20% under what conditions, and in what timeframe? Over a long enough time period everything has a 100% failure rate.
Normal hard disks also will eventually fail, due to physical wear.
Also if it lasts long enough, at some point, reliability will stop being important. Even if it still works, very few people will want to use a 100MB hard disk from 15 years ago.
I think that the "Science" you see is in your mind mostly.
Talk about things like hadrons and gravitons doesn't come from nowhere, or from sacred books handed from the ancestors. There exist hypotheses and theories, that sometimes turn out to be incorrect. When they do, we discard them. That's why nobody thinks there's a Luminiferous aether anymore.
Even back when it was being considered, it wasn't a matter of faith. It was a matter "Hmm, that's funny. Things don't add up here. Maybe this would explain it". Then experiments showed that the proposed explanation didn't hold up, so the idea was abandoned.
We're not talking about a few centuries ago because science advances exponentially. If you want to go back that far, then I can make the same argument then as well. Four hundred years ago, the best science had to offer was to protect yourself from the plague by bleeding out with leeches and not bathing, and to drink herbal preparations to abort pregnancies.
That's the thing, science keeps getting better. Religion... not so much.
Back then the religious approach to the plague was to have the whole village squeeze into a church and pray for salvation. Which also ensured it spread around nicely. I'm very glad that somebody did research and figured out that this wasn't the way to go.
But what you're saying is that life is better now because of science, yes? I completely agree. But there's a tremendous downside that's overlooked, and if you mention it you get called a "Luddite" or a "technophobe." Sure, our Science has invented great things....we can watch political speeches on TV from anywhere on earth, instantly. But, we can also watch five different versions of Law & Order.
5 versions of Law & Order don't sound like a bad thing to me. They're there for whoever wants them. I personally don't care for TV, but don't think that there's anything wrong with them being available.
We have unprecedented access to medical information, but an entire field of brand-new of highly questionable mental disorders exists because of it: "cyberchondria", ADD, ADHD...these things didn't exist 50 years ago. Why? Was it because people didn't recognize them and better research has discovered it, or is it because they're not actually the problem that people are making it out to be? ADD, for instance. There's a convincing, and growing, body of evidence that 1) cases of ADD are exaggerated by a factor of 10 to 100, 2) ADD is caused by Science's modern lifestyle and 3) what people used to call "being a kid" is now simply assumed to be a mental disorder.
There are tons of conditions that we didn't recognize formerly that were given a name relatively recently. War was always hellish, but only recently we started talking about "shell shock" and PTSD. That doesn't mean it didn't exist before, just that we didn't have a name for it. People would talk about dad returned from the war changed, and not for the better. And have no clue what to do about it.
On ADHD, I assure you that it definitely exists. My brother for instance had this friend who seemed eternally overdosed on coffee despite not drinking any. You'd better not leave anything breakable within his reach, because he had this complete inability to sit quietly even for a minute, and a compulsion to grab the first thing around, and fiddle with it, until it often broke. He was I think maybe 18 back then, way past the "being a kid" phase.
Now, is ADHD being overdiagnosed, in large part normal behavior, and a conflict between the natural way of being and modern society? Sure, quite possible.
But that it's caused by "science's modern lifestyle"? Please. This guy I'm talking about wouldn't have done any better in a church due to his inability to sit in place. He'd be just as annoying to have around. I'm sure that were he say, Amish he'd end up getting disciplined pretty often. Societies that require adhering to strict, rigid behaviors are no new by any means, not just a thing of "science's modern lifestyle", and actually religion has quite a lot of things that conflict with his way of being.
People, cultures, are spiritually drained. My generation (I'm 26) is almost synonymous with "disaffected". Gen-y is renown for its lack of caring about anything significant other than ourselves. Note that I'm not equating "spiritual" to "religious". This modern cult of Science has taught us that we can find the answers with a better brain scan, a deeper MRI, a broader genetic map. It's given us the ability to extend ou
I'm saying that we should go about it with manual (or good understanding) in hand, and/or make test changes with a much better "tool" than a sledgehammer; not just bashing away.
But nobody is "bashing" anything.
They have X ova, Y spermatozoa, those produce embryos without any genetic tinkering, and then they choose which to implant or not based on their characteristics.
I don't see it any stranger than selecting fruit in a supermarket.
