Sorry to reply on my own post here, FS block size should be minimum allocation size, which may be smaller than the physical sector size. So for your MP3 collection the overhead may be even lower...
You didn't dodge any bullet. Any file that has a size slightly over each 4096 border will take more space. For large amounts of larger files (such as an MP3 collection), you will, on average, have 2048 bytes of empty space in your drive's sectors. Lets say you have an archive which also uses some small files (e.g. playlists, small pictures) say that the overhead is about 3 KB per file, and the average file size is about 3MB. Since 3000000 / 3000 is about 1/1000 you could have a whopping 1 pro mille loss. That's for MP3's, for movies the percentage will be much lower still. Of course, if your FS uses a block size of 4096 already then you are already paying this 1 promille of overhead.
Personally I would not try and sue MS or WD over this issue...
Yes, of course file sizes under 4096 bytes (not 4096K) do still exist. As stated in the article, most FS on hard disks already use 4096 byte block sizes. Thus it won't make much difference for defrag, unless you misalign the data in which case the defrag suddenly could take a *very* long time.
Not that I care, my system drive is already SSD anyways and I've not filled a drive to the brim for a long time. If I would still download movies they would certainly go to a WD green drive or anything like that without any small file sizes in sight (after doing the PAR2 / unzip etc. on a separate drive or - if big enough - the SSD of course).
It's a copy from the start of the article. Later in the pictures the 4096K become 4K again, which is also wrong, it's 4 KiB or just 4096 bytes. Especially with hard drives, it makes no sense to call them 4K blocks of data, when the total capacity is calculated in real kilobytes (oh, boy, am I gonna get flamed for this). How this all got past all the editors is beyond me.
There are of course pdf printer drivers, but the additional steps of copying would make most people print to paper instead. It would also not compress images to e.g. 16 bit grey level. But most of all people don't think of pdf when they want to view something when they are away from their pc.
In any normal company, I would rather buy a large eBook reader (such as the iRex), that also has an option of annotating documents. In that way you don't have the weight of the initial expenses. And you have things like (rudimentary) search options and such. A long running tablet PC may also step into this niche. It's amazes me that many of these eBook readers don't come with a "printer driver". It would be a good way of converting documents to the right format and it would serve as a nice way of showing that the device can replace more paper than just books you buy in a store.
Usually gadget theft is by persons that know each other. I don't think a bus - which is a bit of a controlled and certainly closed environment - is a great place for theft.
As trying to attack the bus itself, I can't image too many people stooping that low. And even if they would, imagine the consequences when you get caught or convicted of a crime like that. Society is very protective of its children.
The biggest threat is probably from local (kids) gangs and bullies when walking from the bus to the home.
Boys looking at porn with a bus-full of their classmates? Girls making themselves looking nicer than professional porn stars - you think porn stars in general are beautiful? Are you sure you aren't projecting your own look at the world to everybody else? Or is this place you are living in that screwed up?
Meh, I can do USB tethering on my Android phone (Hero) right now. It's as easy as going into the menu and enable the tethering, and then plugging it into my laptop. I was a must have feature for me. No 20 euro additional charge - and for 30 euro a month for my ADSL I have telco WiFi access points to boot. Just don't buy an iPhone. I must admit that the persons in the telco provider shop were rather reluctant in admitting that it was possible.
PS for those in NL, that's KPN mobile and XS4ALL ADSL I'm using, I haven't had time to do tethering over my Bluetooth connections, and I heard it is tricky and consumes rather a lot of power if I could get it working. Nice thing is that the bigger laptop battery is also powering the phone if you use USB, but you do have a wire to worry about.
Very simply, if 2) is true, then it is not out of scope. Saying that the SLE 66 CE processor was not build for high security is also rather misleading. It certainly was, and it should be able to withstand rather severe attacks. Don't forget that these kind of chips are also found in smart cards and such. An attack on these kind of chips may have pretty harsh consequences. Of course, most criminals don't care about these kind of methods. Simply retrieving a PIN code or password is much easier, e.g. by listening in on the keyboard.
