Yeah, the blue/red LED light bars becoming increasingly popular with public safety agencies are sometimes so bright as to be actually painful to look at, especially at night. Also, my LED flashlights are extremely bright, although the light is admittedly being focused into a tight beam.
You mean like how the RIAA/MPAA and their paid congressmen have stolen countless millions of dollars' worth of content from the public domain through continued retroactive copyright extensions?
I ordered a pair of 1TB ES.2 drives a little while back, and the drives report themselves as being GB1000EAFJLs, which as I understand is an HP relabel of the ST31000340NS. The firmware version reported is HPG6, which seems to be the latest version from HP. Would you happen to know if there's any correlation between the HP firmware and Seagate firmware versions?
And as long as kids have parts of their anatomy that are considered shameful and sinful, they'll continue to show them to each other, photographically or not.
They may have looked at the contents in order to identify the owner of the phone so that it could be returned to the proper owner.
Or they could just as easily have made a note of who they took the phone from, and return it to that person.
The part that gets me is that there's been no common sense applied here. The supposed "victims" are going to end up with just as much of a criminal record as the boys they sent the pictures to, so what exactly is the net benefit to society here? Sounds to me like there's a DA that's more interested in his political ambitions than anything else, and hopefully this will clearly show this individual's lack of fitness for office due to his lack of judgement.
This can also be seen by them needing "Raid-Edition" drives, because their normal SATA drives keep dropping out of RAID arrays. No other manufacturer has this issue with healty drives
Seagate recently had the same problem with some of their drives. Spontaneously dropping out of RAID arrays is often a symptom of the drive experiencing occasional read/write errors and taking too long on the retry, which prompts the controller to kick it from the array. This can manifest itself on a single-drive system as a temporary lockup while the drive figures out what to go do with itself. The "RAID-edition" drives shorten the retry cycle substantially, which keeps the RAID controller happy.
Yup, just RS-232 with TTL matching circuitry. A little board like this one does just fine, although you do have to give the board +5VDC and jumper TX/RX to the appropriate pins on the drive. For the 7200.11s, there is a block of four pins adjacent to the SATA data connector on the back of the drive - the pin closest to the SATA connector is RX, and the one right next to it is TX. Note that this will just give you a terminal interface to the controller, as opposed to letting you actually use the drive for its intended purpose.
Note - if you blow your drive up, it's all on you.:-) I've not actually tinkered with my drives in such a manner, but it seems a few folks have, with good results.
That's a totally different issue, albeit still an annoying one. The SD15 issue results in the drive reporting BSY continuously (seems to be kind of NCQ-related bug in the firmware) , which prevents the computer's BIOS from being able to see it on power up, which does effectively brick the drive. The problem only shows itself on power-up (the drives don't die while the machine is running), and the only way to bring the drive back to life once it's in that state is to connect to it via the drive's on-board serial port, and reset the BSY signal manually via the terminal interface. Once that's been done, the drive can then be flashed with the new firmware without data loss, but otherwise it's a paperweight unless you happen to have the little external RS-232 interface board needed for this adventure along with a bit of courage.
So we're going to lynch them for being open and honest that their drives have a problem and they're doing everything possible to minimize the harm to their customers?
No, we're going to lynch them because they've been aware of the issue since at least the beginning of December and have continually denied the existence of any problems until now, when the failure rate reached a point where they couldn't keep a lid on it any more. We're also going to lynch them because the SD15 firmware that's causing the problems was itself a bug fix, and obviously not tested very thoroughly.
It likely was the same issue that affected your drive. Seagate has been aware of the problem for at least several weeks, and has steadfastly denied that any problem existed until now.
Lots of people in this thread have been talking about how forthright Seagate has been on the matter, but the fact is that they covered it up as long as they could, and now that the number of failures has reached a critical mass, they're been forced to deal with it. Sure doesn't help the thousands of people that lost their data and had to deal with the inconvenience of a warranty return, only to get a refurb drive with the same frigging firmware issue. It also doesn't help the people that have shelled out quite a bit of money to have data recovery performed on a drive that doesn't have a damned thing wrong with it physically.
Seagate's handling of this matter has been shameful.
But the fact that they mess up once doesn't mean that they're about to mess up again
Except that the current firmware fiasco is a case of "messing up again". The SD15 firmware that's causing the current problems was itself a fix for performance issues on these drives. So, where the drive was previously a bit slower than it should have been, now it bricks itself.
not HAL-9000 intelligence, which would be bad for data anyway
HAL-9K intelligence doesn't pose any problems to the data - it's the *operators* that need to be concerned, especially when giving the system instructions that could potentially conflict with each other.
