Everyone here is pretty keen on RAID, and I admit I wouldn't want to run a business on anything less, but it doesn't always work as well as you might. Here's my sob story, and it has the usual cast of characters, with lax backup policy being the lead in this script.
I got a bit arogant last year after setting up my main home server on a RAID 5 disk set, and with a tape backup plan that included weekly rotation and the ability to get back what I needed up to a month in the past. I fear I may have been a vitim of hubris however, as I spent a night at a friend of a friend's in Amsterdam and quietly dismissed his exortation to move my file system from EXT3 to XFS. I resisted because my machine was already set up, and I had insufficient drive space to do the neccessary three step dance to switch over to XFS. Hindsight is 20/20.
During the honeymoon phase all was lovely, the backups occurred regularly, and the RAID drives spun reliably. Now, at some point my tape backups started to fail, but seeing as I had RAID 5 and a journaling filesystem I didn't hurry to replace the tape drive, I simply couldn't afford it anyway. Two months passed, and all was well, until one morning I got up to find the server down. Sometime over the weekend the RAID 5 array blew it's load, and trashed the file system in the process. The backups were now 2 months old, and the drives wouldn't spin up individually (two wouldn't, one was fine) so I couldn't get at the data anymore. I did have other paranoia++ copies of the most data elsewhere, but what failed to get on the backups was the digital photos I had taken in the meantime. They're on those 3 drives somewhere, but with only two working, no tape backup, and a dodgy so called journalling filesystem that was trashed I have the devils own job getting them back.
Moral of the story, don't let your guard down, two layers of protection is only the starting poing in protecting data, three is better, and make at least one of those offsite. I have the three drives set aside and labelled against the day/weekend when I can make a serious assault on getting that data back. Everyone feel free to point a finger and say "haha" in a Nelson voice, but remember, it could be you next.
This has been standard practise on hard drives as far back as I can remember, and that's at least a decade. Once you get about 1Kb they use multipliers of 1000 to represent the next level, e.g. 1MB = 1000 x 1024 not 1024 x 1024. It's a cheap shot, but one you should be used to by now.
Hard drives have approached, and may have by now passed the cost per megabyte of tape. Then again, why does the storage have to be online, why not just get a disk caddy system and start to offline that stuff. It's going to be cheaper and probably not much less usable than keeping it all online. If you want to do it on the cheap (like me) rip all your media to a couple of big drives, then store your original media very carefully away. It will last nicely when well looked after.
You may have to repeat this process every few years, like I am doing now since I bought an iPod, and found all those neat OGG files to be less than playable on it. This seems like only a moderate hassle for the gains of storing the media compressed on a server, thus having it constantly available, and yet still small enough not to require terrabytes of storage.
What is kind of ironic (though not by dictionary standards) is that the same government that is handing out speed tablets (Ritalin) to school kids, is also looking to give them an anti-drug drug. Some sort of strange double standard is in action here. Of couse, the kids can take the Ritalin as prescribed, but wouldn't it be more fun to save it up for the weekend (assuming your older siblings haven't already nicked it);->
It was ordered last week and already paid for so hopefully the parts will arrive this saturday:-) It should be screaming fast since I used toms hardware to hand select all the best performing parts I could afford. Highly recommended next time you upgrade, spend a few hours on Toms' to work out the best system components *before* you buy them. Man, I can't wait to take her for a spin 8->
I think the FX part stands for Frightening Expense. The Athlon 64 3500 was as high as my puny budget could go, and you tend to get diminishing returns above that point in any case.
I've seen the demo movie for gameplay on the XBox and it is more than decent. If you can't afford to get the latest video cards and gear, get Doom III on the Xbox! You can buy an XBox for less than a video card these days, and it honestly did look well playable. Sure, the res isn't going to be as great as your PC, but it will have Dolby Digital sound, and it will still look great on the XBox. Good option for the students among us.
I seem to recall an article saying you need a GeForce 3 or above. It may be it needs some extra hardware features introduced in that generation. Time to upgrade?
When two or more companies control the market and set pricing structures so as not to compete with each other it is an oligopoly. Different word, same effect as a monopoly.
