Fuck law school, and feel sorry for the lawyers. You don't know how bad those kids have it, these days.
Nationwide, salaries for starting law school grads have been dropping steadily since 2008. The job market for JDs is utter shit, and will probably stay that way for a while. Much of the classes of 2008-09 are still looking for their first "real" jobs (i.e., requiring a laws degree, not a Starbucks' apron). Check out the numbers:
That's right: $45K/year for a job that requires 3 extra years of school after your B.A., and costs you $150,00 in tuition. (And that's IF you land a job.) And while salaries do increase with experience, 95% won't break the $100K/year mark until they've been practicing for 8 or 10 years.
I have a couple of dozen friends who started law school (circa 2001-2009) instead of getting real jobs right away, most due to a combination of:
1) they saw it as an easy ticket to big money and professional distinction, unlike their recently-earned liberal arts B.A. degrees
2) they hadn't been thinking in specific terms about their post-graduation career plans, and so they basically had no idea what they wanted to do with their lives
3) basically any bank would approve full student loans for anybody who got into an accredited law school, at the time.
The people I knew were just a small selection of the wave of under-motivated, unskilled, and barely employable Gen-Y folk who flooded into US law schools. And since the law schools have zero accountability for whether their students get jobs after graduating, there's no direct feedback to stop them from churning out J.D.s into an already over-saturated swamp of 20somethings drowning in unsubsidized student debts (at sky-high, pre-crash interest rates, too).
A few of my friends were the lucky winners who landed the really good "big firm" jobs, with super-high starting salaries--this is maybe 5% of all law school grads, nationwide, in any given class. People who got hired at Skadden, Proskauer, MoFo, etc. were making $150K-$200K, right out of law school. These jobs are reserved for the super-high achievers, the kids who've been busting their asses studying every night/weekend since high school, with straight 4.0 GPAs since before junior high. In their first 5 years, they're each required to bill at least 2,000 hours/year to clients, which really means spending 60-80 hours/week at work (not everything is billable). Standards rise as they advance, and if they want to make partner, they'll have to put in around 80 hours/week for the next 10 years or so--and keep that pace up if they want to stay partners in the firm. Salaries do rise, too: A 5th-year associate at Skadden can pull down $500K/year, in exchange for her 80-100 hours/week, and a partner will bring home multiple millions/year.
I'm guess I'm pretty close to being an expert, on this--like much of Slashdot, I get paid to do this stuff.
If your payment system runs over WiFi, and if that WiFi link and your payment server/client apps also do not implement any extra security measures, then your security is screwed. Anybody with a laptop and some free software can sniff your traffic, insert extra packets, etc. God help you.
Luckily, most modern WiFi equipment supports the WPA2 standard for link-layer encryption and authentication. If you just enable WPA2 on your router and set a halfway decent password, nobody will be able to bother you. WPA2 is very, very secure (from a cryptanalysis perspective), as good as the best stuff that protects bank transactions, military secrets, etc.
Or, you might be able to encrypt the app traffic via SSL or a VPN, using app-level passwords for authentication. Depends on what the PoS terminal and server platforms support.
Either way, make sure you physically lock down both the terminals and the server. If anybody (e.g., rogue employee) can view a cleartext password or modify a security configuration from the PoS terminal UI, or if they can open the case and pull a hard drive, you lose. But this isn't a WiFi weakness--you have the same potential problem with wired networks, too.
Both have gotten to the same point within a few weeks of each other.
Ummm... No. SL6 was released waaay back at the beginning of March: https://www.scientificlinux.org/news/sl60, that's March 3 to July 10. CentOS is slightly more than THREE MONTHS behind.
And as for 6.1, here's a tip about the long shot: the SL6.1 is starting beta, this week.
* Gravitationally-induced time dilation is a local effect--the degree of dilation for an observer depends on the strength of the local gravitational field at that observer's location. And while the universe's expansion does contribute some ongoing changes to the local gravity field strengths at every point throughout the universe, the size of those changes is miniscule compared to the absolute strength of even the earth's gravity at the planet's surface. The observed effects of lambda (cosmological constant, dark energy, whatever) are a whole lot bigger.
* Time dilation works opposite to your description, i.e., the GREATER the local mass density (and therefore the more intense the local gravitational field) the faster time will move relative to the rest of the universe.
* Einstein's GR includes the relativity of time and space in the model, as specific terms OTHER than lambda. Lambda is the part of the model that *cannot* be explained by anything else we already know about.
I know, I know: IHPBT. I needed something to do while my coffee was cooling.
This is ambiguous, it could mean either of two completely different weapons systems:
First, we can consider an auto-aiming system with conventional "dumb", non-steered bullets. TFA discusses a tentative step in this direction, but it's easy to imagine a fully automated kind of system with a point-n-click interface. The rifle would be mounted on a computer-controlled, precision servo motor mount, with a a telescoped camera sighted along the barrel instead of a normal eyepiece. On a video monitor, the computer presents a crosshairs superimposed over a live camera image. The computer can incorporate various sources of ballistic data to correct the sight picture: sensors measuring (e.g.) barrel droop due to heat; a laser or microwave rangefinder for calculating elevation adjustments (b/c bullets drops as they travel); a wind gauge for calculating windage adjustments. If the computer performs real-time image analysis, it could also "mask" targets out from the background and analyze their motion, which would allow the operator's mouse aim to be pretty vague--kind of like a FPS game with an auto-aim cheat enabled.
With quality mechanics, sensors, and code, this kind of weapon could allow a novice to out-shoot a good trained military shooter, as long as the target is stationary. Based on existing, real-life systems that I've seen and worked with, I think this kind of weapon could be built, today, for less than $5,000 using slightly modified off-the-shelf equipment and software. Would it beat a trained, experienced military shooter? Maybe not, but I don't see any reason why the implementation couldn't be refined to that point--there's no theoretical reason why the pure man-plus-gun system has to be better.
The second possibility, here, is to introduce "smart" steerable bullets into the mix. Like a guided air-to-air missile, each bullet would be able to adjust its course in midair in order to track a target that is moving, or simply to correct for the normal vagaries ballistics. This kind of system's one clear superiority over dumb bullets is that it can account for variables that crop up *after* the bullet leaves the barrel. For instance, a particularly small, fast, and continuously, erratically moving target (say, a hummingbird at 1 km) can easily foil the best shooter, human or computer. The hummingbird can trivially move out of a bullet's path during the flight interval, and the position changes are too chaotic for meaningful predictions (unlike, say, a man walking along a stretch of road). If each bullet carries its own target-tracking sensor (like an air-to-air missile) or obeys remote commands from the gun's targeting system (like a TOW missile), then the possibility of hitting that hummingbird grows larger.
The mechanical implementation of steerable bullets is a bitch, though. The fundamental problem of non-powered, controlled flight is that course corrections increase drag and diminish your velocity. The more drastic of course changes you want, the more you hurt your aerodynamics, which proportionally hurts your kinetic energy, range, and damage potential. There may be a practical sweet spot, trading just a little power for just enough steering. Or, you might be forced to trade your unpowered bullets for powered rocket-like projectiles. Either way, you're talking about a hell of a lot of tough engineering R&D, like designing rocket engines or jet bodies, where you need an immense amount of experimental data and trial-and-error. To me, this sounds like big defense-contractor stuff--who else can afford time on a supersonic wind tunnel?
