You're making wild assumptions here which do not generally hold in real life:
1) that the Python interpreter or compiler won't tell you where your inconsistent indentation lies (it does).
2) that you'll be writing a 100k line program in one file. Major projects tend to split their source across multiple smaller files (which makes for less hunting for bugs).
3) that the problem of a stray character (say, '*' or '=' instead of '==') doesn't occur in other languages (it does, C is notorious for it, and that's why Python disallows assignments in comparison statements).
It's sort of funny that in the Six Million Dollar Man, the best sound those Fembots can give off is that of line printers printing and tape reels whirring (sounds pop up when the Fembots are "thinking").
How about those ubiquitous "scanning" sounds you hear in suspense movies when the computer monitor redraws?
CadSoft Eagle schematic layout editor
on
GTK 2.4.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
That's a 100% commercial QT app. Runs on Windows and Linux, looks the same, acts the same (it's a great circuitboard editor for the kind of senior-level projects we did in college).
Because Linux is the current news-maker here, not BSD. If BSD had the glossy-CEO-magazine visibility of Linux, I wouldn't be surprised if it met a similar predicament.
SCO doesn't care about Linux. SCO cares about making news that will drive up its stock price. SCO targeted Linux because its widespread familiarity makes it a convenient news generator.
Cabbalistic thought argues that G-d created several worlds before creating the one we inhabit. So this could have just been one of those worlds (for that matter, all the other planets just as well)
Interesting you mention Mosix (and by extension, Open Mosix). Yet another important Israeli contribution to world of OSS (bidi, open mosix, colinux...)! Seems like Israel becoming important in the open source world; It is already a potent force in the tech world, with heavy investments by Intel and Check Point.
On more somber note: Too many slashdot-freenode-gimpnet-kuro5hin folks use Israel-related news updates as soap boxes from which to launch their anti-Israel diatribes. Even tech writers Perhaps if there is not already some pro-Israel article on Israeli contributions to OSS, someone out there (anyone here an IGLU member?) could help me write one?
Right, the concept was that a nanotube can change its orientation when a voltage is applied across it. The company working on this, nantero's, predicts that hundreds of gigabytes could be stored in this way. This scheme technically uses moving parts, albeit on a much smaller scale. Nantero claims that this could replace SRAM, DRAM and mass storage altogether.
*sigh* why do they do that!?! that's like comparing umm... compact cars to luxury/sports cars of course it's cheaper to maintain a desktop-sized machine with 1 or 2 processors running a 2000$ OS than it is to run a 2 million dollar machine running a free OS
Remember, Microsoft's original claim with NT was that Windows is less expensive than Unix for what it does. It's the same thing now, only with Linux in place of Unix. IBM is still selling giant expensive systems, only instead of AIX they use Linux. It's the same exact argument MS has been using since it first released NT. Now, the thing that's changed over the past ten years is that now, a UNIX-like OS *is* available for the PC platform. MS should be comparing Windows to Linux *on the PC* as opposed to Linux on the mainframe.
We're living in an MS-centric world; Either you're using NTFS or FAT. And FAT, is much easier to implement than NTFS. It also uses less CPU power than NTFS. There have been some comments in the iriver user forums regarding reformatting the device's drive with XFS or ext3. Again, processing power was the main issue with that.
If you don't use video compression, then for today's data transfer speeds, storing and viewing uncompressed video is grossly inefficient--you'll still have to contend with the relatively slow data transfer rate. Assuming a USB 2 connection gives you a 480 Mb/s data rate with the overhead of start and stop bits[1] this gives us 480 Mb/s / (8 data bits + 2 start/stop bits) = 48 MB/s. Suppose a compressed two-hour movie takes up 800 MB of space (divx;-) can provide a 10:1 compression[2]). This would take 800 Mb / 48 MB/s = 16.6 seconds to transfer[3]. If this movie were originally an 8 GB DVD, the same transfer would take 166.7 s. But this is still with mpeg2 compression. Fully uncompressed, the movie requires *far* more space. According to this link, 4 minutes at the "CCIR-601 digital video standard"[4] would take 4.7 gigabytes. 2 hours into 4 minutes is 120 min / 4 min = 30 [units]; 30 * 4.7 GB = 141.0 GB. Over a USB2 connection, that takes 141.0 GB / 48 MB/s = 2937 s to transfer, or almost 50 minutes. And we're not even considering the data write rate on the device OR the bandwidth load on the device's bus (the CCIR-601 standard can take up between 165.9 and 270 Mbit/s).