I've been working with ID on a port of Doom III to the IBM XT for those die-hards who refuse to upgrade. Here's a sample from the first level which will be released for free:
You are in a twisty little maze of passages all alike. There is a pink demon here. Use rocket launcher You died. Play again?
I always do my PC upgrades in line with the releases from ID, this way I get top line hardware right when I need it the most, and the hardware performs well for the next couple of years. Hardware always gets faster and cheaper as time goes on, and those release dates are ephemeral at best, so my advice, wait for the actual release date announcement, then order your new rig. For what it's worth my new rig:
Athlon 64 3500
1 GB DDR400 RAM
GeForce 6800 Ultra
Seagate 160GB SATA FB HD
All this for the same price as it would have cost to have something about 1/2-2/3 the speed if purchased a year or so ago.
As for flesh on TV, I agree with you there, that is another area you are a bit ahead of us, you can show a nipple and we can't, and I reckon you can say fuck on TV?.Yep, and cunt and arsehole and anything else we want. The very first thing I saw on TV when I arrived in London on day 1 way a full frontal nude bloke on holiday in some sunny country, and full frontal nude women, this was at 6pm on a terrestrial channel. Our newspapers and magazines print what the artists really say in their interviews so you get to see Paul MacCartney saying fuck on occassion. We have our moral minority here, but they are a minority so the net effect is you guys have more guaranteed freedoms and we have more that can be generally exercised. Just out of interest, does your press print fuck, cunt, shit, etc or is that something that is never done? I assume that you must, but that is only because it is like that over here, and I can't really think of a time when I've seen it.
Also, out of mere curiosity, since you do not have a freedom of speech, what does this boil down to. Are there any examples of restrictions of freedom of speech outside of the press? I'm curious is all.
I can't think of any example outside of the press where freedom of speech has been striken down. The press is reined in only very rarely, and the Royal house does get special privilege as noted in an earlier post. In general, as long as it's not slanderous we can print anything over here.
There's also strong support for freedom of expression in the arts. A famous example that springs to mind simply because it is one of the only times art has stretched towards censureship was photos of young boys and girls in the nude playing (Satchi Gallery I believe). Some wanted them taken down because of the paedophile issue, others defended their right to display since they are art, and the children were simply the artists kids at play as is quite normal over here (by which I mean Europe in general whilst on the beaches). I can't remember the conclusion either way, but I think it was left to Satchi to decide, and they may have been taken down to protect the galleries reputation and good-will.
Finally, there are no laws against walking around in the buff in public. We have no indencency laws so you are free to roam the city sans clothes, and I have seen this from time to time. You can be charged with trying to shock people if you are *acting* indecent, but you're more likely to be asked by the police to put your clothes on and go about your business. This means people can and do (particularly on the continent) sunbathe naked in the city parks. A rambler (walking as a hobby) famously walked naked across most of England, with only the occassional scuffle with the law requesting he stop it.
I'm not disputing your press' rights to print material, this is granted under your constitution, and I believe I've already stated that we have no such rights granted here. So there ya go, call me noble:-) The debate is not about whether our press is more free, it's about eroding freedoms in your country, and the fact that there are still some things that are kept out of the presses. The original post was something along the lines of "that won't fly here". My point is simply that it can fly there under certain conditions, mainly being homeland security (for good reasons), pending court cases (again, good reasons), and corporate interests (not so good a reason).
I know you guys value your freedom of speech quite highly, and it's a right I wish we had constitutionally granted, but that's not likely to happen. Regardless, our press just *seems* more free to me, because they do print stuff that you guys wouldn't, but that's more due to the moral majority you have over there. We also see more flesh on TV because we are not so hung up on the idea that nudity equates to sin. These are not written in law, they are governed by the standards of the people. On drugs we are a little ahead of you, but still lagging the Netherlands where my mate lives (visit if you can, it's cool to be able to choose from a dozen strains of weed over the counter of a coffee shop, then sit and have a coffee and biscuit while lighting up).
Anyway, we're drifting from the topic, what I'm trying to say is protect those freedoms with all your might, don't let them drift away piecemeal.