And then there's the problem of cramming a steering mechanism and whatever targeting control equipment you need into the space of a bullet. Electronics and mechanical designs may be hard or easy, but a sure way to make them maddeningly frustrating is to mandate an especially tiny physical package. Oh, and your mass di
but if nothing ever appears to cross the Event Horizon from an outside perspective then everything that has ever fell in would still look as though it hadn't. All the fallen objects would appear to be continuing to circle the black hole just like everything else in the universe appears to be doing. This could quite possibly, if not probably, mean we have all already passed the Event Horizon of a black hole and are on the inside looking out, rather than the outside looking in.
Believe it, man, I shit you not--this is the real physics. Check out the description on WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon#Interacting_with_an_event_horizon
That you perceive it as weird doesn't mean it's not true. There is some mind-blowing shit out there, and it's sometimes hard to accept the truth of it without understanding any of the math involved.
Time dilation and length contraction are NOT optical illusions. They are very, very real *physical* effects, and there are a number of unarguable, concrete experimental results showing them at work.
You're probably getting confused by the concept of gravity lensing, which is black hole-related phenomenon described by General Relativity.
NO, absolutely not. An outside observer sees time "slow down" for objects that are approaching a black hole, so that each falling object approaches the event horizon asymptotically BUT NEVER ACTUALLY REACHES IT.
If you watched somebody falling into a black hole, and you kept a telescope trained on his wristwatch, you would see the second hand sweep slower and slower as he got closer to the EH distance. No matter how long your wait, you'll never actually see anything cross the EH from the outside.
(I am not kidding, this is what actually would happen. If this seems unpossible, don't worry too much--unless you've already studied special relativity and grasped at least that much, this is pretty counter-intuitive.)
You have this all backwards WRT how time dilation affects the two frames of reference:
1) The observer falling into the black hole experiences the trip to the event horizon *normally*. In a finite amount of time, this moving observer will cross the event horizon and reach the singularity--or, at least, his constituent subatomic particles will (tidal force). Crossing the EH is a non-event, for this guy--if the black hole is massive enough, he won't even notice the tidal forces until well after he passes the EH.)
2) The stationary, outside observer never actually sees the moving observer cross the event horizon. Instead, the outsider sees the moving guy get slower and slower, the closer he gets to that point. (I.e., the moving guy will appear to approach the EH asymptotically.)
For example, consider a hypothetical non-rotating black hole with an EH radius of ~1,000 km. Our two observers are sitting at a distance of ~1,000 km outside of the EH (that's 2,000 km away from the singularity). Suddenly, the more suicidal of the two observers backs off, takes a running start, and hurls himself directly toward the center (singularity) of the black hole with a velocity of 1,000 km/hour.
The suicidal (now moving) observer checks his watch about an hour later and measures his distance to his ship: ~1,000 km from his ship (also 1,000 km from the singularity, in the other direction). Around this time, he's crossing the EH, and probably not noticing anything funny. In his frame of reference, plunging into the black hole, time just moves along normally. Sometime during the next hour, the tidal forces will rip him to shreds. Presuming his consciousness continues the trip along with his shreds (staying in that same moving frame of reference), he'll reach the singularity at the end of the second hour. God only knows what happens, there.
The stationary observer, on the other hand, watches his moving buddy seem to slow down as falls. At the end of the first hour, the stationary observer checks his watch and measures the distance to his buddy: somewhat LESS than 1,000 km from the ship (and MORE than 1,000 km from the singularity. At the end of the second hour, his buddy will still not have reached the 1,000 km mark--the buddy's velocity drops in direct proportion to his distance from the event horizon. With a telescope, the stationary observer would actually see the second hand on his buddy's wristwatch sweep slower and slower as gets closer and closer to the black hole.
Thank you. I have faith that Jesus sent you to speak these words of truth. Desperately needed to be said.
While you're at it, would you mind visiting upon the bag of hammers running Phoronix? Somebody needs to explain to them what the word "regression" means (and doesn't mean).
Did you even read the article? The burning house was in a rural area that had no regular fire department. A nearby city offered to protect individual property owners, IF they paid an annual $75 fee, but this was purely on a contract basis. The rural property owners were NOT residents of that city, and they did NOT pay any taxes to that city, and they had no claim on the city's services (firefighting, garbage pickup, street maintenance) unless they had a separate contract with the city.
So tell me how lawful it is to say "Give us $75 per year, and we'll make sure your house doesn't burn down."
You have an overly simplistic and ignorant perception of what American law is, and how it applies. Your everyday notions of right, wrong, fairness, justice, equality, etc. are not enough to understand these things. The law is a complex, highly nuances, and technical subject, and you have (apparantly) never studied it.
In the US, there's no general law saying that you have the right to fire-fighting services. Most cities, and many counties, do provide blanket fire protection to properties within their limits. And in those jurisdictions, a homeowner has some legal expectation that the local fire department will extinguish his burning house.
If an individual fire fighter or department refused to fight such a fire or demanded payment, then the homeowner would probably have a claim to sue that firefighter, the department, and/or the city or county. Most likely, the firefighter(s) who refused would lose his/their job(s), too. SOME jurisdictions MIGHT also have laws making a delinquent firefighter criminally responsible for letting the house burn down. But I know there are no such laws in at least one major American city (New York).
The Duress in this situation is the Stress of "the house is on fire and losing value per minute". Note the 911 call from the homeowners wife offering to pay "whatever you want".
THE WORD "DURESS" DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS, IN A LEGAL CONTEXT. Kind of like how a "cookie" doesn't mean "a kind of baked edible snack", when we're talking about web browsers.
You are only familiar with the colloquial, everyday definition of duress, which includes being under any kind of pressure. Look back to my original post--the LEGAL definition of "duress" is pretty different from the everyday definition.
In a legal context, "duress" only covers threats and pressures that are INHERENTLY ILLEGAL by themselves. Ordinary pressure, by itself, isn't enough to overturn a contract, because LEGALLY it doesn't meet the definition of "duress".
Here's an example that might help illustrate the difference for you:
Pretend that you own a small ISP company, and your entire sysadmin staff suddenly quits, one day. You have nobody to run your technical operations, perform maintenance, handle tech support calls, etc. Every hour that goes by, your customers are getting more frustrated at the service problems, and more and more of them are switching to a different provider. You are losing money. Metaphorically speaking, your business is burning down around you.
Now, pretend that I call you and offer my services as an emergency sysadmin. I have good references (from people you respect) and experience with your kind of situation. But because I'm so good, I charge a HELL of a lot of money. Before I'll start working for you, I demand a signed contract, with my standard hourly rate of $500/hour. (That's about 3x what you used to pay your whole sysadmin department, before they all quit.)