Devices always make a practical tradeoff between the bandwidth requirements of the data stream and the computing power required to decode the stream's frames.
Incidentally, I learned a lot about the different compression schemes out there. Thanks for your prompt:)
- Roey
Notes:
1. I looked up the USB spec but couldn't verify whether it is synchronous or asynchronous (and even then if it uses start and stop bits), so I assumed it uses start and stop bits. It shouldn't make that big a difference anyway.
>And maybe you'll think differently when you end up being accidentally profiled as a terrorist, like all the "Dave Nelson"s out there... That's a short-sighted way of putting it; I can just as easily tell you that for me, the threat of many people really getting killed far outweighs an accidental errant profile.
It doesn't matter that Islamists have attacked the U.S. one (1) time. They use the U.S. as a base from which to plan more attacks around the world. So profiling benefits not just U.S. national security.
>That loophole has been patched by virtue of the fact that people will not sit idly by and let a plane be hijacked now, as they would have in the past.
Two things here: 1) terrorists will adapt to barriers. If they can't hijack a plane, they'll do something else that generates as much attention (bridges, cruise ships, etc); They don't necessarily have to 'hijack' in order to make an impact. They do this in Israel all the time, quick-and-dirty and without the hijacking drama. Profiling gives security forces a way to track/how/ terrorists plan to overcome barriers, so that the security forces can handle terrorists before they cause catastrophe (I'm just restating myself, perhaps I didn't convey this clearly before.)
2) Terrorists are being profiled anyway, and state-sponsored Total Awareness is not something that we don't have already. It'd just be official. The government can easily track your credit card purchases, bank statements, etc. Deep down, the government will do whatever it takes to ensure national security--if there's a law barring them from tracking your credit card history, they'll do it anyway.
> Remake our society into a police state, and the terrorists will have won. The U.S. is already a police society. Have terrorists "won"? How does a terrorist "win"? What does "winning" mean? Do they take over the U.S.? This can happen if people become complacent about obvious red flags. One example of this is the Wahabi-Islamist school ("Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences") in Fairfax, VA that only recently lost support from the Saudi embassy. Prominent Wahabi clerics came over there to lecture. What do you *think* they were preaching there, social tolerance?
Writing off profiling as an "over-react[ion] to that single attack" oversimplifies matters. Terrorists attack all over the world *now*, using different countries (including the U.S.) as bases. And national governments already track terrorists. Israel is able to stop most terrorist attacks on its soil simply BECAUSE they have spies and informants up everyone's ass.
>Incidentally, given the fact that the FBI and CIA were unable to catch the 9/11 group before they did anything not because they had no info, but because they had far too much info to process, doesn't it seem silly to deluge them with even more info - most of it useless?
Now, you bring up a different issue. Are you saying that profiling is too inefficient to successfully mitigate terrorist attacks? It's been proven in Israel. Granted, it's a smaller region, but the terrorists who plot against it are certainly internationally connected.
I'm not going to argue over semantics. You don't want the government snooping on what everyone does? Fine, maybe you'll think differently as more and more of your fellow country men are blown to confetti by Islamists.
Times are changing. Nations need more accountability now than ever before, especially in the face of Islamist terrorists. I support profiling and tracking if it enables governments to crack down on terrorists.
So an ext2/3 reader/writer drive should come with the driver that consumers install to get their systems to support their devices. A widely distributed ext2/3 driver for windows could even force Microsoft to include support for it in future OS releases. Anyone out there thinking of doing a Linux port to the iRiver IHP-120? (another question: anyone know of when an IHP-140/160/180 will come out?)
