-creative, yet they contracted that the digital results not be available in bulk for any purpose.
You fundamentally fail to understand human thought. You are denying that people can possibly not have considered a question and thus have not reached a conclusion. Instead you are posting repeatedly that any question (or maybe you are just hung up on this particular question) that someone has not considered is, by default, the negative. Which is total crap. I have never tasted caviar, so I cannot answer the question "Do I like the taste of caviar?" and I will absolutely not agree that I do not like the taste. I merely have not been able to consider and answer the question. Due to your apparent sensitivity to this issue and need to have other people agree with you (as demonstrated by your dozens of posts in this tiny sub-thread) it is pointless to even continue.
I personally do not believe in God. But I know that belief is entirely different than the belief in, say, the laws of physics. Science gives us a method to test some things. So far nobody has developed an experiment to test that God exists. Therefore I know that my disbelief is a matter of faith and not a matter of science.
Why? Because I suggest that someone prove a negative and you're going to tell me that "you can't prove a negative." In which case I'd point out that I can prove that I do not have a grape in my hand. Then you'll say you mean some mathematical proof, and I'll have to say that logic is just a collection of semantic rules that have nothing to do with reality. Formal logic is never used in engineering, physics or any other hard science.
Before you let your indignance burst your personality to bits, you might want to think on the limitations of logic systems.
If that's not what you mean, then perhaps you should have expanded beyond your simple, smug, snarky quip.
I think you failed to see my point. I have no evidence. Nor do you have any evidence that falsifies the statement "God exists."
Personally, I do not believe in God, but I know that it is because I choose that belief. I am not some cold rationalist with mountains of evidence to prove my position. It's purely a matter of faith.
Let me ask you this, do you believe in gravity? If so why?
It's childish to think you have a reason not to believe in god. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for the existence of god as there is for the non-existence of god.
No. I just haven't seen them. I'm not saying they don't exist. I've seen press release style news coverage of the studies that found that people having cell phone conversations are four times more likely to be in an accident. I just responded with some thoughts I had on why such a difference might exist. And if you were to control for those factors, is being deposed by a blind lawyer in the back seat less of a distraction that talking on the cellphone with your buddies about which bar to hit later.
Yeah. I've been in cars with navigation systems. Rarely do they tell you "Get in the second lane from the left, ignore the construction cones, watch out for the blue hair plodding along who is going to abruptly change into your lane in seventeen point three seconds. After you take the left exit, there is a big pot hole so hang to the right side of your lane. As soon as you are passed the pot hole, quickly move back into the center of the lane because a semi is going to throw a rock up and it'll break your window if you don't. Then bear right, go through this intersection and immediately move into the rightmost lane. Take the next right, it's a one lane entrance to the parking lot at your destination and it'll be hard to see because there is a box truck blocking the view from your approach. Immediately after entering the entrance lane, stop, there will be a lady with a shopping cart crossing the road."
Navigation systems are nice for helping you find where you're going. But they are a distraction if you don't already know the area because you are always trying to execute it's instructions rather than just driving with an awareness of where you're going and what's going on.
I think it comes quite close. Because it's not just the rare pedestrian you might hit. It's all the other cars on the road. It's every action being a distinct response to the computerized voice and eyeballing the map on the tiny LCD screen. Or even if it's trivial to decide which turns to be taking, if you're braking and changing lanes at the last second you're much more of a risk to others than if you are already aware of where you're going and are making lane changes well in advance of when you need to, braking with proper lead time. Or when you miss the turn the navigation system suggested and now you're doing the mental scramble trying to calibrate your driving with the updated directions for your system.
And another distraction to tweak our collective nerd noses: war driving.
I'm not a fan of chain cell-phoners, but I'm even less a fan of bad logic.
Spin it any way you like, mobile phones are dangerous when they distract you from the road.
You could change "mobile phones" for anything else and that sentence is still 100% true. Which means that the important part of the phrase is "distract you". Thus it's not a valid reason to single out cell phones for restrictions.