Obviously, you don't like the idea of paying me $500/hour on a contract that will probably run for several weeks. But you don't have a lot of other options. It's hard to find someone good on short notice, and maybe you have a reputation as being a jerk to the people who work for you.
So let's say that you consider your options, investigate the alternatives, and you come down to a simple choice: Either you agree to my contract, or your business goes under.
Would you, the business owner, be signing that contract under duress? According to the everyday definition, absolutely it's duress. But not according to the legal definition. There's nothing inherently illegal about me not solving your technical problems. In fact, on a daily basis, I don't solve 99.99999999% of the world's technical problems, and you don't see them sending me to jail for that.
So what IS duress, legally? Here are some examples:
* I threaten to DoS you with my botnet, unless you sign a contract with me. (This would also be criminal extortion, and possibly a few other things.)
* I point a gun at your head and tell you that either your signature or your brains will be on my contract, by the time I leave the room. (Again, there would probably also be criminal charges, here, too.)
* I show you some pictures of you, your mistress, and a boa constrictor performing deviant sexual acts together, and offer to keep your secrets from your wife/mother/church congregation/local newspaper, in you'd kindly sign my contract. (Yep, blackmail's a crime, too.)
See the differences, here? In these last three examples, I'm making an inherently illegal threat. THAT is what defines duress, in a legal context. It's not just about whether you're under pressure, or whether you're losing money, or your house/business/whatever. If it's legal to not help you fight your house fire, than the contract that I demand you to sign before helping you fight it is perfectly legal.
"Duress": I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Black's Law (quoted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress) defines duress as: "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]".
In other words, I can induce you to sign a contract with any LEGAL threat that I so please, and the contract is still binding. But if my threats are inherently illegal (such as threatening to hurt you, hurt your family, destroy your property, blackmail you), then the concept of duress applies, and you have a defense against my breach of contract claims.
This definition makes a lot of practical sense, if you think about it. If duress were a broader concept that included me refusing to provide you with services if you don't sign a contract, then I wouldn't even legally be able to tell you the point of signing the contract, in the first place. Under that kind of twisted logic, if you asked "Why should I sign this contract agreeing to pay you $20 to mow my lawn", and I responded "Because I won't mow your lawn for free", then I'd be subjecting you to duress. Clearly, that's not conducive to basic business arrangements.
In this case, the firefighters would be threatening to withold a service (fighting the fire consuming the man's house), which doesn't seem to be an illegal threat, to me. Granted, the house represents a very serious economic and emotional loss to this man and his family. I don't want to belittle that. But it's not like the firefighters set the man's house on fire, in the first place.
Now, there are some situations where a society will legally or socially obligate an individual member to act on behalf of his fellow man in a time of need. Some jurisdictions even have laws requiring you to aid another human being in distress, as long as you're not putting yourself in harm's way (like in the Seinfeld finale). So everything I said, above, assumes that this little Tennessee burg isn't one of situations.
A DVD is a tangible good, no different than a book.
Bullshit, on face. While it's true that DVDs and paper books ARE both tangible objects, there are infinitely many OTHER differences between DVDs and books. For example, here's a list:
- Books are usually mostly composed of plant-derived cellulose, while DVDs are mostly made of petroleum-derived polycarbonate plastics. - Books were first manufactured and published in ancient times, while DVDs weren't invented until the mid-1990s. - Books are usually published by book publishing companies, which (as an industry) have a distinct history, corporate culture, and business model in comparison to film and television studios, which usually publish DVDs.
Now, you can call some (or all) of my distinctions silly. But since you failed to provide any supporting rationale as to why the property of "tangibility of medium" is any more relevant, I think my reasons are just as good as yours. As I see it, you have basically two choices, here:
(A) Add some argument to support the relevance of tangibility, OR (B) Re-phrase your statement by (heavily) qualifying your assertion that the two types of items are "no different".
If planned restarts of individual servers are *not* "LOW COST" operations, you should probably concentrate on fixing your architecture and procedures, rather than delving into kernel mangling.
Please, go back and re-read my original post: I make no assumptions about whether reboots are low-cost or high-cost, in the absolute sense. So, your opinion on the absolute costs of server reboots, while interesting, is entirely irrelevant to my argument.
See, I'm discussing the RELATIVE cost of server restarts. But because you started composing your reply before you read enough of my post to understand my point, you're just lecturing to yourself, here.
Why ? How is starting from an inherently less known and more volatile state ever going to be "MORE stable" ?
Again, you're just spazzing without bothering to read the entire post. To the extent that it's possible (given that we're speculating about the future, here), I already directly answered your question.
Also, note that my argument isn't premised on in-place kernel upgrades becoming MORE stable than the reboot-facilitated kind, just ALMOST AS stable (to the point where the additional risk is trivial and outweighed by the (minor) inconvenience of a reboot). So you're basically just engaging in a straw-man fallacy, here.
All systems develop runtime cruft over time and benefit from a reboot. To say nothing of how useful planned reboots are for confirming that your systems will recover from the _unplanned_ ones.
I'm sure these are interesting opinions in the context of your own personal experiences, but they're much less relevant in an abstract discussion like this. That's because my personal experiences may differ sharply from yours, just as the experiences of any particular 3rd-party observer may differ from both of ours. (In other words, why should we Big City folk care how some country boy sodbuster does things in his podunk backwater?)
So I'll refute your argument (and give you a handy little demonstration of why argument-by-anecdote is made of fail) by simply saying: In my own personal experience, it is NOT TRUE that all systems develop "runtime cruft" and benefit from reboots, OR that planned reboots are useful. (Probably because my architecture and systems management strategy differs from yours.)
So, here's a summary for your reference:
* You need to improve your reading comprehension skills.
* You need to control your irrelevant outbursts and focus on the specific arguments at hand.
* You need to learn how to identify key arguments and differentiate them from side issues.
You go ahead and keep putting all that effort into denying my suggestion. If would have been far simpler for you to just drop the single line I quoted from you above...
That's not an argument, that's just the punchline.
At first glance, you appear to be the exact type of person the Bruce Schneier was trying to warn when he said:
I tell people that if it's in the news, don't worry about it. The very definition of "news" is "something that hardly ever happens." (http://www.schneier.com/essay-304.html)
Here's a little education, if you please:
Second time suggests that...
Two data points do not a trend make. People who try to force conclusions from such limited data often hold opinions of limited value.
Also, there are hundreds of reported accidents in the U.S. oil industry, every year. You (and whoever modded you "insightful") are ignorant because most accidents don't make front-page news. The vast majority spill little or no oil, and cause little or no environmental damage or economic loss, and the operating companies pay cleanup costs plus fines for what damages do occur.
This rig explosion, unlike the Deepwater Horizon incident in April, is a very MINOR oil spill, with no worker casualties and minimal economic impact. If the rig featured in this news story had exploded back in March, before Deepwater Horizon's big spill seeded us with fear of globally-catastrophic oil spills, the article would never have made national headlines, because nobody would have given two shits.
And in another few months, maybe a year, you and the rest of this over-excitable country will completely forget that they were ever scared of catastrophic oil spills.