I've given this problem much thought. I have files I'd like to index such as articles collected off the 'net, po^Hrogramming mpegs, and images. I was looking for a system that is (1) integrated (2) flexible enough to let you set and query by keyword AND key/value pairs (3) transportable (so that copying a file to another disk moves transfers its indexing info as well).
So far the best interface I've seen is Windows 2000/XP's index service. It's an extension to the Find utility that lets you query files very finely (actress=jenna, date>2002, keywords=physics lectures). You set these attributes through a dedicated tab in a file's context menu. I wish there was something like this for KDE or GNOME -- but then, this would not be easily transportable (not unless you're willing to consciously remember to manipulate the metainfo database or move the file's metainfo file along with it).
You're absolutely right:) their statement is akin to saying "we haven't spoken to a single farmer who has said that cheese grows on the moon" (sounds ridiculous, eh?) He doesn't define what is 'better', as you said. He throws around this umbrella term -- that's the strawman part of his argument. He sets up some vague idea and then sets out to defeat it in an attempt to give weight his previous assertions. For more argumentation fallacies, please see the the Nizkor Project
>Well in recent polls 80% of israelis support >bombing the crap out of the palestinians, not to >mention the punitive closures, bulldozing, >destruction of farmland, and checkpoints.
Oooh, can you lay on the moral equivalence bullshit any thicker?. Why don't you refine what "bombing the crap out of the palestinians" means in real-world terms? i.e., do you believe that the IDF attacks intending to kill as many men, women and children as possible? It's in all the Palestinian terrorists' sermons, news reports, and declarations of hatred against Israel. It's how they design their bombs: they dip nails and bolts in rat poison, and then pack them into belt bombs. When the IDF strikes, it kills a few people and that's it. Nevermind the fact that terrorists like to surround themselves with children for 'protection'. So don't peddle that moral equivalence bullshit to me.
Punitive closures and checkpoints. What's there to understand? Palestinian terrorists are smuggled in taxis, buses, ambulances, and horse carts (carrying bombs in watermelons). Israel has to let these people in? That's what happens when Israel re-opens the closures; You invariably get well-padded "rabbis" exploding themselves among Israeli crowds.
Destruction of farmlands. Same thing, big deal. Since it's a matter of making sure Palestinian terrorists don't penetrate Israel, then all the better if Israel has to level Palestinian farmlands to make fighter jet runways.
>Also 50% of israelis support ejecting the >palestinians from palestine - ethnic cleansing
you make two mistakes here. 1) there is no palestine. Nada. Nothing. It's not 'their' land, even. It's land that was legitimately conquered by Israel. Second, you're missing the point of security *again*. It's not a matter of ethnicity or rejecting ethnicity. It's a matter of preventing terrorists from entering Israel. Ethnic cleansing is when you kick people out (and kill them) simply because they belong to a particular group. Israel targets not the Palestinian people for being Palestinians, but individual terrorists as they present a clear and present danger to the security of Israelis.
>Thats also the offical position of the religious >nutcase faction of the ruling government
where's your source? Which "faction" are you quoting? (democracies have independent parties, not offshoots or factions. Example: Shas is a religious party. However, Palestinian government does indeed have "factions". Fatah has many offshoots. Several of them publicly state that their mission is to kill as many Jews as possible. Israel is looking out for her security; there's nothing religious about that. Fatah factions such as Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades promise young suicide bombers that they'll get their seventy virgins in heaven. So who's the religious nutcase?
RAID provides availability in the case of hardware failure, but does nothing in the case of software errors. If Reiser4 decides to throw up all over your partition, the only thing that will save your data is a periodic backup (maybe from another disk).
What I'm looking for is affordable cheap, capacity and redundancy; RAID 1+0 (striping the mirrors) and 0+1 (mirroring the stripes) achieve this. I believe the minimal configuration for such a set up involves four drives for concurrent writes as well as reads (maybe even 4x the reading speed and 2x the writing speed as with a single drive?). This would also be sort of cheaper, since you can get two of last year's drives instead of just one of this year's higher-capacity models and still come out with the same space (and save some cash).
