At some point you have to actually get the tapes into the computers. Even if the tape drives themselves had relatively infinite bandwidth, it would still take at least 10 seconds to get it off the truck and loaded into the reader. Maybe you could save time by using some sort of SUPER GIANT SPOOL like 2 meters in diameter and height.
Imagine that, cassettes the size of shipping containers. Of course, if we're going to talk about things like that, we really need to talk about tape read speed too. Lets say the tape thickness is 8 microns. In that case, each layer can hold (4-(8*10^-6)*i)*pi where i is the layer number, So the total number of layers is Sum(2*(2-(8*10^-6)*i)*pi) (2*pi*r where r is 2m - 8um*i) for i from 0 to 2/8*10^-6. that gives us about 4*10^11 meters of tape. Even if we spun the tape at the speed of light it would still take 20 minutes to read one tape. At the speed of light, it would take about 1309 seconds to load the data into the computer. Since 1309/100 is 13.9, assuming you did your math right the cost would be $278 million per year. Of course, we can't actualy spin the tapes at the speed of light.
13 million T1 lines, maybe. But only 2,000 OC-768 lines, and only 100 of those Lucent DWDM lines which I linked too. I think it would cost less to lay that line yourself. One hundred.5mm fiber cables could fit in one bundle of cables just ~2 centimeters in diameter. It might cost a lot, but it would certanly make back what you paid in 10 years, if not 1.
That would leave room for RAM to essentially become used for random access in the way the disks are used today and perhaps current cache on the CPU to be used more like RAM is today?
Cache on the CPU IS used like RAM is today, that's the whole point!
In any event, the difference between the hard drive and ram is that ram doesn't maintain state when it loses power. Yes, there's flash ram and static ram which can be reset, and those are used to store file systems, in compact flash cards and memory sticks and the like. And not only that, but you'll usually have a disk cache in ram anyway.
In other words, your whole point is completely meaningless. Go learn something about computers before you open your mouth, you're talking about using RAM for "Random access", ram Stands for Random Access Memory!
Don't go to such a crappy school. There have been some ranking of 'cyber civil liberties' on campuses out there. I know I saw a blurb about it in wired. Some schools lock things down to a ridiculous level.
You could also just go back to a modem. It's slow, but hey. It's fast enough to transfer papers and stuff.
Imagine if your hard drive or processor was 50 miles long and buried underground. How often do you think you'd upgrade then? What would have them do, rip up everyone's lawn ever 6 months to install the latest and greatest?
And DSL and cable modems can go pretty damn fast, the problem is the upstream connection.
If you needed to ship data between two points, you could get a direct physical connection, which would let you use the full speed constantly. Obviously if you had a lot of data, that would be the way to go.
Believe it or not, I think a network can actually scale better then sending stuff, at least if you look at cost. Why? Because you have to figure in labor.
When you have a one-off transfer it's not a big deal, but imagine if you spent all day installing a hard drive, copying data over, and then packing it up to be shipped back out with the result. It would get pretty old, I think. Imagine if you had to pay someone to do this, all day long. Now imagine that you needed a lot of bandwidth, like 20tb/second. Assuming one hard drive stored 200gb, and assuming it took 10 seconds to install the hard drive (I'm assuming these would be set up for easy install, rather then unscrewing the computer or whatever, it would be more like a jazz drive) you would need two thousand people working continuously. Paying that many people, even minimum wage would cost $1,000 a second, or $864,000 a day. That's $315 million dollars a year, and that isn't even figuring in fuel costs, and extra 'overhead' labor costs (you think you can manage 2k people yourself) and all kinds of other infrastructure. Depending on how far you need to ship, you could probably lay your own DWDM. Lines. One tech from allows 1.6tbits per second, or 200gb/sec over a single line. You would only need 100 separate fibers to get 20tb/second of bandwidth, and that whole setup would probably cost much less then all that infrastructure.
But they could also take 50 different routs to get there. There are all different kinds of ways to rejigger the figures, but were talking about what's practically possible. Employing enough people to man those 40,678 loading docs full time (what you would need to offload 1 truck/ 0.28 seconds), would be at least 5.55*40,672*24 is about $1,083,667 dollars per day, or almost $400 million a year. For that kind of money you could probably afford to lay down multiple parallel multifrequency optical cables.
you are reciving all the channels at once, it's just that you're only decoding one at once. Lots of people decode more then one at once, such as using the TiVO or a VCR, or using picture in picture.
If you wanted too, you could record all of them at once, quite easily.
First of all, how could you drive into a garage at 60 miles an hour, stop, unload, and get back out before the next truck, only four inches behind you comes in? In your system the trucks would crash into eachother, and you'd get no effective bandwidth.
In actuality, you need to figure how long it takes to unload all the tapes from the truck at least. Assuming about 10 seconds a tape (ones in the back take longer) on average and that's 1.16gb/second.
Seriously though, you should give customers what they want, and what they want is what they pay for. If you want to be all perfect, refactor the code for free when the job is done. Why waste your time with niceties when people aren't paying for it.