I'm not saying that your stuff is directly at risk. But if we have another explosion, pipeline leak, or similar event anywhere within USA jurisdiction, your property values will get tarred by a very broad brush. Anyone at risk of this needs to get politicking for some kind of review that will assure potential buyers that they won't be shafted by their petrochemical neighbors.
Where did you get this idea, that the US population is on the verge of living in fear of filling stations and refineries? IF a series of massive catastrophies struck, and IF they were all confined to the oil industry, and IF it all happened near populated areas, and IF they all happened in a short enough period of time, then you might start to see property values changing. But absent that kind of chain of unlikeIy events, I don't see it.
See, the thing you might be missing is, oil spills have been happening occasionally but regularly for about the last century or so. Refinery explosions and filling stations fires, explosions, etc. are nothing new, either. And it's not like people aren't aware of them--if there's a body count, or a big economic impact, there's usually at least a local news stories. Absent some kind of new, ongoing threat that happens close to where people live, why would anyone start caring much more than they do, right now?
BTW, there is absolutely no need to lay this kind of thing off to enemy action. Not when 8+ years of ineffective oversight coupled with corporate "long term" planning that fails to look beyond next quarter's profit and loss statement are more than adequate to account for these incidents. (I was about to say "accidents", but it appears that these are far from accidental. They look much more like the productive of short term greed multiplied by long term stupidity.)
Ah. I see. You're a paranoid conspiracy nut. Sorry, go ahead, you were saying?
Get a little imagination, will ya? Here,I'll boil your objection down into two simple premises, for you:
1) In-place kernel upgrades are inherently RISKY to stability, compared with normal reboot upgrades. 2) Reboot upgrades are a LOW COST operation.
You seem to assume that the risk of #1 (upgrade in-place) will always outweigh the cost of #2 (rebooting to upgrade). At the moment, you MAY be correct in that assumption, but we have no basis for any conclusions, yet.
But Ksplice's current business plan is to get ahold of a massive, low-cost testing infrastructure by getting installed by default on as many popular Linux distros (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.) as possible. Properly executed, a massive testing and development effort should improve KSplice's quality (read: stability) over time.
At some point, if KSplice does it right, in-place kernel upgrades will become stable enough to no longer entail measurably more risk than traditional reboot upgrades. If/When that happens, you'd be a fool to continue reboot upgrading, right? If there's no practical added risk, why should you have to even put up with the inconvenience of a single minute's delay, or the hassle of closing and re-opening all your SSH sessions?
Hell, it's reasonable to imagine that in-place upgrades could even become MORE stable than reboot upgrades (eventually). If that happens, you'd have to be more than a fool to continue rebooting--you'd have to be some kind of technical cargo-cultist, unwilling to offend the Machine Gods by departing from the correct rituals. (There will probably be at least a few of these people--I know some of them, I think.)
For another perspective, consider these:
- guns vs. bows
- automobile vs. horse-and-buggy
- pen/paper vs. typewriter
- typewriter vs computer
- multiprocessing vs. single CPU
Reasonable people expect that the earliest incarnation of a new technology will be buggy, unstable, dirty, explosive, unreliable, or otherwise potentially hazardous. But given time to iron out the bugs, there's eventually a tipping point where the original technology no longer fulfills its basic purpose as well as the new-fangled competitor.
God, what a turd! You premise your whole fucking stupid post on the argument that because your tape backups are offline and offsite, they're superior to my mirrored RAID drives.
Too bad you didn't bother to read my post, where I mentioned that I TAKE THE MIRRORED RAID DRIVES OFFLINE AFTER MAKING A BACKUP SET and store one of the mirrored copies offsite.
Untreated ADHD fucks like you are the reason the Internet sucks. Go make some Youtube comments, you'll fit in over there.
You're not sure because you have no firsthand experience with it. You don't even have any engineering papers with original research to cite, or even a single blog post with somebody else's anecdotes.
In short, you've got jack shit, and you're just parroting the same crap received wisdom as everybody else. Thank you for proving my point, for me.
If you're concerned about the drives breaking down over time, you can periodically test the copies. My data is all checksummed by BTRFS, but you can do it manually with any number of common tools on any filesystem.
See what I mean? There's a perfectly simple, perfectly obvious solution to your complaints, but you refuse to even try to think about how it could work. You're willfully stupid, which is pretty sad for someone who claims to have a science background.
Oh, and if you're dumb enough to think that tape media is particularly long-lived, I'd suggest you read a few of the real-world studies about stored tape lifetimes. Unless you carefully control the storage environment's temperature, humidity, etc., the failure rates will eat you alive within a few years.
As for your supposed failure probabilities of stored drives: I've stored somewhere around 40-50 PATA and SATA drives in boxes under my bed, in my closet, etc. for years--in some cases, as long as 7 years. In that whole time, I've never had a single stored drive fail to spin up, or even fail within the first 24 hours of use.
Of course, hard disks by themselves may seem cheaper, but they are not a true archival medium. There are so many moving parts in a HDD and each of them (bearings, heads, spindles, motors, controller card) are a point of failure.
First of all, when a hard drive is turned off and unplugged, the moving parts aren't moving. So the mechanical wear and stress of constant operation aren't really a problem. If you dump a backups set to an HDD, seal it up like from the factory, and stick it back in a box on the shelf, the differences between the construction of a tape cartridge and a hard drive are irrelevant.
And even if stored hard drives were less reliable: Ever heard of RAID mirroring? Or how about just making a second copy? I bought an external tray-less eSATA hot-swap dock (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153112&cm_re=esata_hot_swap_dock-_-17-153-112-_-Product) for about $55. Combined with a hotplug script and BTRFS mirroring, it's just easy-peasy. Sure, my 1 TB backup set costs me $160 (2x 1 TB SATA drives at $80)--but I didn't have to spend a couple of grand on an over-priced tape drive.
Every time I hear another IT guy parrot this line about moving parts, a little part of me dies. It's a nonsense assertion, pretty thinly supported. It's real function is to mentally justify, ex post facto, a lack of mental effort to consider better ways.
The only missing part is that Nokia really hates Perl, loves Python, or both.
Yeah, some of us are throwing a party to celebrate, next week. We were going to invite you, but... Well, no offense, but nobody like a Perl programmer.
Bit the bullet put your idealism aside and install Windows and Office and get your work done.
No, I have a better idea. You should put your ignorance away, instead. Educate yourself:
* http://vdxtosvg.sourceforge.net/
If I get a Visio doc, I just politely ask the sender to export the VDX, instead, so I can turn it into an SVG and play with it. If I don't care about modifying the diagram, I'll just ask for a PDF.
Nobody's turned me down, yet.
And, EVEN if I did run into a situation where I couldn't ask, or the sender couldn't/wouldn't give me a usable format, why in the hell should I bother installing Windows? Sign. Again, you can educate yourself:
* http://www.codeweavers.com/
Seriously, this is pretty basic research, you should be doing this stuff, yourself. I'm not going to help you out, next time.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck law school, and feel sorry for the lawyers. You don't know how bad those kids have it, these days.