On that note, two questions:
1. Can anyone recommend an effective cooling enclosure for these things? Closest I've found are the Antec Plus660AMG and Plus1080AMG and Antec Sonata cases. These have fans blowing right in front of the internal hard drive cage. They're not as expensive as dedicated external drive cages, but doesn't anyone sell bare drive cages like the ones you find in a basic $20 case?? One could set a desk fan in front of them.
2. What is the effective difference between RAID 0+1 and 1+0? Why do more people recommend 1+0 instead of 0+1? (perhaps the different configurations have different tradeoffs in total post-failure speed or further redundancy?)
Also, the open source community is not responsible for the DOS attack anymore than Mormons are responsible for Brigam Young abd his crazies slaughtering entire famlies of settlers at Mountain Meadows.
Two points:
1. I don't understand where McBride suggesting that corporations should fear DDOS attacks at all. Failure and Risk Management are established fields, not to mention Network Security. Companies should be prepared for the worst DDOS attack. If they are, then this letter shouldn't mean much to them.
2. Above all, this letter is nothing but a distraction device. SCO wants Open Source folks to talk up a storm while execs quietly dump their stock
McBride apparently realizes that the ignorance of his arguments is like salt in a wound. Why else would he say things like "Linux operating system" instead of either "Linux kernel" or "GNU/Linux operating system"? It's just a show, people.
The fact that the DDOS is mentioned in one of the first paragraphs suggests that McBride wants his audience seething before he even gets to his main points. He could have gone further and left enough clues to get conspirists all frenzied ("what! you mean SCO paid ESR to DOS their systems and then keep shut about who did it?") I've read it here before and I'm restating it now: All of SCO's arguing is just a ploy.
The only winners, regardless of who's right or wrong, are the SCO execs who managed to dump their stocks while the U.S. Government stood idly by. There's a saying on slashdot: Please Don't Feed the Trolls. It applies to this story, too. Please Don't feed SCO's diversionary tactic.
Slashdot Mirror
Because directories are documents, too.
You're making wild assumptions here which do not generally hold in real life:
1) that the Python interpreter or compiler won't tell you where your inconsistent indentation lies (it does).
2) that you'll be writing a 100k line program in one file. Major projects tend to split their source across multiple smaller files (which makes for less hunting for bugs).
3) that the problem of a stray character (say, '*' or '=' instead of '==') doesn't occur in other languages (it does, C is notorious for it, and that's why Python disallows assignments in comparison statements).
Have you actually written a program in Python?
It's sort of funny that in the Six Million Dollar Man, the best sound those Fembots can give off is that of line printers printing and tape reels whirring (sounds pop up when the Fembots are "thinking").
How about those ubiquitous "scanning" sounds you hear in suspense movies when the computer monitor redraws?
That's a 100% commercial QT app. Runs on Windows and Linux, looks the same, acts the same (it's a great circuitboard editor for the kind of senior-level projects we did in college).
for more info: http://www.cadsoft.de/
Roey
Always with these "grandfather" paradoxes... do ya *have* to kill your progenitor? what about just causing them to fall in love with someone else?
Because Linux is the current news-maker here, not BSD. If BSD had the glossy-CEO-magazine visibility of Linux, I wouldn't be surprised if it met a similar predicament.
SCO doesn't care about Linux. SCO cares about making news that will drive up its stock price. SCO targeted Linux because its widespread familiarity makes it a convenient news generator.
Cabbalistic thought argues that G-d created several worlds before creating the one we inhabit. So this could have just been one of those worlds (for that matter, all the other planets just as well)
One point that the article mentions that you didn't touch on is the fact that this is a renewable source of energy, whereas oil is not.
And the language is "farsi", not Persian ;)
Interesting you mention Mosix (and by extension, Open Mosix). Yet another important Israeli contribution to world of OSS (bidi, open mosix, colinux...)! Seems like Israel becoming important in the open source world; It is already a potent force in the tech world, with heavy investments by Intel and Check Point.
On more somber note: Too many slashdot-freenode-gimpnet-kuro5hin folks use Israel-related news updates as soap boxes from which to launch their anti-Israel diatribes. Even tech writers
Perhaps if there is not already some pro-Israel article on Israeli contributions to OSS, someone out there (anyone here an IGLU member?) could help me write one?