Yes, but how long would it have taken to get that exact match, and the probability of it? The keyword in your sentence is "could", however unlikely it may be.
I don't see why it matters, you're doing selection anyway when you choose the right person to have children with.
If you really wanted a child with blue eyes, you could insist on having children with somebody with that characteristic, and it'd work so long you also share that color, or inherited the recessive gene and are lucky enough to pass it on, to put an example.
The danger in the statement is also that you're saying it's simply removing randomness- which makes it sound like it's just a quick tinker, whilst its truly more substantial.
But we constantly do that anyway!
You very intentionally remove randomness when you choose a specific person to have children with. If you reproduced, you probably picked somebody who according to your own standard embodies the right characteristics. By doing that you specifically selected against the traits that you do not like.
And with other species, we've got a very long history of selective breeding for all sorts of purposes. Cats, dogs, and farm animals were all specifically bred for desirable traits.
Then the best way of gaining a full understanding of it is to mess with stuff and see what happens.
Where do you imagine this full understanding you want to exist will come from, otherwise?
And they're not even actually messing with anything, they're screening for genes. Meaning that they're not artifically making an embryo have blue eyes, they're selecting those embyos that have that trait. You could have ended up exactly the same genes even without them doing anything, they're simply removing randomness from the process.
This isn't a troll, it's an honest response. As Science-the-religion has advanced, and religious adherence receded, the general mental wellbeing of western citizens has declined. Across the board, people report being less happy, less fulfilled, less everything, while they have more stuff, more medicine, more knowledge than ever.
Bullshit. Just a few centuries ago, if you were unlucky enough to have some harmless but badly perceived condition, such as being gay, left handed, female, some sort of mental problem, or simply being born into a poor family, and you'd have a miserable life near guaranteed.
Somebody wanting to mess with their own phone is not an "Evil Haxx0r". Nor they need this, since they can jailbreak it already.
What this gives to a real "Evil Haxx0r" is the ability to mess with your phone. And though as you point out the amount of people with the ability to do such things is small, it can also be quite profitable, and programs that make it easy can be made, which will let every script kiddie on the planet exploit your phone with one click.
Very nice... do you have one to say that ? Sure, they have very good things (like output quality : sounds really very good, with my shure SE420 intra-headset).
Actually yes, I have a Cowon D2 16GB model.
But firmwares suck horribly : on my D2, still no way to load a complete album from the tagged list. I must go through the list of files (which allows loading a complete directory at once), which is a pain, and moreover a stupid one, as my music is divided between the internal flash and a HDSC (16GB+32GB by now : it would totally fit on neither), which forces me to go back and forth between folders.
I'm not really sure what you mean here. The player allows playing by performer, album, song name, song type, or year. You can also go by directory, ignoring the metadata.
I don't have enough music to fill the whole player, so don't know what's it like with a SD card.
This is silly at most, yet, Cowon monkeys prefer putting their efforts into crafting an animated flash UI for upcoming firmwares. Very nice, yeah... sure. Go get one, and we'll talk again about this. Cowon's concept of a bunch of formats, plus very good hardware quality doesn't change the major pain their firmware policy is.
Heard about the flash stuff, never really bothered trying it.
Enthusiasm doesn't imply blindness, dude. Sad, but true. Only one consumer brand allowing to play Ogg and FLAC doesn't make it easy to find a player : this just ties you to them, making it easier for them to mock you.
Ok, according to you, is there such a thing as a position relating to lack of concern with religion that's not a religious creed?
It seems very odd to call atheism a "religious creed", since there's about zero in it that is alike to a religion. Depending on the brand it can be perhaps described as "irrational belief", or "belief without proof", but religious?
Atheism and agnosticism have no church, no doctrine, no priests, no rituals, no saints, no tales about what happens after death, no prescribed standards for behavior or morality, etc, that the "adherents" agree on.
Two atheists may not necessarily even agree on "god doesn't exist". Possible positions include: "There's positively, no god". "There's no god that has proven its existence to me", "Whether it exists or not is immaterial to me", "The concept of god doesn't make sense", "Of the gods I heard of, none seem plausible", etc. They may have completely incompatible positions on morality. This simply doesn't happen with religions. Two christian or jewish people may have some minor arguments about the exact meaning of a verse, but there always will be a lot they can agree on.