Nationwide, salaries for starting law school grads have been dropping steadily since 2008. The job market for JDs is utter shit, and will probably stay that way for a while. Much of the classes of 2008-09 are still looking for their first "real" jobs (i.e., requiring a laws degree, not a Starbucks' apron). Check out the numbers:
* http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2F_Lawyer/Salary
That's right: $45K/year for a job that requires 3 extra years of school after your B.A., and costs you $150,00 in tuition. (And that's IF you land a job.) And while salaries do increase with experience, 95% won't break the $100K/year mark until they've been practicing for 8 or 10 years.
I have a couple of dozen friends who started law school (circa 2001-2009) instead of getting real jobs right away, most due to a combination of:
1) they saw it as an easy ticket to big money and professional distinction, unlike their recently-earned liberal arts B.A. degrees
2) they hadn't been thinking in specific terms about their post-graduation career plans, and so they basically had no idea what they wanted to do with their lives
3) basically any bank would approve full student loans for anybody who got into an accredited law school, at the time.
The people I knew were just a small selection of the wave of under-motivated, unskilled, and barely employable Gen-Y folk who flooded into US law schools. And since the law schools have zero accountability for whether their students get jobs after graduating, there's no direct feedback to stop them from churning out J.D.s into an already over-saturated swamp of 20somethings drowning in unsubsidized student debts (at sky-high, pre-crash interest rates, too).
A few of my friends were the lucky winners who landed the really good "big firm" jobs, with super-high starting salaries--this is maybe 5% of all law school grads, nationwide, in any given class. People who got hired at Skadden, Proskauer, MoFo, etc. were making $150K-$200K, right out of law school. These jobs are reserved for the super-high achievers, the kids who've been busting their asses studying every night/weekend since high school, with straight 4.0 GPAs since before junior high. In their first 5 years, they're each required to bill at least 2,000 hours/year to clients, which really means spending 60-80 hours/week at work (not everything is billable). Standards rise as they advance, and if they want to make partner, they'll have to put in around 80 hours/week for the next 10 years or so--and keep that pace up if they want to stay partners in the firm. Salaries do rise, too: A 5th-year associate at Skadden can pull down $500K/year, in exchange for her 80-100 hours/week, and a partner will bring home multiple millions/year.
I'm guess I'm pretty close to being an expert, on this--like much of Slashdot, I get paid to do this stuff.
If your payment system runs over WiFi, and if that WiFi link and your payment server/client apps also do not implement any extra security measures, then your security is screwed. Anybody with a laptop and some free software can sniff your traffic, insert extra packets, etc. God help you.
Luckily, most modern WiFi equipment supports the WPA2 standard for link-layer encryption and authentication. If you just enable WPA2 on your router and set a halfway decent password, nobody will be able to bother you. WPA2 is very, very secure (from a cryptanalysis perspective), as good as the best stuff that protects bank transactions, military secrets, etc.
Or, you might be able to encrypt the app traffic via SSL or a VPN, using app-level passwords for authentication. Depends on what the PoS terminal and server platforms support.
Either way, make sure you physically lock down both the terminals and the server. If anybody (e.g., rogue employee) can view a cleartext password or modify a security configuration from the PoS terminal UI, or if they can open the case and pull a hard drive, you lose. But this isn't a WiFi weakness--you have the same potential problem with wired networks, too.
Both have gotten to the same point within a few weeks of each other.
Ummm... No. SL6 was released waaay back at the beginning of March: https://www.scientificlinux.org/news/sl60, that's March 3 to July 10. CentOS is slightly more than THREE MONTHS behind.
And as for 6.1, here's a tip about the long shot: the SL6.1 is starting beta, this week.
Couple of problems with that:
* Gravitationally-induced time dilation is a local effect--the degree of dilation for an observer depends on the strength of the local gravitational field at that observer's location. And while the universe's expansion does contribute some ongoing changes to the local gravity field strengths at every point throughout the universe, the size of those changes is miniscule compared to the absolute strength of even the earth's gravity at the planet's surface. The observed effects of lambda (cosmological constant, dark energy, whatever) are a whole lot bigger.
* Time dilation works opposite to your description, i.e., the GREATER the local mass density (and therefore the more intense the local gravitational field) the faster time will move relative to the rest of the universe.
* Einstein's GR includes the relativity of time and space in the model, as specific terms OTHER than lambda. Lambda is the part of the model that *cannot* be explained by anything else we already know about.
I know, I know: IHPBT. I needed something to do while my coffee was cooling.
small bullets could be made to be guided by laser
This is ambiguous, it could mean either of two completely different weapons systems:
First, we can consider an auto-aiming system with conventional "dumb", non-steered bullets. TFA discusses a tentative step in this direction, but it's easy to imagine a fully automated kind of system with a point-n-click interface. The rifle would be mounted on a computer-controlled, precision servo motor mount, with a a telescoped camera sighted along the barrel instead of a normal eyepiece. On a video monitor, the computer presents a crosshairs superimposed over a live camera image. The computer can incorporate various sources of ballistic data to correct the sight picture: sensors measuring (e.g.) barrel droop due to heat; a laser or microwave rangefinder for calculating elevation adjustments (b/c bullets drops as they travel); a wind gauge for calculating windage adjustments. If the computer performs real-time image analysis, it could also "mask" targets out from the background and analyze their motion, which would allow the operator's mouse aim to be pretty vague--kind of like a FPS game with an auto-aim cheat enabled.
With quality mechanics, sensors, and code, this kind of weapon could allow a novice to out-shoot a good trained military shooter, as long as the target is stationary. Based on existing, real-life systems that I've seen and worked with, I think this kind of weapon could be built, today, for less than $5,000 using slightly modified off-the-shelf equipment and software. Would it beat a trained, experienced military shooter? Maybe not, but I don't see any reason why the implementation couldn't be refined to that point--there's no theoretical reason why the pure man-plus-gun system has to be better.
The second possibility, here, is to introduce "smart" steerable bullets into the mix. Like a guided air-to-air missile, each bullet would be able to adjust its course in midair in order to track a target that is moving, or simply to correct for the normal vagaries ballistics. This kind of system's one clear superiority over dumb bullets is that it can account for variables that crop up *after* the bullet leaves the barrel. For instance, a particularly small, fast, and continuously, erratically moving target (say, a hummingbird at 1 km) can easily foil the best shooter, human or computer. The hummingbird can trivially move out of a bullet's path during the flight interval, and the position changes are too chaotic for meaningful predictions (unlike, say, a man walking along a stretch of road). If each bullet carries its own target-tracking sensor (like an air-to-air missile) or obeys remote commands from the gun's targeting system (like a TOW missile), then the possibility of hitting that hummingbird grows larger.
The mechanical implementation of steerable bullets is a bitch, though. The fundamental problem of non-powered, controlled flight is that course corrections increase drag and diminish your velocity. The more drastic of course changes you want, the more you hurt your aerodynamics, which proportionally hurts your kinetic energy, range, and damage potential. There may be a practical sweet spot, trading just a little power for just enough steering. Or, you might be forced to trade your unpowered bullets for powered rocket-like projectiles. Either way, you're talking about a hell of a lot of tough engineering R&D, like designing rocket engines or jet bodies, where you need an immense amount of experimental data and trial-and-error. To me, this sounds like big defense-contractor stuff--who else can afford time on a supersonic wind tunnel?