Roey
Right, the concept was that a nanotube can change its orientation when a voltage is applied across it. The company working on this, nantero's, predicts that hundreds of gigabytes could be stored in this way. This scheme technically uses moving parts, albeit on a much smaller scale. Nantero claims that this could replace SRAM, DRAM and mass storage altogether.
*sigh* why do they do that!?! that's like comparing umm... compact cars to luxury/sports cars of course it's cheaper to maintain a desktop-sized machine with 1 or 2 processors running a 2000$ OS than it is to run a 2 million dollar machine running a free OS
Remember, Microsoft's original claim with NT was that Windows is less expensive than Unix for what it does. It's the same thing now, only with Linux in place of Unix. IBM is still selling giant expensive systems, only instead of AIX they use Linux. It's the same exact argument MS has been using since it first released NT. Now, the thing that's changed over the past ten years is that now, a UNIX-like OS *is* available for the PC platform. MS should be comparing Windows to Linux *on the PC* as opposed to Linux on the mainframe.
Which desktop (windows, kde, gnome, mac) is shown in this image?
The leftmost titlebar button resembles MacOS9, but the rightmost buttons don't.
(The image appears washed-out because it's a photo of a canvas.)
We're living in an MS-centric world; Either you're using NTFS or FAT. And FAT, is much easier to implement than NTFS. It also uses less CPU power than NTFS. There have been some comments in the iriver user forums regarding reformatting the device's drive with XFS or ext3. Again, processing power was the main issue with that.
If you don't use video compression, then for today's data transfer speeds, storing and viewing uncompressed video is grossly inefficient--you'll still have to contend with the relatively slow data transfer rate. Assuming a USB 2 connection gives you a 480 Mb/s data rate with the overhead of start and stop bits[1] this gives us 480 Mb/s / (8 data bits + 2 start/stop bits) = 48 MB/s. Suppose a compressed two-hour movie takes up 800 MB of space (divx ;-) can provide a 10:1 compression[2]). This would take 800 Mb / 48 MB/s = 16.6 seconds to transfer[3]. If this movie were originally an 8 GB DVD, the same transfer would take 166.7 s. But this is still with mpeg2 compression. Fully uncompressed, the movie requires *far* more space. According to this link, 4 minutes at the "CCIR-601 digital video standard"[4] would take 4.7 gigabytes. 2 hours into 4 minutes is 120 min / 4 min = 30 [units]; 30 * 4.7 GB = 141.0 GB. Over a USB2 connection, that takes 141.0 GB / 48 MB/s = 2937 s to transfer, or almost 50 minutes. And we're not even considering the data write rate on the device OR the bandwidth load on the device's bus (the CCIR-601 standard can take up between 165.9 and 270 Mbit/s).
:)
;-) Wiki page
Devices always make a practical tradeoff between the bandwidth requirements of the data stream and the computing power required to decode the stream's frames.
Incidentally, I learned a lot about the different compression schemes out there. Thanks for your prompt
- Roey
Notes:
1. I looked up the USB spec but couldn't verify whether it is synchronous or asynchronous (and even then if it uses start and stop bits), so I assumed it uses start and stop bits. It shouldn't make that big a difference anyway.
2. DivX
3. Universal Serial Bus Wiki page
4. CCIR-601 Wiki page
>And maybe you'll think differently when you end up being accidentally profiled as a terrorist, like all the "Dave Nelson"s out there...
/how/ terrorists plan to overcome barriers, so that the security forces can handle terrorists before they cause catastrophe (I'm just restating myself, perhaps I didn't convey this clearly before.)
That's a short-sighted way of putting it; I can just as easily tell you that for me, the threat of many people really getting killed far outweighs an accidental errant profile.
It doesn't matter that Islamists have attacked the U.S. one (1) time. They use the U.S. as a base from which to plan more attacks around the world. So profiling benefits not just U.S. national security.
>That loophole has been patched by virtue of the fact that people will not sit idly by and let a plane be hijacked now, as they would have in the past.