As many as you'd like. You don't have to run KDE4.
The latest Ubuntu distro still includes IceWM and Enlightenment.
If you want to go lower still, use text mode with a console framebuffer. There are some commandline web browsers like elinks that can display graphics on a framebuffer console without X.
AFAIK, Twitter itself was unaffected, it's just client applications that failed.
Most client apps probably only handle the number internally, and never show it anywhere, so the developer possibly never even saw that it was getting close to the limit.
Many of the filesystems come from different projects. Say, XFS first existed in Irix, then was ported to Linux.
The ext* family got started long ago and remains backwards compatible. It's not very flashy, but safe and well supported.
Some filesystems like ReiserFS have specific aims like efficiently handling huge directories and large amounts of small files. Those are things that can matter a lot for specific workloads.
Then there are very specialized filesystems like compressed readonly filesystems that are highly compact, and those specific to raw flash devices (not flash drives, but actual flash chips soldered in that are accessed directly).
It's not possible to have a single filesystem that optimizes for every possible use case. Some uses are mutually contradictory. For instance, a journal takes space, which conflicts with filesystems that aim for very efficient space usage, such as those intended for embedded devices with space measured in MB.
Ok, then please explain that in layman's terms, without looking every term in wikipedia. Specifically:
What is a p-channel MOS device? What's a real world example of one? What does "negative gate voltage" mean? What is the "threshold voltage"? What is the "drain current"? What is transconductance? Why is a decrease in drain current and transconductance a bad thing?
I think the grandparent made the point perfectly. That sentence alone is full of terms that make it completely incomprehensible to anybody without at least some knowledge in the subject matter. At the very least, understanding how a transistor works is needed to understand that sentence.
So, can you take that one sentence and translate it into something that doesn't assume any knowledge about electronics, transistors, or electricity beyond the very basic level most people are familiar with?
Hard to believe. There are two replies to that post in this thread (one mine), and both mention the existence of software RAID. Both Linux and Windows have software RAID, and it's been there for ages, too. It's not a particularly mysterious feature.
I should note that this showmethecanuck guy told me to "Smoke some more" and "Pull the wool over your eyes a little further", so with that sort of attitude I can't see a discussion going well in any case.
The point I was trying to make is that while the Linux experts that the poster who had the problem were ranting and raving about how his RAID hardware was "fake RAID" and it only works with Windows drivers and Microsoft is satan, etc...
And they were ranting quite correctly, really.
People running a RAID generally do it for a reason. RAID is a long term plan, so thinking of it as "I'll just plug in some drives in here and forget about it" is really the wrong way to go. What if the computer dies? Using a RAID card (whether fake or not) risks creating an array that will only work on that specific card. It may not work on a different card of the same manufacturer.
So you can end up with a situation where you have your perfectly functional drives, a dead motherboard, and no way to assemble the array on another computer because that motherboard/card isn't being sold anymore. That's really not a good situation to get into.
This may happen even with an expensive, battery backed RAID card, but in those cases you most likely you're getting some benefit from that, like better DB performance, and have at least one spare server with an identical card.
While they were ranting, it turns out that Linux had a perfectly good alternative that they (apparently) never brought-up.
Again, hard to believe since I've seen it brought up many times in different discussions. Most people setting up a RAID these days do it in software, excepting those who have a fancy and very expensive card that really does something software can't provide.
Well, I'm not really surprised you're not getting a whole lot of demand.
Linux isn't really the best system for working with sound. And your page says "Mac OS and Linux versions coming soon", so if I wanted it, I'd see that and just wait for the release. Makes no sense to request something that you already said will be made.
Also, I find it very amusing that you went and made your own completely non-standard widget set.
Personal opinion: This sort of interface turns me off, because nearly all programs that do this sort of thing turn out to be inconvenient to use. Rotating knobs with a mouse? Ew. Where's the minimize button? Can it be maximized? Can I get rid of those huge buttons and dedicate most of the screen to the display?
BTW, in Linux this type of interface is nearly inexistent. Yeah, there's the whole KDE vs Gnome thing, but I can't think of a single program that has a completely non-standard interface up to the window borders.
No, I expect KDE and Gnome to slowly die, if a super-toolkit appeared that really was "teh win".