Ok, so maybe that is worded badly, but the premise is that you can go to a court and ask for an injunction against publication of information. Corporations use this to protect their privacy. This example sadly is another case where it gets overturned by an appeal, but you get the idea I hope - the idea being that it is possible to ask for this protection, even though you may not always get it, you can certainly get it short term. Case in point, try publishing the DeCSS code on your website. The final paragraph of this article supports my position as well:
Whether and to what extent the reasoning of the DVDCCA court will be followed by other courts and in other cases is unclear. Furthermore, some violations of trade secrets law might be characterized as "commercial speech" entitled to less protection than this case affords. Nonetheless, this decision should put businesses on notice that the First Amendment can curtail their ability to prevent dissemination of their trade secrets, at least in the absence of a non-disclosure agreement.
You have the unstoppable force of the corporate interests clashing with the immovable object of the First Amendment. Justice in this case can always be bought at a price, but can individuals still afford this price or is it only available to other giant corporations. Here's a google link that shows your laws on prior restraint are very strong, but not unassailable - and a quote for you:
Prior restraints are not per se unconstitutional, U.S. v. Frandsen, but they are such an "extraordinary remedy" that they will only be upheld where the evil that would result from
publication can be shown to be both "great and certain," and cannot be militated by less intrusive measures." Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co.
Also, check out the section entitled "Prohibition Against Prior Restraint Must Sometimes Yield to the Right to a Fair Trial" as it pertains to a common use of prior restraint. As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, "Where the exercise of free press rights actually tramples upon Sixth Amendment rights, the former must nonetheless yield to the latter."
So, in conclusion, you can apply your First Amendment rights but expect to have to take it to court, and in some cases the supreme court.
Here in London we don't have a constitionally protected freedom of speech, so it is possible to get a court order to prevent publication of information that is deemed harmful. But this is a straw man, we are discussing your rights in the USA, not the rights of Britons.
The final ruling on that case is imaterial to the argument, the point is that you have the ability to apply for these rulings. You seem to be assuming that all cases are ruled against.
You need to read the article *again*, I've lifted the appropriate paragraph for the hard of reading:
"The Mail on Sunday intended to publish the claim in a tell-all "what the footman saw" feature Nov. 2, but the day before publication, Michael Fawcett, a friend and former valet/personal assistant of the heir to the throne's--and said by the Observer to be the man who had been named as the servant with whom Charles was caught--obtained a court order barring the MoS from publishing the story."
Now, have a read of the first three paragraphs of this website about the court injunction to stop information about the Vietnam war being published. Here's a relevant extract to make it easy for you:
In Near v. Minnesota, Chief Justice Hughes had noted that the rule against prior restraint would not apply in certain cases. No one would question, Hughes declared, "that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing days of transports or the number and location of troops." Using this theory, the Justice Department secured a temporary injunction against the Times. The Washington Post then picked up publication, and when the administration went to court against that paper, the Boston Globe began publication. In an unusual move, the Supreme Court expedited the appeals process, and heard oral argument on June 26, and four days later, on June 30 -- seventeen days after the Times ran the first installment -- handed down its decision.
You do have these laws in your country and they are applied when required. You're a high number user id so let me make it clear to you, unfounded banner waving doesn't cut it here on SlashDot, try to research first and post later since there are at least 796240 other people who could see *your* posts.
He must be a clever cop to be able to mount a 24 hr surveilance on the thousands of cameras that would be monitoring the city. Not to mention the fact he would need to be allowed access to all of those cameras. He would have to be *Robocop*! Yeh that's right, I'm making fun of your *insightful* comment because you have forgotten basic laws of physics. Don't even bother pulling up the "facial recognition" straw man, since it doesn't work that well, and even a hat and sunglasses would be enought o throw it off.
Since when has pot been legal in the US. Probably not since around Lincoln was chuffing the stuff down. Although it has just been re-classed over here, the police have turned a blind eye to it for quite a number of years. I made a police report a few years back and sat in the police station and told the officer we were smoking weed, she just said to go on with the story, it wasn't important that we were smoking canabis.