Two things here:
1) terrorists will adapt to barriers. If they can't hijack a plane, they'll do something else that generates as much attention (bridges, cruise ships, etc); They don't necessarily have to 'hijack' in order to make an impact. They do this in Israel all the time, quick-and-dirty and without the hijacking drama. Profiling gives security forces a way to track
2) Terrorists are being profiled anyway, and state-sponsored Total Awareness is not something that we don't have already. It'd just be official. The government can easily track your credit card purchases, bank statements, etc. Deep down, the government will do whatever it takes to ensure national security--if there's a law barring them from tracking your credit card history, they'll do it anyway.
> Remake our society into a police state, and the terrorists will have won.
The U.S. is already a police society. Have terrorists "won"? How does a terrorist "win"? What does "winning" mean? Do they take over the U.S.? This can happen if people become complacent about obvious red flags. One example of this is the Wahabi-Islamist school ("Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences") in Fairfax, VA that only recently lost support from the Saudi embassy. Prominent Wahabi clerics came over there to lecture. What do you *think* they were preaching there, social tolerance?
Writing off profiling as an "over-react[ion] to that single attack" oversimplifies matters. Terrorists attack all over the world *now*, using different countries (including the U.S.) as bases. And national governments already track terrorists. Israel is able to stop most terrorist attacks on its soil simply BECAUSE they have spies and informants up everyone's ass.
>Incidentally, given the fact that the FBI and CIA were unable to catch the 9/11 group before they did anything not because they had no info, but because they had far too much info to process, doesn't it seem silly to deluge them with even more info - most of it useless?
Now, you bring up a different issue. Are you saying that profiling is too inefficient to successfully mitigate terrorist attacks? It's been proven in Israel. Granted, it's a smaller region, but the terrorists who plot against it are certainly internationally connected.
I'm not going to argue over semantics. You don't want the government snooping on what everyone does? Fine, maybe you'll think differently as more and more of your fellow country men are blown to confetti by Islamists.
Times are changing. Nations need more accountability now than ever before, especially in the face of Islamist terrorists. I support profiling and tracking if it enables governments to crack down on terrorists.
So an ext2/3 reader/writer drive should come with the driver that consumers install to get their systems to support their devices.
A widely distributed ext2/3 driver for windows could even force Microsoft to include support for it in future OS releases.
Anyone out there thinking of doing a Linux port to the iRiver IHP-120?
(another question: anyone know of when an IHP-140/160/180 will come out?)
Roey
I've given this problem much thought. I have files I'd like to index such as articles collected off the 'net, po^Hrogramming mpegs, and images. I was looking for a system that is
(1) integrated
(2) flexible enough to let you set and query by keyword AND key/value pairs
(3) transportable (so that copying a file to another disk moves transfers its indexing info as well).
So far the best interface I've seen is Windows 2000/XP's index service. It's an extension to the Find utility that lets you query files very finely (actress=jenna, date>2002, keywords=physics lectures). You set these attributes through a dedicated tab in a file's context menu. I wish there was something like this for KDE or GNOME -- but then, this would not be easily transportable (not unless you're willing to consciously remember to manipulate the metainfo database or move the file's metainfo file along with it).
Roey
You're absolutely right :) their statement is akin to saying "we haven't spoken to a single farmer who has said that cheese grows on the moon" (sounds ridiculous, eh?) He doesn't define what is 'better', as you said. He throws around this umbrella term -- that's the strawman part of his argument. He sets up some vague idea and then sets out to defeat it in an attempt to give weight his previous assertions. For more argumentation fallacies, please see the the Nizkor Project
>Well in recent polls 80% of israelis support >bombing the crap out of the palestinians, not to >mention the punitive closures, bulldozing, >destruction of farmland, and checkpoints.
Oooh, can you lay on the moral equivalence bullshit any thicker?. Why don't you refine what "bombing the crap out of the palestinians" means in real-world terms? i.e., do you believe that the IDF attacks intending to kill as many men, women and children as possible? It's in all the Palestinian terrorists' sermons, news reports, and declarations of hatred against Israel. It's how they design their bombs: they dip nails and bolts in rat poison, and then pack them into belt bombs. When the IDF strikes, it kills a few people and that's it. Nevermind the fact that terrorists like to surround themselves with children for 'protection'. So don't peddle that moral equivalence bullshit to me.