Don't see that happening either. Both KDE and Gnome work "well enough". Gnome has those horrid file dialogs, and go figure, people still use it.
Also, Google does expend effort in places where it thinks its needed - they created their own JVM for Android after all.
Oh, they're perfectly capable of doing it, I'm sure. Whether it'll become widely used is another question. Knol seems to have got a "meh" reaction, Lively was shut down.
I liken it to virtualisation toolkits, there are many, buit once the kernel gets KVM built in, then everyone will start to use that, regardless of what they thought of Xen or Virtuabox. Those others will still be around, but will not be the 'default standard'.
KVM is already built in, and has been for several releases.
Though instead of standarizing on KVM, people are standarizing on libvirt, which provides an universal intreface to all those VMs.
So when is America converting to metric, and adopting the Euro?
Standarization in voltages mostly happened by not doing anything, btw. Some countries had 220V, others had 230, and others had 240. So they set the standard to 230V +- 5%, and voila, everybody is compliant and standarized without having to move a finger.
Smoke some more. BTW, it is unbelievably hard to find SATA RAID cards that are recognized by Linux (same reason it's hard to find good progams). Pull the wool over your eyes a little further. It feels better when you can't see the real world.
Real RAID is perfectly well supported by Linux.
But real RAID is not found on consumer motherboards. As a card it's something that could cost you about $400 or so. If it only does RAID0 and RAID1, it's not a real card.
The supposed advantage of doing RAID in hardware is offloading functions like parity calculations for RAID5. But it turns out that modern CPUs can actually do it faster in software. The remaining reason to do hardware RAID then, is to have a card with battery backed write cache, which can considerably improve performance.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a statistic that doesn't make any sense.
20% under what conditions, and in what timeframe? Over a long enough time period everything has a 100% failure rate.
Normal hard disks also will eventually fail, due to physical wear.
Also if it lasts long enough, at some point, reliability will stop being important. Even if it still works, very few people will want to use a 100MB hard disk from 15 years ago.
That's because JFFS and such are intended to be used on top of a raw flash device.
SSDs do wear levelling internally already, so a filesystem that tries to do it as well is redundant.
I think that the "Science" you see is in your mind mostly.
Talk about things like hadrons and gravitons doesn't come from nowhere, or from sacred books handed from the ancestors. There exist hypotheses and theories, that sometimes turn out to be incorrect. When they do, we discard them. That's why nobody thinks there's a Luminiferous aether anymore.
Even back when it was being considered, it wasn't a matter of faith. It was a matter "Hmm, that's funny. Things don't add up here. Maybe this would explain it". Then experiments showed that the proposed explanation didn't hold up, so the idea was abandoned.
That's the thing, science keeps getting better. Religion... not so much.
Back then the religious approach to the plague was to have the whole village squeeze into a church and pray for salvation. Which also ensured it spread around nicely. I'm very glad that somebody did research and figured out that this wasn't the way to go.
5 versions of Law & Order don't sound like a bad thing to me. They're there for whoever wants them. I personally don't care for TV, but don't think that there's anything wrong with them being available.
There are tons of conditions that we didn't recognize formerly that were given a name relatively recently. War was always hellish, but only recently we started talking about "shell shock" and PTSD. That doesn't mean it didn't exist before, just that we didn't have a name for it. People would talk about dad returned from the war changed, and not for the better. And have no clue what to do about it.
On ADHD, I assure you that it definitely exists. My brother for instance had this friend who seemed eternally overdosed on coffee despite not drinking any. You'd better not leave anything breakable within his reach, because he had this complete inability to sit quietly even for a minute, and a compulsion to grab the first thing around, and fiddle with it, until it often broke. He was I think maybe 18 back then, way past the "being a kid" phase.
Now, is ADHD being overdiagnosed, in large part normal behavior, and a conflict between the natural way of being and modern society? Sure, quite possible.
But that it's caused by "science's modern lifestyle"? Please. This guy I'm talking about wouldn't have done any better in a church due to his inability to sit in place. He'd be just as annoying to have around. I'm sure that were he say, Amish he'd end up getting disciplined pretty often. Societies that require adhering to strict, rigid behaviors are no new by any means, not just a thing of "science's modern lifestyle", and actually religion has quite a lot of things that conflict with his way of being.
But nobody is "bashing" anything.