And then there's the problem of cramming a steering mechanism and whatever targeting control equipment you need into the space of a bullet. Electronics and mechanical designs may be hard or easy, but a sure way to make them maddeningly frustrating is to mandate an especially tiny physical package. Oh, and your mass di
but if nothing ever appears to cross the Event Horizon from an outside perspective then everything that has ever fell in would still look as though it hadn't. All the fallen objects would appear to be continuing to circle the black hole just like everything else in the universe appears to be doing. This could quite possibly, if not probably, mean we have all already passed the Event Horizon of a black hole and are on the inside looking out, rather than the outside looking in.
Believe it, man, I shit you not--this is the real physics. Check out the description on WP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_horizon#Interacting_with_an_event_horizon
That you perceive it as weird doesn't mean it's not true. There is some mind-blowing shit out there, and it's sometimes hard to accept the truth of it without understanding any of the math involved.
Time dilation and length contraction are NOT optical illusions. They are very, very real *physical* effects, and there are a number of unarguable, concrete experimental results showing them at work.
You're probably getting confused by the concept of gravity lensing, which is black hole-related phenomenon described by General Relativity.
NO, absolutely not. An outside observer sees time "slow down" for objects that are approaching a black hole, so that each falling object approaches the event horizon asymptotically BUT NEVER ACTUALLY REACHES IT.
If you watched somebody falling into a black hole, and you kept a telescope trained on his wristwatch, you would see the second hand sweep slower and slower as he got closer to the EH distance. No matter how long your wait, you'll never actually see anything cross the EH from the outside.
(I am not kidding, this is what actually would happen. If this seems unpossible, don't worry too much--unless you've already studied special relativity and grasped at least that much, this is pretty counter-intuitive.)
You have this all backwards WRT how time dilation affects the two frames of reference:
1) The observer falling into the black hole experiences the trip to the event horizon *normally*. In a finite amount of time, this moving observer will cross the event horizon and reach the singularity--or, at least, his constituent subatomic particles will (tidal force). Crossing the EH is a non-event, for this guy--if the black hole is massive enough, he won't even notice the tidal forces until well after he passes the EH.)
2) The stationary, outside observer never actually sees the moving observer cross the event horizon. Instead, the outsider sees the moving guy get slower and slower, the closer he gets to that point. (I.e., the moving guy will appear to approach the EH asymptotically.)
For example, consider a hypothetical non-rotating black hole with an EH radius of ~1,000 km. Our two observers are sitting at a distance of ~1,000 km outside of the EH (that's 2,000 km away from the singularity). Suddenly, the more suicidal of the two observers backs off, takes a running start, and hurls himself directly toward the center (singularity) of the black hole with a velocity of 1,000 km/hour.
The suicidal (now moving) observer checks his watch about an hour later and measures his distance to his ship: ~1,000 km from his ship (also 1,000 km from the singularity, in the other direction). Around this time, he's crossing the EH, and probably not noticing anything funny. In his frame of reference, plunging into the black hole, time just moves along normally. Sometime during the next hour, the tidal forces will rip him to shreds. Presuming his consciousness continues the trip along with his shreds (staying in that same moving frame of reference), he'll reach the singularity at the end of the second hour. God only knows what happens, there.
The stationary observer, on the other hand, watches his moving buddy seem to slow down as falls. At the end of the first hour, the stationary observer checks his watch and measures the distance to his buddy: somewhat LESS than 1,000 km from the ship (and MORE than 1,000 km from the singularity. At the end of the second hour, his buddy will still not have reached the 1,000 km mark--the buddy's velocity drops in direct proportion to his distance from the event horizon. With a telescope, the stationary observer would actually see the second hand on his buddy's wristwatch sweep slower and slower as gets closer and closer to the black hole.
Capiche?
Thank you. I have faith that Jesus sent you to speak these words of truth. Desperately needed to be said.
While you're at it, would you mind visiting upon the bag of hammers running Phoronix? Somebody needs to explain to them what the word "regression" means (and doesn't mean).
Did you even read the article? The burning house was in a rural area that had no regular fire department. A nearby city offered to protect individual property owners, IF they paid an annual $75 fee, but this was purely on a contract basis. The rural property owners were NOT residents of that city, and they did NOT pay any taxes to that city, and they had no claim on the city's services (firefighting, garbage pickup, street maintenance) unless they had a separate contract with the city.
So tell me how lawful it is to say "Give us $75 per year, and we'll make sure your house doesn't burn down."
You have an overly simplistic and ignorant perception of what American law is, and how it applies. Your everyday notions of right, wrong, fairness, justice, equality, etc. are not enough to understand these things. The law is a complex, highly nuances, and technical subject, and you have (apparantly) never studied it.
In the US, there's no general law saying that you have the right to fire-fighting services. Most cities, and many counties, do provide blanket fire protection to properties within their limits. And in those jurisdictions, a homeowner has some legal expectation that the local fire department will extinguish his burning house.
If an individual fire fighter or department refused to fight such a fire or demanded payment, then the homeowner would probably have a claim to sue that firefighter, the department, and/or the city or county. Most likely, the firefighter(s) who refused would lose his/their job(s), too. SOME jurisdictions MIGHT also have laws making a delinquent firefighter criminally responsible for letting the house burn down. But I know there are no such laws in at least one major American city (New York).
The Duress in this situation is the Stress of "the house is on fire and losing value per minute". Note the 911 call from the homeowners wife offering to pay "whatever you want".
THE WORD "DURESS" DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS, IN A LEGAL CONTEXT. Kind of like how a "cookie" doesn't mean "a kind of baked edible snack", when we're talking about web browsers.
You are only familiar with the colloquial, everyday definition of duress, which includes being under any kind of pressure. Look back to my original post--the LEGAL definition of "duress" is pretty different from the everyday definition.
In a legal context, "duress" only covers threats and pressures that are INHERENTLY ILLEGAL by themselves. Ordinary pressure, by itself, isn't enough to overturn a contract, because LEGALLY it doesn't meet the definition of "duress".
Here's an example that might help illustrate the difference for you:
Pretend that you own a small ISP company, and your entire sysadmin staff suddenly quits, one day. You have nobody to run your technical operations, perform maintenance, handle tech support calls, etc. Every hour that goes by, your customers are getting more frustrated at the service problems, and more and more of them are switching to a different provider. You are losing money. Metaphorically speaking, your business is burning down around you.
Now, pretend that I call you and offer my services as an emergency sysadmin. I have good references (from people you respect) and experience with your kind of situation. But because I'm so good, I charge a HELL of a lot of money. Before I'll start working for you, I demand a signed contract, with my standard hourly rate of $500/hour. (That's about 3x what you used to pay your whole sysadmin department, before they all quit.)