You're right, it is a bigger issue. Problem is, they do it like that precisely because they want to avoid the hassle of having to prove guilt in a real court. It's pretty hard to do that conclusively, and besides, this way they get to keep a much larger percentage of the money than if they actually charged the driver with breaking the appropriate state law.
Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that freedom and safety are mutually exclusive. One has to give ground to the other, and the debate regarding camera enforcement represents a politcally charged interface between the two. In regards to red-light cameras, I personally would come down on the side of freedom, while making the penalties for the offense such that it actually provides a real incentive not to do it again (once you get your license back) if you're proven to have done it. Speeding would bring a lesser punishment, but it still needs to hurt, and speed limits need to be truly representative of what is safe on any given road. But then, I think the requirements for driver's licenses should be a lot more strict too, and that people should be regularly tested in order to keep their license.
my original hypothetical involved someone being violent towards me while they were standing on my doorstep, i.e. in my residence
Very well then - I was imagining the scenario where you'd have some idiot merely yelling at you from said doorstep. Obviously, if he's violent towards you or your family, all bets are off, and rightly so. I would do the same.
Like you, I would much rather do what I could to avoid violence, but I've given a fair bit of my money and my time to some very smart people to learn how to quickly resolve the situation if violence is thrust upon me. I spend a fair amount of time at the range trying to keep the skills sharp, but would die a happy man if I never actually had to use them.
But I'm still not putting my callsign on my truck.:-D What say we just chalk it up to philosophical differences and call it a night?
Ok you completely failed to grasp my point so I'll spell it out for you in small words.
Not sure why you felt the ad hom was needed, but I assure you it wasn't necessary - I didn't "fail" to grasp anything. I fully understood where you were coming from. I don't live in fear either (and wasn't accusing you of doing so), but that doesn't stop me from taking basic precautions. And like you, I have a variety of means to protect my home and almost never leave the house unarmed, but I'd really prefer to not have to use them if at all possible. There's a saying that every bullet that leaves your gun has a lawyer attached, and I don't know of anyone that needs/wants that hassle.
I work for the government and I'm well aware of my rights regarding defense of my home.
I'll defer to your knowledge of your own state's laws, and assume that there's some case law that lets people legally brandish a firearm at someone that's not actually threatening them. Where I live, we have to wait until they're actually in the house first or are otherwise actively posing a threat - I don't get to blow away someone yelling at me on my porch, no matter how much I may think they deserve it.
Well I do have my callsign as my tag, as well as part of my email address. If someone really hates me badly enough to come knock on my door and confront me about it, they will get one of two greetings, and they're both 12ga buckshot.
Okay, whatever. Let me know how effective the shotgun is when you go out in the morning to find every car in your driveway with the windows broken out and all four sidewalls slashed. And please go check out your state's laws on use of deadly force while you're at it (specifically Title 16, Section 3, Chapter 23) before you go and get yourself thrown in jail.
You could in fact get ticketed for that - at least you could in Virginia Beach back around 1990 or so. I got pulled over even though I was driving under the limit (35 in a 40 zone), because the officer felt it was "too fast for conditions" (there was a slight drizzle). It was completely safe by any objective evaluation, and the officer made it clear it was going to be pointless to try to contest it in court, as it was his word against mine.
I have zero tolerance for running red lights, and I don't see any grey area in that. There's a reason lights turn yellow, and it isn't so you can speed up and beat it through.
I do as well, but I also have zero tolerance for the state acting in the interests of convenience and revenues to the detriment of its citizens' rights.
If you want to slow traffic down, put more cops on traffic control.
This is the answer, *in addition to* some kind of photographic record. I'm all for laws being enforced, but the state needs to do it in a manner that affords everyone their rights to due process. The officer can be questioned in court, and the photographic proof helps keep the citing officer honest.
Slashdot Mirror
If you just plugged enough LEDs in series to plug straight into AC, they'd flicker at a very noticeable 60Hz.
Big time. We have AC LED lights for our Christmas tree, and the flicker bugs the hell out of me.
Yeah, the blue/red LED light bars becoming increasingly popular with public safety agencies are sometimes so bright as to be actually painful to look at, especially at night. Also, my LED flashlights are extremely bright, although the light is admittedly being focused into a tight beam.