They have X ova, Y spermatozoa, those produce embryos without any genetic tinkering, and then they choose which to implant or not based on their characteristics.
I don't see it any stranger than selecting fruit in a supermarket.
I don't see why it matters, you're doing selection anyway when you choose the right person to have children with.
If you really wanted a child with blue eyes, you could insist on having children with somebody with that characteristic, and it'd work so long you also share that color, or inherited the recessive gene and are lucky enough to pass it on, to put an example.
But we constantly do that anyway!
You very intentionally remove randomness when you choose a specific person to have children with. If you reproduced, you probably picked somebody who according to your own standard embodies the right characteristics. By doing that you specifically selected against the traits that you do not like.
And with other species, we've got a very long history of selective breeding for all sorts of purposes. Cats, dogs, and farm animals were all specifically bred for desirable traits.
Then the best way of gaining a full understanding of it is to mess with stuff and see what happens.
Where do you imagine this full understanding you want to exist will come from, otherwise?
And they're not even actually messing with anything, they're screening for genes. Meaning that they're not artifically making an embryo have blue eyes, they're selecting those embyos that have that trait. You could have ended up exactly the same genes even without them doing anything, they're simply removing randomness from the process.
Bullshit. Just a few centuries ago, if you were unlucky enough to have some harmless but badly perceived condition, such as being gay, left handed, female, some sort of mental problem, or simply being born into a poor family, and you'd have a miserable life near guaranteed.
You're not making any sense.
Somebody wanting to mess with their own phone is not an "Evil Haxx0r". Nor they need this, since they can jailbreak it already.
What this gives to a real "Evil Haxx0r" is the ability to mess with your phone. And though as you point out the amount of people with the ability to do such things is small, it can also be quite profitable, and programs that make it easy can be made, which will let every script kiddie on the planet exploit your phone with one click.
Actually yes, I have a Cowon D2 16GB model.
I'm not really sure what you mean here. The player allows playing by performer, album, song name, song type, or year. You can also go by directory, ignoring the metadata.
I don't have enough music to fill the whole player, so don't know what's it like with a SD card.
Heard about the flash stuff, never really bothered trying it.
Well, it works perfectly fine for my needs. YMMV.
I have no clue, I don't live in the US.
Rip to FLAC, then encode that into whatever fits the device best.
In my experience, finding a player that does .ogg isn't that hard. Look at the players made by Cowon for instance, they're very nice.
Ok, according to you, is there such a thing as a position relating to lack of concern with religion that's not a religious creed?
It seems very odd to call atheism a "religious creed", since there's about zero in it that is alike to a religion. Depending on the brand it can be perhaps described as "irrational belief", or "belief without proof", but religious?
Atheism and agnosticism have no church, no doctrine, no priests, no rituals, no saints, no tales about what happens after death, no prescribed standards for behavior or morality, etc, that the "adherents" agree on.
Two atheists may not necessarily even agree on "god doesn't exist". Possible positions include: "There's positively, no god". "There's no god that has proven its existence to me", "Whether it exists or not is immaterial to me", "The concept of god doesn't make sense", "Of the gods I heard of, none seem plausible", etc. They may have completely incompatible positions on morality. This simply doesn't happen with religions. Two christian or jewish people may have some minor arguments about the exact meaning of a verse, but there always will be a lot they can agree on.
Most atheists explain it as "I won't believe until I see proof of it", though, which is very much scientific.
As many as you'd like. You don't have to run KDE4.
The latest Ubuntu distro still includes IceWM and Enlightenment.
If you want to go lower still, use text mode with a console framebuffer. There are some commandline web browsers like elinks that can display graphics on a framebuffer console without X.
AFAIK, Twitter itself was unaffected, it's just client applications that failed.
Most client apps probably only handle the number internally, and never show it anywhere, so the developer possibly never even saw that it was getting close to the limit.
Many of the filesystems come from different projects. Say, XFS first existed in Irix, then was ported to Linux.
The ext* family got started long ago and remains backwards compatible. It's not very flashy, but safe and well supported.
Some filesystems like ReiserFS have specific aims like efficiently handling huge directories and large amounts of small files. Those are things that can matter a lot for specific workloads.
Then there are very specialized filesystems like compressed readonly filesystems that are highly compact, and those specific to raw flash devices (not flash drives, but actual flash chips soldered in that are accessed directly).