Obviously, you don't like the idea of paying me $500/hour on a contract that will probably run for several weeks. But you don't have a lot of other options. It's hard to find someone good on short notice, and maybe you have a reputation as being a jerk to the people who work for you.
So let's say that you consider your options, investigate the alternatives, and you come down to a simple choice: Either you agree to my contract, or your business goes under.
Would you, the business owner, be signing that contract under duress? According to the everyday definition, absolutely it's duress. But not according to the legal definition. There's nothing inherently illegal about me not solving your technical problems. In fact, on a daily basis, I don't solve 99.99999999% of the world's technical problems, and you don't see them sending me to jail for that.
So what IS duress, legally? Here are some examples:
* I threaten to DoS you with my botnet, unless you sign a contract with me. (This would also be criminal extortion, and possibly a few other things.)
* I point a gun at your head and tell you that either your signature or your brains will be on my contract, by the time I leave the room. (Again, there would probably also be criminal charges, here, too.)
* I show you some pictures of you, your mistress, and a boa constrictor performing deviant sexual acts together, and offer to keep your secrets from your wife/mother/church congregation/local newspaper, in you'd kindly sign my contract. (Yep, blackmail's a crime, too.)
See the differences, here? In these last three examples, I'm making an inherently illegal threat. THAT is what defines duress, in a legal context. It's not just about whether you're under pressure, or whether you're losing money, or your house/business/whatever. If it's legal to not help you fight your house fire, than the contract that I demand you to sign before helping you fight it is perfectly legal.
"Duress": I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Black's Law (quoted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress) defines duress as: "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]".
In other words, I can induce you to sign a contract with any LEGAL threat that I so please, and the contract is still binding. But if my threats are inherently illegal (such as threatening to hurt you, hurt your family, destroy your property, blackmail you), then the concept of duress applies, and you have a defense against my breach of contract claims.
This definition makes a lot of practical sense, if you think about it. If duress were a broader concept that included me refusing to provide you with services if you don't sign a contract, then I wouldn't even legally be able to tell you the point of signing the contract, in the first place. Under that kind of twisted logic, if you asked "Why should I sign this contract agreeing to pay you $20 to mow my lawn", and I responded "Because I won't mow your lawn for free", then I'd be subjecting you to duress. Clearly, that's not conducive to basic business arrangements.
In this case, the firefighters would be threatening to withold a service (fighting the fire consuming the man's house), which doesn't seem to be an illegal threat, to me. Granted, the house represents a very serious economic and emotional loss to this man and his family. I don't want to belittle that. But it's not like the firefighters set the man's house on fire, in the first place.
Now, there are some situations where a society will legally or socially obligate an individual member to act on behalf of his fellow man in a time of need. Some jurisdictions even have laws requiring you to aid another human being in distress, as long as you're not putting yourself in harm's way (like in the Seinfeld finale). So everything I said, above, assumes that this little Tennessee burg isn't one of situations.
A DVD is a tangible good, no different than a book.
Bullshit, on face. While it's true that DVDs and paper books ARE both tangible objects, there are infinitely many OTHER differences between DVDs and books. For example, here's a list:
- Books are usually mostly composed of plant-derived cellulose, while DVDs are mostly made of petroleum-derived polycarbonate plastics.
- Books were first manufactured and published in ancient times, while DVDs weren't invented until the mid-1990s.
- Books are usually published by book publishing companies, which (as an industry) have a distinct history, corporate culture, and business model in comparison to film and television studios, which usually publish DVDs.
Now, you can call some (or all) of my distinctions silly. But since you failed to provide any supporting rationale as to why the property of "tangibility of medium" is any more relevant, I think my reasons are just as good as yours. As I see it, you have basically two choices, here:
(A) Add some argument to support the relevance of tangibility, OR
(B) Re-phrase your statement by (heavily) qualifying your assertion that the two types of items are "no different".
Otherwise, my bullshit call stands.
If planned restarts of individual servers are *not* "LOW COST" operations, you should probably concentrate on fixing your architecture and procedures, rather than delving into kernel mangling.
Please, go back and re-read my original post: I make no assumptions about whether reboots are low-cost or high-cost, in the absolute sense. So, your opinion on the absolute costs of server reboots, while interesting, is entirely irrelevant to my argument.
See, I'm discussing the RELATIVE cost of server restarts. But because you started composing your reply before you read enough of my post to understand my point, you're just lecturing to yourself, here.
Why ? How is starting from an inherently less known and more volatile state ever going to be "MORE stable" ?
Again, you're just spazzing without bothering to read the entire post. To the extent that it's possible (given that we're speculating about the future, here), I already directly answered your question.
Also, note that my argument isn't premised on in-place kernel upgrades becoming MORE stable than the reboot-facilitated kind, just ALMOST AS stable (to the point where the additional risk is trivial and outweighed by the (minor) inconvenience of a reboot). So you're basically just engaging in a straw-man fallacy, here.
All systems develop runtime cruft over time and benefit from a reboot. To say nothing of how useful planned reboots are for confirming that your systems will recover from the _unplanned_ ones.
I'm sure these are interesting opinions in the context of your own personal experiences, but they're much less relevant in an abstract discussion like this. That's because my personal experiences may differ sharply from yours, just as the experiences of any particular 3rd-party observer may differ from both of ours. (In other words, why should we Big City folk care how some country boy sodbuster does things in his podunk backwater?)
So I'll refute your argument (and give you a handy little demonstration of why argument-by-anecdote is made of fail) by simply saying: In my own personal experience, it is NOT TRUE that all systems develop "runtime cruft" and benefit from reboots, OR that planned reboots are useful. (Probably because my architecture and systems management strategy differs from yours.)
So, here's a summary for your reference:
* You need to improve your reading comprehension skills.
* You need to control your irrelevant outbursts and focus on the specific arguments at hand.
* You need to learn how to identify key arguments and differentiate them from side issues.
You go ahead and keep putting all that effort into denying my suggestion. If would have been far simpler for you to just drop the single line I quoted from you above...
That's not an argument, that's just the punchline.
At first glance, you appear to be the exact type of person the Bruce Schneier was trying to warn when he said:
I tell people that if it's in the news, don't worry about it. The very definition of "news" is "something that hardly ever happens." (http://www.schneier.com/essay-304.html)
Here's a little education, if you please:
Second time suggests that...
Two data points do not a trend make. People who try to force conclusions from such limited data often hold opinions of limited value.
Also, there are hundreds of reported accidents in the U.S. oil industry, every year. You (and whoever modded you "insightful") are ignorant because most accidents don't make front-page news. The vast majority spill little or no oil, and cause little or no environmental damage or economic loss, and the operating companies pay cleanup costs plus fines for what damages do occur.
This rig explosion, unlike the Deepwater Horizon incident in April, is a very MINOR oil spill, with no worker casualties and minimal economic impact. If the rig featured in this news story had exploded back in March, before Deepwater Horizon's big spill seeded us with fear of globally-catastrophic oil spills, the article would never have made national headlines, because nobody would have given two shits.
And in another few months, maybe a year, you and the rest of this over-excitable country will completely forget that they were ever scared of catastrophic oil spills.