I've not seen any references to the studies you are referring to. However, one difference would be when the other party in the car happens to be a driver, is paying attention, and pauses in the conversation when the situation calls for it. It would also depend on the reason for the conversation. A cellphone call has a point (perhaps not an important point, but there is a reason somebody dialed the phone) and you're going to be giving it attention, while idle chit-chat with your passenger is just politeness done with half your mind. Compare cell phone calls with important conversations occurring while driving.
I think someone fishing around under their seat trying to feel for change they just dropped is as distracted as someone texting. At least a person texting will pretty much always hold the phone up in their line of sight, while someone groping for something is likely to take their eyes off the road in order to get a quick situation report on where the quarter for the tollway is and where their hand is.
So what distinguishes a cell phone from having a conversation with a passenger? Or someone trying to find the right station on the radio. Or smoking a cigarette (assuming you are not just hanging the butt from your mouth and letting it ash all down your front.) Or trying to shush their screaming kid in the back seat. Or fishing around in a bag of fast food for a hamburger. Or trying to tip the last bit of coffee out of your spill-proof mug. Or listening attentively to their GPS navigation system. Or attempting to decipher driving directions scribbled on a napkin. Or listening to their books on tape.
The problem isn't cell phones or texting. It's people not being engaged with the task of driving.
If your only concern is safety then it makes more sense to lower the speed limit to 25 MPH and eliminate any car larger than a golf cart than it does to fine/ban cell phones.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually several states recently legislated that businesses (used CD stores, pawn shops) that deal in certain types of used goods (CDs, tools, hand guns, small electronics, etc.) are required to get ID and hold onto the goods for 30 days. The purpose is not to cut down on resale of your purchased CDs, but to cut down on the resale of stolen property. Ie. someone breaks into your car and steals your small CD collection and pries the head unit out of your dash and they can't just blindly go to the local pawnshop and sell it for crack money.
So far, absolutely no states have even suggested that they are going to regulate the resale of used CDs. The reason you may think this is the case is because, in classic stupiddot tradition, either the submitter or the special ed class, err, i mean the editors, figured they'd get more hits by saying The Man is trying to oppress hardworking, angelic music aficionados. In contrast to saying that several states are making it a little riskier (in the sense that you are more likely to be caught) to engage in petty theft. I mean, everybody is in favor of not having their shit stolen. If that story was posted, nobody'd post and then there would be less advertising revenue. So instead they engage in yellow bloggingism.
FYI. Someday's I'm a total dick. Your setup sounds interesting. But I'd never build it.
http://www.sun.com/storagetek/disk_systems/data_ce nter/9990/
I can't imagine how to take this in a good way, but you're an idiot. Or lying. You've got a raid-5 group behind a raid-5 group behind a raid-0. You're adding mondo latency, wasting space, and adding unnecessary complexity. Put all your disks in a big, flat, raid-5 with two parity disks (eg. "raid-6".) You sound like those guys who make shit extra complicated just so they can sound smart/impressive/skilled.
No kidding. Without specific details there is no way to answer whether this is a good solution to his particular situation. However, even in the absence of details I can say this:
1) That case has twelve spindles. You aren't going to get the same performance from a dozen drives as you get from an hundred.
2) That system includes a small Celeron D processor with 512 MB RAM. You aren't going to get the same performance as you'll get from multiple dedicated RAID controllers with twenty+ gig of dedicated disk cache.
3) Your single gigabit ethernet interface won't even come close to the performance of the three or four (or ten) 2 gigabit fibre channel adapters involved in most SAN arrays.
4) Software iscsi initiators and targets aren't a replacement for dedicated adapters.
5) The Hitachi array at work never goes down. Ever. Not for expansions. Not for drive replacements. Not for relayouts. The reliability of a PC and the opportunity to do online maintenance won't approach that of a real array.
Don't get me wrong. That case makes me all tingly inside -- for personal use. But as a SAN replacement, fuck no. It's not the same thing. The original question just shows ignorance of what SANs are and the roles they fill in the data center.
As a workgroup storage solution for a handful of end users on their desktops, that solution probably may be a good fit. As a storage solution for ten (or two hundred) business critical server systems, no way.