It's not possible to have a single filesystem that optimizes for every possible use case. Some uses are mutually contradictory. For instance, a journal takes space, which conflicts with filesystems that aim for very efficient space usage, such as those intended for embedded devices with space measured in MB.
Ok, then please explain that in layman's terms, without looking every term in wikipedia. Specifically:
What is a p-channel MOS device? What's a real world example of one?
What does "negative gate voltage" mean?
What is the "threshold voltage"?
What is the "drain current"?
What is transconductance?
Why is a decrease in drain current and transconductance a bad thing?
I think the grandparent made the point perfectly. That sentence alone is full of terms that make it completely incomprehensible to anybody without at least some knowledge in the subject matter. At the very least, understanding how a transistor works is needed to understand that sentence.
So, can you take that one sentence and translate it into something that doesn't assume any knowledge about electronics, transistors, or electricity beyond the very basic level most people are familiar with?
Hard to believe. There are two replies to that post in this thread (one mine), and both mention the existence of software RAID. Both Linux and Windows have software RAID, and it's been there for ages, too. It's not a particularly mysterious feature.
I should note that this showmethecanuck guy told me to "Smoke some more" and "Pull the wool over your eyes a little further", so with that sort of attitude I can't see a discussion going well in any case.
And they were ranting quite correctly, really.
People running a RAID generally do it for a reason. RAID is a long term plan, so thinking of it as "I'll just plug in some drives in here and forget about it" is really the wrong way to go. What if the computer dies? Using a RAID card (whether fake or not) risks creating an array that will only work on that specific card. It may not work on a different card of the same manufacturer.
So you can end up with a situation where you have your perfectly functional drives, a dead motherboard, and no way to assemble the array on another computer because that motherboard/card isn't being sold anymore. That's really not a good situation to get into.
This may happen even with an expensive, battery backed RAID card, but in those cases you most likely you're getting some benefit from that, like better DB performance, and have at least one spare server with an identical card.
Again, hard to believe since I've seen it brought up many times in different discussions. Most people setting up a RAID these days do it in software, excepting those who have a fancy and very expensive card that really does something software can't provide.
Here you go.. Any questions?
Well, I'm not really surprised you're not getting a whole lot of demand.
Linux isn't really the best system for working with sound. And your page says "Mac OS and Linux versions coming soon", so if I wanted it, I'd see that and just wait for the release. Makes no sense to request something that you already said will be made.
Also, I find it very amusing that you went and made your own completely non-standard widget set.
Personal opinion: This sort of interface turns me off, because nearly all programs that do this sort of thing turn out to be inconvenient to use. Rotating knobs with a mouse? Ew. Where's the minimize button? Can it be maximized? Can I get rid of those huge buttons and dedicate most of the screen to the display?
BTW, in Linux this type of interface is nearly inexistent. Yeah, there's the whole KDE vs Gnome thing, but I can't think of a single program that has a completely non-standard interface up to the window borders.
Don't see that happening either. Both KDE and Gnome work "well enough". Gnome has those horrid file dialogs, and go figure, people still use it.
Oh, they're perfectly capable of doing it, I'm sure. Whether it'll become widely used is another question. Knol seems to have got a "meh" reaction, Lively was shut down.
KVM is already built in, and has been for several releases.
Though instead of standarizing on KVM, people are standarizing on libvirt, which provides an universal intreface to all those VMs.
So when is America converting to metric, and adopting the Euro?
Standarization in voltages mostly happened by not doing anything, btw. Some countries had 220V, others had 230, and others had 240. So they set the standard to 230V +- 5%, and voila, everybody is compliant and standarized without having to move a finger.
Real RAID is perfectly well supported by Linux.
But real RAID is not found on consumer motherboards. As a card it's something that could cost you about $400 or so. If it only does RAID0 and RAID1, it's not a real card.
The supposed advantage of doing RAID in hardware is offloading functions like parity calculations for RAID5. But it turns out that modern CPUs can actually do it faster in software. The remaining reason to do hardware RAID then, is to have a card with battery backed write cache, which can considerably improve performance.
So what is this program you made?
Print is dead != reading is dead.
I rarely read paper books anymore. I switched to reading from a screen instead. It's still reading.