I'm not saying that your stuff is directly at risk. But if we have another explosion, pipeline leak, or similar event anywhere within USA jurisdiction, your property values will get tarred by a very broad brush. Anyone at risk of this needs to get politicking for some kind of review that will assure potential buyers that they won't be shafted by their petrochemical neighbors.
Where did you get this idea, that the US population is on the verge of living in fear of filling stations and refineries? IF a series of massive catastrophies struck, and IF they were all confined to the oil industry, and IF it all happened near populated areas, and IF they all happened in a short enough period of time, then you might start to see property values changing. But absent that kind of chain of unlikeIy events, I don't see it.
See, the thing you might be missing is, oil spills have been happening occasionally but regularly for about the last century or so. Refinery explosions and filling stations fires, explosions, etc. are nothing new, either. And it's not like people aren't aware of them--if there's a body count, or a big economic impact, there's usually at least a local news stories. Absent some kind of new, ongoing threat that happens close to where people live, why would anyone start caring much more than they do, right now?
BTW, there is absolutely no need to lay this kind of thing off to enemy action. Not when 8+ years of ineffective oversight coupled with corporate "long term" planning that fails to look beyond next quarter's profit and loss statement are more than adequate to account for these incidents. (I was about to say "accidents", but it appears that these are far from accidental. They look much more like the productive of short term greed multiplied by long term stupidity.)
Ah. I see. You're a paranoid conspiracy nut. Sorry, go ahead, you were saying?
Get a little imagination, will ya? Here,I'll boil your objection down into two simple premises, for you:
1) In-place kernel upgrades are inherently RISKY to stability, compared with normal reboot upgrades.
2) Reboot upgrades are a LOW COST operation.
You seem to assume that the risk of #1 (upgrade in-place) will always outweigh the cost of #2 (rebooting to upgrade). At the moment, you MAY be correct in that assumption, but we have no basis for any conclusions, yet.
But Ksplice's current business plan is to get ahold of a massive, low-cost testing infrastructure by getting installed by default on as many popular Linux distros (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc.) as possible. Properly executed, a massive testing and development effort should improve KSplice's quality (read: stability) over time.
At some point, if KSplice does it right, in-place kernel upgrades will become stable enough to no longer entail measurably more risk than traditional reboot upgrades. If/When that happens, you'd be a fool to continue reboot upgrading, right? If there's no practical added risk, why should you have to even put up with the inconvenience of a single minute's delay, or the hassle of closing and re-opening all your SSH sessions?
Hell, it's reasonable to imagine that in-place upgrades could even become MORE stable than reboot upgrades (eventually). If that happens, you'd have to be more than a fool to continue rebooting--you'd have to be some kind of technical cargo-cultist, unwilling to offend the Machine Gods by departing from the correct rituals. (There will probably be at least a few of these people--I know some of them, I think.)
For another perspective, consider these:
- guns vs. bows
- automobile vs. horse-and-buggy
- pen/paper vs. typewriter
- typewriter vs computer
- multiprocessing vs. single CPU
Reasonable people expect that the earliest incarnation of a new technology will be buggy, unstable, dirty, explosive, unreliable, or otherwise potentially hazardous. But given time to iron out the bugs, there's eventually a tipping point where the original technology no longer fulfills its basic purpose as well as the new-fangled competitor.
God, what a turd! You premise your whole fucking stupid post on the argument that because your tape backups are offline and offsite, they're superior to my mirrored RAID drives.
Too bad you didn't bother to read my post, where I mentioned that I TAKE THE MIRRORED RAID DRIVES OFFLINE AFTER MAKING A BACKUP SET and store one of the mirrored copies offsite.
Untreated ADHD fucks like you are the reason the Internet sucks. Go make some Youtube comments, you'll fit in over there.
You're not sure because you have no firsthand experience with it. You don't even have any engineering papers with original research to cite, or even a single blog post with somebody else's anecdotes.
In short, you've got jack shit, and you're just parroting the same crap received wisdom as everybody else. Thank you for proving my point, for me.
If you're concerned about the drives breaking down over time, you can periodically test the copies. My data is all checksummed by BTRFS, but you can do it manually with any number of common tools on any filesystem.
See what I mean? There's a perfectly simple, perfectly obvious solution to your complaints, but you refuse to even try to think about how it could work. You're willfully stupid, which is pretty sad for someone who claims to have a science background.
Oh, and if you're dumb enough to think that tape media is particularly long-lived, I'd suggest you read a few of the real-world studies about stored tape lifetimes. Unless you carefully control the storage environment's temperature, humidity, etc., the failure rates will eat you alive within a few years.
As for your supposed failure probabilities of stored drives: I've stored somewhere around 40-50 PATA and SATA drives in boxes under my bed, in my closet, etc. for years--in some cases, as long as 7 years. In that whole time, I've never had a single stored drive fail to spin up, or even fail within the first 24 hours of use.
Finally we'll know the answer to the question of the decade: "And then who was phone?!?"
Of course, hard disks by themselves may seem cheaper, but they are not a true archival medium. There are so many moving parts in a HDD and each of them (bearings, heads, spindles, motors, controller card) are a point of failure.
First of all, when a hard drive is turned off and unplugged, the moving parts aren't moving. So the mechanical wear and stress of constant operation aren't really a problem. If you dump a backups set to an HDD, seal it up like from the factory, and stick it back in a box on the shelf, the differences between the construction of a tape cartridge and a hard drive are irrelevant.
And even if stored hard drives were less reliable: Ever heard of RAID mirroring? Or how about just making a second copy? I bought an external tray-less eSATA hot-swap dock (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153112&cm_re=esata_hot_swap_dock-_-17-153-112-_-Product) for about $55. Combined with a hotplug script and BTRFS mirroring, it's just easy-peasy. Sure, my 1 TB backup set costs me $160 (2x 1 TB SATA drives at $80)--but I didn't have to spend a couple of grand on an over-priced tape drive.
Every time I hear another IT guy parrot this line about moving parts, a little part of me dies. It's a nonsense assertion, pretty thinly supported. It's real function is to mentally justify, ex post facto, a lack of mental effort to consider better ways.
The only missing part is that Nokia really hates Perl, loves Python, or both.
Yeah, some of us are throwing a party to celebrate, next week. We were going to invite you, but... Well, no offense, but nobody like a Perl programmer.
Bit the bullet put your idealism aside and install Windows and Office and get your work done.
No, I have a better idea. You should put your ignorance away, instead. Educate yourself:
* http://vdxtosvg.sourceforge.net/
If I get a Visio doc, I just politely ask the sender to export the VDX, instead, so I can turn it into an SVG and play with it. If I don't care about modifying the diagram, I'll just ask for a PDF.
Nobody's turned me down, yet.
And, EVEN if I did run into a situation where I couldn't ask, or the sender couldn't/wouldn't give me a usable format, why in the hell should I bother installing Windows? Sign. Again, you can educate yourself:
* http://www.codeweavers.com/
Seriously, this is pretty basic research, you should be doing this stuff, yourself. I'm not going to help you out, next time.