It's much, much worse for Spam victims then most state laws. In particular, it's all opt-out, which means in practice that spammers can simply setup shell corp. after shell corp. and Spam the fuck out of you.
They only issued a warning in the sense that Iowa issues a warning to all cell phone users that you are currently roaming. It's a function of the phone, not the KGB.
What? I'm in Iowa now and my cellphone dosn't say "Roaming", Asshat.
It's called Public Key encryption. Actualy it wouldn't even be that hard to use over a phone line. Just generate a key (say 512 bits) and read the public over the phone in hex or base64, then just encrypt your message and read it off in the same way.
NTSC, CDMA, all these things that the USA insists are better, when they quite clearly aren't.
I don't know anyone who says NTSC is better then PAL, but CDMA IS better then TDMA (which GSM is based). You can send way more data across using Code Division Multiplexing then Time Division Multiplexing, and the vast majority of cell phones in the US are digital these days.
By the way, I have myself a TDMA cell phone (not sure if it's GSM or something else) but my phone company just upgraded their systems to CDMA. Why the hell would someone pay tons of money to go from something better to something worse? And it is all digital too.
GSM encryption uses standard DES encryption, which uses 56 bit keys, but the last byte is parity. In I think 1999 or around there the EEF's DES Cracker was able to crack a DES key in a week. Keep in mind this was a $150k machine with dedicated hardware. Taking mores law into account, it such a machine would cost about $25k today, and it would take a couple days to crack one phone call. So you could use it to listen in one one or two people's communication, but not everyones. You wouldn't be able to do something like listen to all communication and look for keywords, for instance.
There was a story on slashdot (too lazy to search for it, but someone probably remembers it) about someone who shipped a few thousand dollars worth of mac and PC equipment from Ontario to California. It arrived largely in pieces, with damage to cases, lost cables, boxes smashed open along the sides with holes that things fell out through, etc. It was the worst damage I'd seen done to a computer that wasn't intentional or fire damage, and UPS's attitude was basically 'Yeah, that's too bad, isn't it?'
Well, the consensus was that the guy had packed it improperly. He basically threw all the stuff in a big box so that they could smash up against eachother. Presumably a video game would be much safer, as it's mostly just some pamphlets, a CD, and air.
It's intresting how most of the http://www.ibm.com/countrycode/ URLs have an 'ethnicaly apropriate' person on the front, but why does cn, china's, have like a french guy?
Slashdot Mirror
At some point you have to actually get the tapes into the computers. Even if the tape drives themselves had relatively infinite bandwidth, it would still take at least 10 seconds to get it off the truck and loaded into the reader. Maybe you could save time by using some sort of SUPER GIANT SPOOL like 2 meters in diameter and height.
Imagine that, cassettes the size of shipping containers. Of course, if we're going to talk about things like that, we really need to talk about tape read speed too. Lets say the tape thickness is 8 microns. In that case, each layer can hold (4-(8*10^-6)*i)*pi where i is the layer number, So the total number of layers is Sum(2*(2-(8*10^-6)*i)*pi) (2*pi*r where r is 2m - 8um*i) for i from 0 to 2/8*10^-6. that gives us about 4*10^11 meters of tape. Even if we spun the tape at the speed of light it would still take 20 minutes to read one tape. At the speed of light, it would take about 1309 seconds to load the data into the computer. Since 1309/100 is 13.9, assuming you did your math right the cost would be $278 million per year. Of course, we can't actualy spin the tapes at the speed of light.
13 million T1 lines, maybe. But only 2,000 OC-768 lines, and only 100 of those Lucent DWDM lines which I linked too. I think it would cost less to lay that line yourself. One hundred .5mm fiber cables could fit in one bundle of cables just ~2 centimeters in diameter. It might cost a lot, but it would certanly make back what you paid in 10 years, if not 1.
That would leave room for RAM to essentially become used for random access in the way the disks are used today and perhaps current cache on the CPU to be used more like RAM is today?
Cache on the CPU IS used like RAM is today, that's the whole point!
In any event, the difference between the hard drive and ram is that ram doesn't maintain state when it loses power. Yes, there's flash ram and static ram which can be reset, and those are used to store file systems, in compact flash cards and memory sticks and the like. And not only that, but you'll usually have a disk cache in ram anyway.
In other words, your whole point is completely meaningless. Go learn something about computers before you open your mouth, you're talking about using RAM for "Random access", ram Stands for Random Access Memory!
Don't go to such a crappy school. There have been some ranking of 'cyber civil liberties' on campuses out there. I know I saw a blurb about it in wired. Some schools lock things down to a ridiculous level.
You could also just go back to a modem. It's slow, but hey. It's fast enough to transfer papers and stuff.
And you can also attach things to email.
Imagine if your hard drive or processor was 50 miles long and buried underground. How often do you think you'd upgrade then? What would have them do, rip up everyone's lawn ever 6 months to install the latest and greatest?
And DSL and cable modems can go pretty damn fast, the problem is the upstream connection.
If you needed to ship data between two points, you could get a direct physical connection, which would let you use the full speed constantly. Obviously if you had a lot of data, that would be the way to go.
Believe it or not, I think a network can actually scale better then sending stuff, at least if you look at cost. Why? Because you have to figure in labor.