Absolutely not. What I am arguing against is putting things like OO into a language that was not designed for OO (it's called C++). It makes the language into a right mess. For the same reason I am against putting functional structures into Java. I want a clean language that uses OO, not an OO language that also does a bit of functional programming and, lets say, SQL (C#).
Since we've got these nice run times, both for.NET and for Java, why not keep these new structures in new languages and communicate through the libraries available to all. Do we really *need* lambda functions in Java? Aren't those instances asking for a full functional language instead of an OO language (in which variables now have scope problems because we had to fuse some functional structures in the language?)
The 1.4 to 1.5 changes were fine for me, since I had the idea that they added to the language without redefining it. There are a lot of changes in 1.7 that I question though, I feel they are trying to do too much. And I am feeling that if they added all the features that *I* like the language would become simply too verbose. In those cases you can better go for a redefined language, building on the experience from the previous language, and hope it catches on. In a sense, that's what was done when going from C++ to Java.
"Actually, OP probably means common sense. You should look into it. Or maybe you're one of those freetards that constantly expect people to give them free shit."
You must be one of those retards that think only capitalism works - and then buys into a vendor that does anything to disallow competition.
"If you mean.NET as a whole being a rip-off of Java, then you're late by like 6 years or so - C# 1.0 was for the most part "a better Java" (note the "better" part, however), but since then it has evolved much faster, and Java is struggling to keep pace, "ripping off" C# as it goes. To give a specific example: C# had first-class functions (called anonymous delegates in the language) in version 2.0, released in 2005. Java still doesn't have them, and they will only likely come in Java 7, to be released by the end of this year. To give another example, C# 2.0 and above has generics that Java language designers would call "reified". Java doesn't, and there's no telling when, or even if, it will."
Hold your horses here. If you mean with "evolved" that C# tries to do everything under the sky then you are certainly right. And certainly there are things that I really would like to have in Java (e.g. more runtime checks, such as "reified" generics). But IMHO C# has become too much of a "D" language, trying to tick each feature box. And while it does it will grow and grow and it will become harder and harder to manage. Java is trying to be a simple language. This makes it easier for developers to read each other's code. It makes it much easier to debug as well. It makes it easier to create an IDE that is really good at refactoring things and doing other interesting things with the AST (abstract syntax tree, the tree you get after parsing the code).
Many programming languages become harder to manage as time goes by, because there is much pressure on them to add features. In the Java community there is still much discussion on adding lambda functions. And with good reason; I'm rather strongly opposed because it adds to the cost of maintainability. And in the end, that's where most of the resources are spend. If you want to do functional programming? Fine, use a functional language compatible with the JVM and use that. I don't want for most of our programmers to deal with constructs out of functional languages, and for good reasons.
Eh,yeah, sorry I got confused there. My apologies to Da Silva, I mean de Icaza of course. Ugh! Good of you to spot it.
I haven't seen too many (== any) applications outside of video streaming of Silverlight anyway. But maybe I'm not looking hard enough, I'm not one for playing flash games and such.
I fully agree, it was the only time that I felt anything positive was happening over there. The assassination showed clearly that though peace with Jew Israelites and Palestinians will be hard thing to accomplish, it won't happen as long as those moronic extremists are there to fuck things up. But at that time, the peace price was definitely called for - even if the receivers had blood on their hands before they started the process.
Silverlight does not stream any video to my Linux machine. Of course it should, but somehow it doesn't. Weird isn't it, even though there is this moonlight thingy, the most important internet application somehow does not work right. So Silverlight is basically just working on Windows (and I presume, Windows mobile). Da Silva, I know you are reading, care to comment on that?
"Also, consumer-grade MHC SSDs are _not_ tremendously faster than spinning disks in transfer speed. Maybe 20%. Access time is where SSDs shine, 0.2 ms vs 8-10ms."
My Intel consumer-grade SSD is pushing way more than 20% extra, especially on reads. These things do 250 MB/s, what hard drive gets even close to that?
"The real issue here is the fact that security is sometimes not taken as seriously with hardware and firmware design in commodity devices as it is with software."