The Prince Charles story would be protected on two levels. Firstly, after Diana's accident the government brought in laws to help prevent pazaratzi from hounding public figures - this especially pertains to the royal house. Secondly, did you miss the part about the court injunction? You have the same thing in your country - inability to publish a story whilst awaiting the court hearing. This is to protect people from smear campaigns. This stuff does fly in the US.
The banks are legally required to monitor all transactions of over $10,000 and investigate for money laundering/etc. I know this, because I wrote some of the software for Bank Boston. Also, they band your usual transaction amounts and flag any that fall outside your normal range.
Living here in good old blighty (London) where we are constanly under surveilance, probably because of the decades of terrorism we can happilly light up the ole pipe and enjoy a Mary J. Despite Americans thinking we enjoy less freedoms than them, we actually have more. Next time the anti-cap demos are on saunter down and see how much leeway they give the protestors. Light up a J in the park over here, if an officer comes along you only get a warning - not prison time or a fine, a warning. We might not have it in our constitution, but if you want free speech go down to speakers corner where anyone and everyone can rant to their hearts content. We can enjoy Absinthe, I'm drinking a glass now, too bad you Americans with all your freedoms can't even have a glass of this fine liquor. I guess the prohibition isn't quite over yet. I can go to a shop in Camden and buy psychadelic mushrooms over the counter, and some LSA seeds, and it's legal. You should check out the stuff we can show on TV and print in the press, you guys really just aren't aware of how badly censored your freedoms are.
Seriously, you can't even go into a department store or a bookshop without security cameras and undercover security watching you. Why are people so het up about it in the steets?
Your cash already has serial numbers on it. RFID would simply make tracking it easier, it is already uniquely identified. Best to pull out your tinfoil hat, but make sure you pay for the tinfoil with that "untrackable" cash.
Slashdot Mirror
I got a bit arogant last year after setting up my main home server on a RAID 5 disk set, and with a tape backup plan that included weekly rotation and the ability to get back what I needed up to a month in the past. I fear I may have been a vitim of hubris however, as I spent a night at a friend of a friend's in Amsterdam and quietly dismissed his exortation to move my file system from EXT3 to XFS. I resisted because my machine was already set up, and I had insufficient drive space to do the neccessary three step dance to switch over to XFS. Hindsight is 20/20. During the honeymoon phase all was lovely, the backups occurred regularly, and the RAID drives spun reliably. Now, at some point my tape backups started to fail, but seeing as I had RAID 5 and a journaling filesystem I didn't hurry to replace the tape drive, I simply couldn't afford it anyway. Two months passed, and all was well, until one morning I got up to find the server down. Sometime over the weekend the RAID 5 array blew it's load, and trashed the file system in the process. The backups were now 2 months old, and the drives wouldn't spin up individually (two wouldn't, one was fine) so I couldn't get at the data anymore. I did have other paranoia++ copies of the most data elsewhere, but what failed to get on the backups was the digital photos I had taken in the meantime. They're on those 3 drives somewhere, but with only two working, no tape backup, and a dodgy so called journalling filesystem that was trashed I have the devils own job getting them back.
Moral of the story, don't let your guard down, two layers of protection is only the starting poing in protecting data, three is better, and make at least one of those offsite. I have the three drives set aside and labelled against the day/weekend when I can make a serious assault on getting that data back. Everyone feel free to point a finger and say "haha" in a Nelson voice, but remember, it could be you next.
Fastest backup in the west, data recovery is a little arse though ;->
This has been standard practise on hard drives as far back as I can remember, and that's at least a decade. Once you get about 1Kb they use multipliers of 1000 to represent the next level, e.g. 1MB = 1000 x 1024 not 1024 x 1024. It's a cheap shot, but one you should be used to by now.
You may have to repeat this process every few years, like I am doing now since I bought an iPod, and found all those neat OGG files to be less than playable on it. This seems like only a moderate hassle for the gains of storing the media compressed on a server, thus having it constantly available, and yet still small enough not to require terrabytes of storage.