When you have a one-off transfer it's not a big deal, but imagine if you spent all day installing a hard drive, copying data over, and then packing it up to be shipped back out with the result. It would get pretty old, I think. Imagine if you had to pay someone to do this, all day long. Now imagine that you needed a lot of bandwidth, like 20tb/second. Assuming one hard drive stored 200gb, and assuming it took 10 seconds to install the hard drive (I'm assuming these would be set up for easy install, rather then unscrewing the computer or whatever, it would be more like a jazz drive) you would need two thousand people working continuously. Paying that many people, even minimum wage would cost $1,000 a second, or $864,000 a day. That's $315 million dollars a year, and that isn't even figuring in fuel costs, and extra 'overhead' labor costs (you think you can manage 2k people yourself) and all kinds of other infrastructure. Depending on how far you need to ship, you could probably lay your own DWDM. Lines. One tech from allows 1.6tbits per second, or 200gb/sec over a single line. You would only need 100 separate fibers to get 20tb/second of bandwidth, and that whole setup would probably cost much less then all that infrastructure.
But they could also take 50 different routs to get there. There are all different kinds of ways to rejigger the figures, but were talking about what's practically possible. Employing enough people to man those 40,678 loading docs full time (what you would need to offload 1 truck/ 0.28 seconds), would be at least 5.55*40,672*24 is about $1,083,667 dollars per day, or almost $400 million a year. For that kind of money you could probably afford to lay down multiple parallel multifrequency optical cables.
Is that why you posted the exact same joke as someone else 4 minutes late?
you are reciving all the channels at once, it's just that you're only decoding one at once. Lots of people decode more then one at once, such as using the TiVO or a VCR, or using picture in picture.
If you wanted too, you could record all of them at once, quite easily.
First of all, how could you drive into a garage at 60 miles an hour, stop, unload, and get back out before the next truck, only four inches behind you comes in? In your system the trucks would crash into eachother, and you'd get no effective bandwidth.
In actuality, you need to figure how long it takes to unload all the tapes from the truck at least. Assuming about 10 seconds a tape (ones in the back take longer) on average and that's 1.16gb/second.
And if Bill Gates just understood this, maybe he'd make something of himself, as opposed to living in his parents basement.
$uccess may be temporary, but the $ is forever.
Seriously though, you should give customers what they want, and what they want is what they pay for. If you want to be all perfect, refactor the code for free when the job is done. Why waste your time with niceties when people aren't paying for it.
How do you get girls naked when you can't even afford a digital camera?
Wendy is so not going to call, loser.
Thus spoke AynRandIthustra
Fool people into thinking that they need to turn of GSM encryption in order to listen in.
It's much, much worse for Spam victims then most state laws. In particular, it's all opt-out, which means in practice that spammers can simply setup shell corp. after shell corp. and Spam the fuck out of you.
They only issued a warning in the sense that Iowa issues a warning to all cell phone users that you are currently roaming. It's a function of the phone, not the KGB.
What? I'm in Iowa now and my cellphone dosn't say "Roaming", Asshat.
IOWA PRIDE!
It's called Public Key encryption. Actualy it wouldn't even be that hard to use over a phone line. Just generate a key (say 512 bits) and read the public over the phone in hex or base64, then just encrypt your message and read it off in the same way.
NTSC, CDMA, all these things that the USA insists are better, when they quite clearly aren't.
I don't know anyone who says NTSC is better then PAL, but CDMA IS better then TDMA (which GSM is based). You can send way more data across using Code Division Multiplexing then Time Division Multiplexing, and the vast majority of cell phones in the US are digital these days.
By the way, I have myself a TDMA cell phone (not sure if it's GSM or something else) but my phone company just upgraded their systems to CDMA. Why the hell would someone pay tons of money to go from something better to something worse? And it is all digital too.
GSM encryption uses standard DES encryption, which uses 56 bit keys, but the last byte is parity. In I think 1999 or around there the EEF's DES Cracker was able to crack a DES key in a week. Keep in mind this was a $150k machine with dedicated hardware. Taking mores law into account, it such a machine would cost about $25k today, and it would take a couple days to crack one phone call. So you could use it to listen in one one or two people's communication, but not everyones. You wouldn't be able to do something like listen to all communication and look for keywords, for instance.
There was a story on slashdot (too lazy to search for it, but someone probably remembers it) about someone who shipped a few thousand dollars worth of mac and PC equipment from Ontario to California. It arrived largely in pieces, with damage to cases, lost cables, boxes smashed open along the sides with holes that things fell out through, etc. It was the worst damage I'd seen done to a computer that wasn't intentional or fire damage, and UPS's attitude was basically 'Yeah, that's too bad, isn't it?'
Well, the consensus was that the guy had packed it improperly. He basically threw all the stuff in a big box so that they could smash up against eachother. Presumably a video game would be much safer, as it's mostly just some pamphlets, a CD, and air.
no text, biatch!
It's intresting how most of the http://www.ibm.com/countrycode/ URLs have an 'ethnicaly apropriate' person on the front, but why does cn, china's, have like a french guy?