When will people learn that parent's have an obligation (not a right, an obligation) to know what their kids are doing, where their kids are, who they are with, what they are reading, what movies they are watching, etc. "Spying" on your children isn't a replacement for good parenting, it just flat out is good parenting.
And before all the morons jump in with all their little single instance exceptions to their Kafka-esque concept of omnipresent spying and intrusions, let me point it that it's a spectrum. At 12 years old, a parent should pretty much know everything about the kid. Perhaps not the minutiae, but enough that the details are irrelevant. At 17 years old, if the parent hasn't learned that their kid is reasonably smart, honest and starting to gain some wisdom, then the amount of intrusiveness will be higher than if their child has shown good judgement.
And for all you kids who know you are smarter than your parents: a) you're not. b) as long as your parents are providing for your ass, they get to tell you what to do. c) the rules are not for there for all you unique and special flowers, but for the masses.
If I was the school, I'd go ahead and let the dumbass link as he pleases. Then when he decides he wants to go to college, the teachers can give an accurate and true account of the student's attitude. I'm sure there will be plenty of universities that want to accept a little craphead who shows such disrespect for his instructors. And yes, I mean the dumbass kid who merely linked to the video.
In a really lame way, that's pretty fucking funny.
Yes. Please let us face facts. Give a source for your claim. Assuming that Colorado (Colorado because a quick search resulted in Colorado on the first page) has a similar distribution of criminal offenses as the rest of the US, non-violent drug offenders are 19% of the prison population. Which is a far cry from "vast majority". From your description "vast majority", I would think that we'd be talking about 80% of the prison population.
How does it feel to be fringe?
MS doesn't have an open source business model. They have a "we'll give you almost anything if you pay us" business model.
You also should know that back in the 70s and 80s IBM had a multistory building full of lawyers for the sole purpose of fighting the US government. SCO is nothing.
BTW. IBM's market cap (source) is $159 US billion. Microsoft's is $297 US billion. Neither company could possibly litigate until their opponent went out of business.
You're very very confused. Today the average American doesn't save 2%. They don't save anything and haven't for several years.
Secondly, interest only loans are not only not normal, they're not even common. Subprime specialty loans are in the single digits percentage wise. If the housing market is a bubble it is not because of the lenders. It's because people thought that their house was a short-term investment.
Clearly the particular organization is not yet formed, however there is absolutely no question that it should be hosted in Iran.
First, if you don't have the job yet, they're not your employer. Second, I don't think you have a very clear idea of what force is. Third, if you don't like the requirements of the job, go work for a dot-com. Nobody is forcing you to work for a bank.
Science Friday's digital libraries story, approximately 13:45 through 15:00 minutes. Google's work in this case is entirely non-creative, yet they contracted that the digital results not be available in bulk for any purpose.
Yeah. Did you know that Google's agreements in the Google Books program, with U. Mich and U. Cal, restrict the bulk usage of public domain books?
You fundamentally fail to understand human thought. You are denying that people can possibly not have considered a question and thus have not reached a conclusion. Instead you are posting repeatedly that any question (or maybe you are just hung up on this particular question) that someone has not considered is, by default, the negative. Which is total crap. I have never tasted caviar, so I cannot answer the question "Do I like the taste of caviar?" and I will absolutely not agree that I do not like the taste. I merely have not been able to consider and answer the question. Due to your apparent sensitivity to this issue and need to have other people agree with you (as demonstrated by your dozens of posts in this tiny sub-thread) it is pointless to even continue.
I personally do not believe in God. But I know that belief is entirely different than the belief in, say, the laws of physics. Science gives us a method to test some things. So far nobody has developed an experiment to test that God exists. Therefore I know that my disbelief is a matter of faith and not a matter of science.
Why? Because I suggest that someone prove a negative and you're going to tell me that "you can't prove a negative." In which case I'd point out that I can prove that I do not have a grape in my hand. Then you'll say you mean some mathematical proof, and I'll have to say that logic is just a collection of semantic rules that have nothing to do with reality. Formal logic is never used in engineering, physics or any other hard science.