I'll second that. The sound quality is excellent. Price of SkypeOut calls is really low too :-)
What is kind of ironic (though not by dictionary standards) is that the same government that is handing out speed tablets (Ritalin) to school kids, is also looking to give them an anti-drug drug. Some sort of strange double standard is in action here. Of couse, the kids can take the Ritalin as prescribed, but wouldn't it be more fun to save it up for the weekend (assuming your older siblings haven't already nicked it) ;->
It was ordered last week and already paid for so hopefully the parts will arrive this saturday :-) It should be screaming fast since I used toms hardware to hand select all the best performing parts I could afford. Highly recommended next time you upgrade, spend a few hours on Toms' to work out the best system components *before* you buy them. Man, I can't wait to take her for a spin 8->
I think the FX part stands for Frightening Expense. The Athlon 64 3500 was as high as my puny budget could go, and you tend to get diminishing returns above that point in any case.
I've seen the demo movie for gameplay on the XBox and it is more than decent. If you can't afford to get the latest video cards and gear, get Doom III on the Xbox! You can buy an XBox for less than a video card these days, and it honestly did look well playable. Sure, the res isn't going to be as great as your PC, but it will have Dolby Digital sound, and it will still look great on the XBox. Good option for the students among us.
I seem to recall an article saying you need a GeForce 3 or above. It may be it needs some extra hardware features introduced in that generation. Time to upgrade?
When two or more companies control the market and set pricing structures so as not to compete with each other it is an oligopoly. Different word, same effect as a monopoly.
You are in a twisty little maze of passages all alike. There is a pink demon here.
Use rocket launcher
You died. Play again?
Athlon 64 3500
1 GB DDR400 RAM
GeForce 6800 Ultra
Seagate 160GB SATA FB HD
All this for the same price as it would have cost to have something about 1/2-2/3 the speed if purchased a year or so ago.
Also, out of mere curiosity, since you do not have a freedom of speech, what does this boil down to. Are there any examples of restrictions of freedom of speech outside of the press? I'm curious is all.
I can't think of any example outside of the press where freedom of speech has been striken down. The press is reined in only very rarely, and the Royal house does get special privilege as noted in an earlier post. In general, as long as it's not slanderous we can print anything over here.
There's also strong support for freedom of expression in the arts. A famous example that springs to mind simply because it is one of the only times art has stretched towards censureship was photos of young boys and girls in the nude playing (Satchi Gallery I believe). Some wanted them taken down because of the paedophile issue, others defended their right to display since they are art, and the children were simply the artists kids at play as is quite normal over here (by which I mean Europe in general whilst on the beaches). I can't remember the conclusion either way, but I think it was left to Satchi to decide, and they may have been taken down to protect the galleries reputation and good-will.
Finally, there are no laws against walking around in the buff in public. We have no indencency laws so you are free to roam the city sans clothes, and I have seen this from time to time. You can be charged with trying to shock people if you are *acting* indecent, but you're more likely to be asked by the police to put your clothes on and go about your business. This means people can and do (particularly on the continent) sunbathe naked in the city parks. A rambler (walking as a hobby) famously walked naked across most of England, with only the occassional scuffle with the law requesting he stop it.
I know you guys value your freedom of speech quite highly, and it's a right I wish we had constitutionally granted, but that's not likely to happen. Regardless, our press just *seems* more free to me, because they do print stuff that you guys wouldn't, but that's more due to the moral majority you have over there. We also see more flesh on TV because we are not so hung up on the idea that nudity equates to sin. These are not written in law, they are governed by the standards of the people. On drugs we are a little ahead of you, but still lagging the Netherlands where my mate lives (visit if you can, it's cool to be able to choose from a dozen strains of weed over the counter of a coffee shop, then sit and have a coffee and biscuit while lighting up).
Anyway, we're drifting from the topic, what I'm trying to say is protect those freedoms with all your might, don't let them drift away piecemeal.
Whether and to what extent the reasoning of the DVDCCA court will be followed by other courts and in other cases is unclear. Furthermore, some violations of trade secrets law might be characterized as "commercial speech" entitled to less protection than this case affords. Nonetheless, this decision should put businesses on notice that the First Amendment can curtail their ability to prevent dissemination of their trade secrets, at least in the absence of a non-disclosure agreement.