I love that last statement. It's not only not taken seriously, it is rarely programmed by someone educated on the subject. And the users of these systems are also to "blame". Even I, when browsing for a new ADSL modem, don't look at the state of the security in a device. I'll look if a router has WPA2 but that's about the extend of it. This is not strange, since it is simply not the prime use of the device. For these kind of Femto cells, no manager will select on security, but rather at cost, signal strength and manageability.
About 3 years ago I looked at the security of an Enterprise Service Bus and literally on the last page it was stated that the software used AES 168 bit encryption (including screen shot, no less). It's not just commodity devices, it is all products that are not primarily designed with security in mind.
"I assume it means that the cryptosystem is too strong for a realtime attack. It's a damn rare cryptosystem that can't be broken using enough stored ciphertext, so if the modified femtocell is storing and forwarding all traffic, traffic analysis + theoretical weaknesses in the algo + massive compute power == recovered clear material at some point in the future."
It's not such a rare cryptosystem that can't be broken given enough stored ciphertext,. And it is definitely not hard to construct nowadays (especially with good counters, session key renewal through key agreement algorithms). The question is is if the aging, proprietary GSM crypto that is in use actually falls within that definition. What I've heard, that's quite a definite "NO".
That's not a good idea, since the serial number normally is - eh - serial in nature. You can easily scan the range. The other option is to use a random "serial" number but then you need to make changes to the organization. If you are going that way, just print a random number after the serial number (starting with "PW" to distinguish it from the serial number, svp, we've got enough "anonymous" numbers as it is).
The 15 dollars is 15 dollars because that is what an average citizen in the USA is willing to pay for it. Nothing more and nothing less. I'd be very surprised if the amount was any different if they would sell half the amount - or twice the amount for that matter. Put it higher, and the total profit will drop because people won't buy DVD's on a hunch. Lower hurts profit because those wanting to buy it already do.
Did you see the price hike during the recession? Of course not, a price drop would be more logical (more budget DVD's) since people can still afford those without being yelled at by their spouse.
My mother barely survived two accidents. Once she was hit by a car that went on straight in a turn. The second time she was hit from behind while waiting for a red light. The van driver did not see the red light (or, apparently, a rather large car or two sitting in front of it).
Sometimes there is simply no way to avoid mishaps. Fortunately it does not happen to most people (in the western world); that many people never have accidents is not because they are smart, it's because they are the lucky ones. Sure enough, thinking ahead can remove a large amount of danger, but in the end you are always left with some uncertainty.
You act like you are mighty smart. But actually you are a awful TWAT, thinking you have full control over your life, and claiming other people are stupid because bad things happen to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry to reply on my own post here, FS block size should be minimum allocation size, which may be smaller than the physical sector size. So for your MP3 collection the overhead may be even lower...
You didn't dodge any bullet. Any file that has a size slightly over each 4096 border will take more space. For large amounts of larger files (such as an MP3 collection), you will, on average, have 2048 bytes of empty space in your drive's sectors. Lets say you have an archive which also uses some small files (e.g. playlists, small pictures) say that the overhead is about 3 KB per file, and the average file size is about 3MB. Since 3000000 / 3000 is about 1/1000 you could have a whopping 1 pro mille loss. That's for MP3's, for movies the percentage will be much lower still. Of course, if your FS uses a block size of 4096 already then you are already paying this 1 promille of overhead.
Personally I would not try and sue MS or WD over this issue...
Yes, of course file sizes under 4096 bytes (not 4096K) do still exist. As stated in the article, most FS on hard disks already use 4096 byte block sizes. Thus it won't make much difference for defrag, unless you misalign the data in which case the defrag suddenly could take a *very* long time.
Not that I care, my system drive is already SSD anyways and I've not filled a drive to the brim for a long time. If I would still download movies they would certainly go to a WD green drive or anything like that without any small file sizes in sight (after doing the PAR2 / unzip etc. on a separate drive or - if big enough - the SSD of course).
It's a copy from the start of the article. Later in the pictures the 4096K become 4K again, which is also wrong, it's 4 KiB or just 4096 bytes. Especially with hard drives, it makes no sense to call them 4K blocks of data, when the total capacity is calculated in real kilobytes (oh, boy, am I gonna get flamed for this). How this all got past all the editors is beyond me.