Don't steal, and don't violate their TOC.
You mean like how the RIAA/MPAA and their paid congressmen have stolen countless millions of dollars' worth of content from the public domain through continued retroactive copyright extensions?
Sounds to me like someone doesn't understand the difference between "cowardice" and "strategy".
I ordered a pair of 1TB ES.2 drives a little while back, and the drives report themselves as being GB1000EAFJLs, which as I understand is an HP relabel of the ST31000340NS. The firmware version reported is HPG6, which seems to be the latest version from HP. Would you happen to know if there's any correlation between the HP firmware and Seagate firmware versions?
RMAing doesn't do a lot of good when the refurb drive you get back has the same buggy firmware as the one you just sent them.
"You have my permission to stay on my lawn"
And as long as kids have parts of their anatomy that are considered shameful and sinful, they'll continue to show them to each other, photographically or not.
And if you're going to think of the children, make damn sure no one knows you're thinking of the children.
They may have looked at the contents in order to identify the owner of the phone so that it could be returned to the proper owner.
Or they could just as easily have made a note of who they took the phone from, and return it to that person.
The part that gets me is that there's been no common sense applied here. The supposed "victims" are going to end up with just as much of a criminal record as the boys they sent the pictures to, so what exactly is the net benefit to society here? Sounds to me like there's a DA that's more interested in his political ambitions than anything else, and hopefully this will clearly show this individual's lack of fitness for office due to his lack of judgement.
This can also be seen by them needing "Raid-Edition" drives, because their normal SATA drives keep dropping out of RAID arrays. No other manufacturer has this issue with healty drives
Seagate recently had the same problem with some of their drives. Spontaneously dropping out of RAID arrays is often a symptom of the drive experiencing occasional read/write errors and taking too long on the retry, which prompts the controller to kick it from the array. This can manifest itself on a single-drive system as a temporary lockup while the drive figures out what to go do with itself. The "RAID-edition" drives shorten the retry cycle substantially, which keeps the RAID controller happy.
Yup, just RS-232 with TTL matching circuitry. A little board like this one does just fine, although you do have to give the board +5VDC and jumper TX/RX to the appropriate pins on the drive. For the 7200.11s, there is a block of four pins adjacent to the SATA data connector on the back of the drive - the pin closest to the SATA connector is RX, and the one right next to it is TX. Note that this will just give you a terminal interface to the controller, as opposed to letting you actually use the drive for its intended purpose.
:-) I've not actually tinkered with my drives in such a manner, but it seems a few folks have, with good results.
Note - if you blow your drive up, it's all on you.
That's a totally different issue, albeit still an annoying one. The SD15 issue results in the drive reporting BSY continuously (seems to be kind of NCQ-related bug in the firmware) , which prevents the computer's BIOS from being able to see it on power up, which does effectively brick the drive. The problem only shows itself on power-up (the drives don't die while the machine is running), and the only way to bring the drive back to life once it's in that state is to connect to it via the drive's on-board serial port, and reset the BSY signal manually via the terminal interface. Once that's been done, the drive can then be flashed with the new firmware without data loss, but otherwise it's a paperweight unless you happen to have the little external RS-232 interface board needed for this adventure along with a bit of courage.
So we're going to lynch them for being open and honest that their drives have a problem and they're doing everything possible to minimize the harm to their customers?
No, we're going to lynch them because they've been aware of the issue since at least the beginning of December and have continually denied the existence of any problems until now, when the failure rate reached a point where they couldn't keep a lid on it any more. We're also going to lynch them because the SD15 firmware that's causing the problems was itself a bug fix, and obviously not tested very thoroughly.
It likely was the same issue that affected your drive. Seagate has been aware of the problem for at least several weeks, and has steadfastly denied that any problem existed until now.
Lots of people in this thread have been talking about how forthright Seagate has been on the matter, but the fact is that they covered it up as long as they could, and now that the number of failures has reached a critical mass, they're been forced to deal with it. Sure doesn't help the thousands of people that lost their data and had to deal with the inconvenience of a warranty return, only to get a refurb drive with the same frigging firmware issue. It also doesn't help the people that have shelled out quite a bit of money to have data recovery performed on a drive that doesn't have a damned thing wrong with it physically.
Seagate's handling of this matter has been shameful.