You have the unstoppable force of the corporate interests clashing with the immovable object of the First Amendment. Justice in this case can always be bought at a price, but can individuals still afford this price or is it only available to other giant corporations. Here's a google link that shows your laws on prior restraint are very strong, but not unassailable - and a quote for you:Prior restraints are not per se unconstitutional, U.S. v. Frandsen, but they are such an "extraordinary remedy" that they will only be upheld where the evil that would result from publication can be shown to be both "great and certain," and cannot be militated by less intrusive measures." Procter & Gamble Co. v. Bankers Trust Co.
Also, check out the section entitled "Prohibition Against Prior Restraint Must Sometimes Yield to the Right to a Fair Trial" as it pertains to a common use of prior restraint. As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, "Where the exercise of free press rights actually tramples upon Sixth Amendment rights, the former must nonetheless yield to the latter."So, in conclusion, you can apply your First Amendment rights but expect to have to take it to court, and in some cases the supreme court.
Here in London we don't have a constitionally protected freedom of speech, so it is possible to get a court order to prevent publication of information that is deemed harmful. But this is a straw man, we are discussing your rights in the USA, not the rights of Britons.
The final ruling on that case is imaterial to the argument, the point is that you have the ability to apply for these rulings. You seem to be assuming that all cases are ruled against.
"The Mail on Sunday intended to publish the claim in a tell-all "what the footman saw" feature Nov. 2, but the day before publication, Michael Fawcett, a friend and former valet/personal assistant of the heir to the throne's--and said by the Observer to be the man who had been named as the servant with whom Charles was caught--obtained a court order barring the MoS from publishing the story."
Now, have a read of the first three paragraphs of this website about the court injunction to stop information about the Vietnam war being published. Here's a relevant extract to make it easy for you:
In Near v. Minnesota, Chief Justice Hughes had noted that the rule against prior restraint would not apply in certain cases. No one would question, Hughes declared, "that a government might prevent actual obstruction to its recruiting service or the publication of the sailing days of transports or the number and location of troops." Using this theory, the Justice Department secured a temporary injunction against the Times. The Washington Post then picked up publication, and when the administration went to court against that paper, the Boston Globe began publication. In an unusual move, the Supreme Court expedited the appeals process, and heard oral argument on June 26, and four days later, on June 30 -- seventeen days after the Times ran the first installment -- handed down its decision.
You do have these laws in your country and they are applied when required. You're a high number user id so let me make it clear to you, unfounded banner waving doesn't cut it here on SlashDot, try to research first and post later since there are at least 796240 other people who could see *your* posts.
He must be a clever cop to be able to mount a 24 hr surveilance on the thousands of cameras that would be monitoring the city. Not to mention the fact he would need to be allowed access to all of those cameras. He would have to be *Robocop*! Yeh that's right, I'm making fun of your *insightful* comment because you have forgotten basic laws of physics. Don't even bother pulling up the "facial recognition" straw man, since it doesn't work that well, and even a hat and sunglasses would be enought o throw it off.
The Prince Charles story would be protected on two levels. Firstly, after Diana's accident the government brought in laws to help prevent pazaratzi from hounding public figures - this especially pertains to the royal house. Secondly, did you miss the part about the court injunction? You have the same thing in your country - inability to publish a story whilst awaiting the court hearing. This is to protect people from smear campaigns. This stuff does fly in the US.
What are these powers, and how do they pertain to this discussion? I haven't got a copy of the constitution on hand.
Anglo-saxons are Europeans. These are the races of early European settlers the Angles and the Saxons (IIRC - which I probably don't).
The banks are legally required to monitor all transactions of over $10,000 and investigate for money laundering/etc. I know this, because I wrote some of the software for Bank Boston. Also, they band your usual transaction amounts and flag any that fall outside your normal range.
Seriously, you can't even go into a department store or a bookshop without security cameras and undercover security watching you. Why are people so het up about it in the steets?
Your cash already has serial numbers on it. RFID would simply make tracking it easier, it is already uniquely identified. Best to pull out your tinfoil hat, but make sure you pay for the tinfoil with that "untrackable" cash.