Punitive closures and checkpoints. What's there to understand? Palestinian terrorists are smuggled in taxis, buses, ambulances, and horse carts (carrying bombs in watermelons). Israel has to let these people in? That's what happens when Israel re-opens the closures; You invariably get well-padded "rabbis" exploding themselves among Israeli crowds.
Destruction of farmlands. Same thing, big deal. Since it's a matter of making sure Palestinian terrorists don't penetrate Israel, then all the better if Israel has to level Palestinian farmlands to make fighter jet runways.
>Also 50% of israelis support ejecting the >palestinians from palestine - ethnic cleansing
you make two mistakes here. 1) there is no palestine. Nada. Nothing. It's not 'their' land, even. It's land that was legitimately conquered by Israel. Second, you're missing the point of security *again*. It's not a matter of ethnicity or rejecting ethnicity. It's a matter of preventing terrorists from entering Israel. Ethnic cleansing is when you kick people out (and kill them) simply because they belong to a particular group. Israel targets not the Palestinian people for being Palestinians, but individual terrorists as they present a clear and present danger to the security of Israelis.
>Thats also the offical position of the religious >nutcase faction of the ruling government
where's your source? Which "faction" are you quoting? (democracies have independent parties, not offshoots or factions. Example: Shas is a religious party. However, Palestinian government does indeed have "factions". Fatah has many offshoots. Several of them publicly state that their mission is to kill as many Jews as possible. Israel is looking out for her security; there's nothing religious about that. Fatah factions such as Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades promise young suicide bombers that they'll get their seventy virgins in heaven. So who's the religious nutcase?
Roey.
Does this increase the chance that Mplayer will be included in a future Debian release?
What I'm looking for is affordable cheap, capacity and redundancy; RAID 1+0 (striping the mirrors) and 0+1 (mirroring the stripes) achieve this. I believe the minimal configuration for such a set up involves four drives for concurrent writes as well as reads (maybe even 4x the reading speed and 2x the writing speed as with a single drive?). This would also be sort of cheaper, since you can get two of last year's drives instead of just one of this year's higher-capacity models and still come out with the same space (and save some cash).
On that note, two questions:
1. Can anyone recommend an effective cooling enclosure for these things? Closest I've found are the Antec Plus660AMG and Plus1080AMG and Antec Sonata cases. These have fans blowing right in front of the internal hard drive cage. They're not as expensive as dedicated external drive cages, but doesn't anyone sell bare drive cages like the ones you find in a basic $20 case?? One could set a desk fan in front of them.
2. What is the effective difference between RAID 0+1 and 1+0? Why do more people recommend 1+0 instead of 0+1? (perhaps the different configurations have different tradeoffs in total post-failure speed or further redundancy?)
Roey Katz
Two points:
1. I don't understand where McBride suggesting that corporations should fear DDOS attacks at all. Failure and Risk Management are established fields, not to mention Network Security. Companies should be prepared for the worst DDOS attack. If they are, then this letter shouldn't mean much to them.
2. Above all, this letter is nothing but a distraction device. SCO wants Open Source folks to talk up a storm while execs quietly dump their stock
McBride apparently realizes that the ignorance of his arguments is like salt in a wound. Why else would he say things like "Linux operating system" instead of either "Linux kernel" or "GNU/Linux operating system"? It's just a show, people.
The fact that the DDOS is mentioned in one of the first paragraphs suggests that McBride wants his audience seething before he even gets to his main points. He could have gone further and left enough clues to get conspirists all frenzied ("what! you mean SCO paid ESR to DOS their systems and then keep shut about who did it?")
I've read it here before and I'm restating it now:
All of SCO's arguing is just a ploy.
The only winners, regardless of who's right or wrong, are the SCO execs who managed to dump their stocks while the U.S. Government stood idly by. There's a saying on slashdot: Please Don't Feed the Trolls. It applies to this story, too. Please Don't feed SCO's diversionary tactic.