But the fact that they mess up once doesn't mean that they're about to mess up again
Except that the current firmware fiasco is a case of "messing up again". The SD15 firmware that's causing the current problems was itself a fix for performance issues on these drives. So, where the drive was previously a bit slower than it should have been, now it bricks itself.
not HAL-9000 intelligence, which would be bad for data anyway
HAL-9K intelligence doesn't pose any problems to the data - it's the *operators* that need to be concerned, especially when giving the system instructions that could potentially conflict with each other.
You're right, it is a bigger issue. Problem is, they do it like that precisely because they want to avoid the hassle of having to prove guilt in a real court. It's pretty hard to do that conclusively, and besides, this way they get to keep a much larger percentage of the money than if they actually charged the driver with breaking the appropriate state law.
Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that freedom and safety are mutually exclusive. One has to give ground to the other, and the debate regarding camera enforcement represents a politcally charged interface between the two. In regards to red-light cameras, I personally would come down on the side of freedom, while making the penalties for the offense such that it actually provides a real incentive not to do it again (once you get your license back) if you're proven to have done it. Speeding would bring a lesser punishment, but it still needs to hurt, and speed limits need to be truly representative of what is safe on any given road. But then, I think the requirements for driver's licenses should be a lot more strict too, and that people should be regularly tested in order to keep their license.
my original hypothetical involved someone being violent towards me while they were standing on my doorstep, i.e. in my residence
:-D What say we just chalk it up to philosophical differences and call it a night?
Very well then - I was imagining the scenario where you'd have some idiot merely yelling at you from said doorstep. Obviously, if he's violent towards you or your family, all bets are off, and rightly so. I would do the same.
Like you, I would much rather do what I could to avoid violence, but I've given a fair bit of my money and my time to some very smart people to learn how to quickly resolve the situation if violence is thrust upon me. I spend a fair amount of time at the range trying to keep the skills sharp, but would die a happy man if I never actually had to use them.
But I'm still not putting my callsign on my truck.
Ok you completely failed to grasp my point so I'll spell it out for you in small words.
Not sure why you felt the ad hom was needed, but I assure you it wasn't necessary - I didn't "fail" to grasp anything. I fully understood where you were coming from. I don't live in fear either (and wasn't accusing you of doing so), but that doesn't stop me from taking basic precautions. And like you, I have a variety of means to protect my home and almost never leave the house unarmed, but I'd really prefer to not have to use them if at all possible. There's a saying that every bullet that leaves your gun has a lawyer attached, and I don't know of anyone that needs/wants that hassle.
I work for the government and I'm well aware of my rights regarding defense of my home.
I'll defer to your knowledge of your own state's laws, and assume that there's some case law that lets people legally brandish a firearm at someone that's not actually threatening them. Where I live, we have to wait until they're actually in the house first or are otherwise actively posing a threat - I don't get to blow away someone yelling at me on my porch, no matter how much I may think they deserve it.
Well I do have my callsign as my tag, as well as part of my email address. If someone really hates me badly enough to come knock on my door and confront me about it, they will get one of two greetings, and they're both 12ga buckshot.
Okay, whatever. Let me know how effective the shotgun is when you go out in the morning to find every car in your driveway with the windows broken out and all four sidewalls slashed. And please go check out your state's laws on use of deadly force while you're at it (specifically Title 16, Section 3, Chapter 23) before you go and get yourself thrown in jail.
You could in fact get ticketed for that - at least you could in Virginia Beach back around 1990 or so. I got pulled over even though I was driving under the limit (35 in a 40 zone), because the officer felt it was "too fast for conditions" (there was a slight drizzle). It was completely safe by any objective evaluation, and the officer made it clear it was going to be pointless to try to contest it in court, as it was his word against mine.
I have zero tolerance for running red lights, and I don't see any grey area in that. There's a reason lights turn yellow, and it isn't so you can speed up and beat it through.
I do as well, but I also have zero tolerance for the state acting in the interests of convenience and revenues to the detriment of its citizens' rights.
I think I know a thing or two about optics. How does a flash next to the license plate cause the license plate to be unreadable...
The optics don't matter - put enough light into a CCD, and it's going to bloom like hell.
If you want to slow traffic down, put more cops on traffic control.
This is the answer, *in addition to* some kind of photographic record. I'm all for laws being enforced, but the state needs to do it in a manner that affords everyone their rights to due process. The officer can be questioned in court, and the photographic proof helps keep the citing officer honest.