Before you let your indignance burst your personality to bits, you might want to think on the limitations of logic systems.
If that's not what you mean, then perhaps you should have expanded beyond your simple, smug, snarky quip.
I think you failed to see my point. I have no evidence. Nor do you have any evidence that falsifies the statement "God exists."
Personally, I do not believe in God, but I know that it is because I choose that belief. I am not some cold rationalist with mountains of evidence to prove my position. It's purely a matter of faith.
Let me ask you this, do you believe in gravity? If so why?
It's childish to think you have a reason not to believe in god. There is exactly the same amount of evidence for the existence of god as there is for the non-existence of god.
No. I just haven't seen them. I'm not saying they don't exist. I've seen press release style news coverage of the studies that found that people having cell phone conversations are four times more likely to be in an accident. I just responded with some thoughts I had on why such a difference might exist. And if you were to control for those factors, is being deposed by a blind lawyer in the back seat less of a distraction that talking on the cellphone with your buddies about which bar to hit later.
Yeah. I've been in cars with navigation systems. Rarely do they tell you "Get in the second lane from the left, ignore the construction cones, watch out for the blue hair plodding along who is going to abruptly change into your lane in seventeen point three seconds. After you take the left exit, there is a big pot hole so hang to the right side of your lane. As soon as you are passed the pot hole, quickly move back into the center of the lane because a semi is going to throw a rock up and it'll break your window if you don't. Then bear right, go through this intersection and immediately move into the rightmost lane. Take the next right, it's a one lane entrance to the parking lot at your destination and it'll be hard to see because there is a box truck blocking the view from your approach. Immediately after entering the entrance lane, stop, there will be a lady with a shopping cart crossing the road."
Navigation systems are nice for helping you find where you're going. But they are a distraction if you don't already know the area because you are always trying to execute it's instructions rather than just driving with an awareness of where you're going and what's going on.
I think it comes quite close. Because it's not just the rare pedestrian you might hit. It's all the other cars on the road. It's every action being a distinct response to the computerized voice and eyeballing the map on the tiny LCD screen. Or even if it's trivial to decide which turns to be taking, if you're braking and changing lanes at the last second you're much more of a risk to others than if you are already aware of where you're going and are making lane changes well in advance of when you need to, braking with proper lead time. Or when you miss the turn the navigation system suggested and now you're doing the mental scramble trying to calibrate your driving with the updated directions for your system.
And another distraction to tweak our collective nerd noses: war driving.
You could change "mobile phones" for anything else and that sentence is still 100% true. Which means that the important part of the phrase is "distract you". Thus it's not a valid reason to single out cell phones for restrictions.
I've not seen any references to the studies you are referring to. However, one difference would be when the other party in the car happens to be a driver, is paying attention, and pauses in the conversation when the situation calls for it. It would also depend on the reason for the conversation. A cellphone call has a point (perhaps not an important point, but there is a reason somebody dialed the phone) and you're going to be giving it attention, while idle chit-chat with your passenger is just politeness done with half your mind. Compare cell phone calls with important conversations occurring while driving.
I think someone fishing around under their seat trying to feel for change they just dropped is as distracted as someone texting. At least a person texting will pretty much always hold the phone up in their line of sight, while someone groping for something is likely to take their eyes off the road in order to get a quick situation report on where the quarter for the tollway is and where their hand is.
So what distinguishes a cell phone from having a conversation with a passenger? Or someone trying to find the right station on the radio. Or smoking a cigarette (assuming you are not just hanging the butt from your mouth and letting it ash all down your front.) Or trying to shush their screaming kid in the back seat. Or fishing around in a bag of fast food for a hamburger. Or trying to tip the last bit of coffee out of your spill-proof mug. Or listening attentively to their GPS navigation system. Or attempting to decipher driving directions scribbled on a napkin. Or listening to their books on tape.
The problem isn't cell phones or texting. It's people not being engaged with the task of driving.
If your only concern is safety then it makes more sense to lower the speed limit to 25 MPH and eliminate any car larger than a golf cart than it does to fine/ban cell phones.