Not a serious screenplay? It plays on my screen and it is as serious as you make it :)
More or less - they'll screw the helpless store owners too. And they are doing everything they can with Chip and Pin to relieve responsibility.
There are of course pdf printer drivers, but the additional steps of copying would make most people print to paper instead. It would also not compress images to e.g. 16 bit grey level. But most of all people don't think of pdf when they want to view something when they are away from their pc.
In any normal company, I would rather buy a large eBook reader (such as the iRex), that also has an option of annotating documents. In that way you don't have the weight of the initial expenses. And you have things like (rudimentary) search options and such. A long running tablet PC may also step into this niche. It's amazes me that many of these eBook readers don't come with a "printer driver". It would be a good way of converting documents to the right format and it would serve as a nice way of showing that the device can replace more paper than just books you buy in a store.
Usually gadget theft is by persons that know each other. I don't think a bus - which is a bit of a controlled and certainly closed environment - is a great place for theft.
As trying to attack the bus itself, I can't image too many people stooping that low. And even if they would, imagine the consequences when you get caught or convicted of a crime like that. Society is very protective of its children.
The biggest threat is probably from local (kids) gangs and bullies when walking from the bus to the home.
Boys looking at porn with a bus-full of their classmates? Girls making themselves looking nicer than professional porn stars - you think porn stars in general are beautiful? Are you sure you aren't projecting your own look at the world to everybody else? Or is this place you are living in that screwed up?
Meh, I can do USB tethering on my Android phone (Hero) right now. It's as easy as going into the menu and enable the tethering, and then plugging it into my laptop. I was a must have feature for me. No 20 euro additional charge - and for 30 euro a month for my ADSL I have telco WiFi access points to boot. Just don't buy an iPhone. I must admit that the persons in the telco provider shop were rather reluctant in admitting that it was possible.
PS for those in NL, that's KPN mobile and XS4ALL ADSL I'm using, I haven't had time to do tethering over my Bluetooth connections, and I heard it is tricky and consumes rather a lot of power if I could get it working. Nice thing is that the bigger laptop battery is also powering the phone if you use USB, but you do have a wire to worry about.
Very simply, if 2) is true, then it is not out of scope. Saying that the SLE 66 CE processor was not build for high security is also rather misleading. It certainly was, and it should be able to withstand rather severe attacks. Don't forget that these kind of chips are also found in smart cards and such. An attack on these kind of chips may have pretty harsh consequences. Of course, most criminals don't care about these kind of methods. Simply retrieving a PIN code or password is much easier, e.g. by listening in on the keyboard.
Absolutely not. What I am arguing against is putting things like OO into a language that was not designed for OO (it's called C++). It makes the language into a right mess. For the same reason I am against putting functional structures into Java. I want a clean language that uses OO, not an OO language that also does a bit of functional programming and, lets say, SQL (C#).
Since we've got these nice run times, both for .NET and for Java, why not keep these new structures in new languages and communicate through the libraries available to all. Do we really *need* lambda functions in Java? Aren't those instances asking for a full functional language instead of an OO language (in which variables now have scope problems because we had to fuse some functional structures in the language?)
The 1.4 to 1.5 changes were fine for me, since I had the idea that they added to the language without redefining it. There are a lot of changes in 1.7 that I question though, I feel they are trying to do too much. And I am feeling that if they added all the features that *I* like the language would become simply too verbose. In those cases you can better go for a redefined language, building on the experience from the previous language, and hope it catches on. In a sense, that's what was done when going from C++ to Java.
"Actually, OP probably means common sense. You should look into it. Or maybe you're one of those freetards that constantly expect people to give them free shit."
You must be one of those retards that think only capitalism works - and then buys into a vendor that does anything to disallow competition.
"If you mean .NET as a whole being a rip-off of Java, then you're late by like 6 years or so - C# 1.0 was for the most part "a better Java" (note the "better" part, however), but since then it has evolved much faster, and Java is struggling to keep pace, "ripping off" C# as it goes. To give a specific example: C# had first-class functions (called anonymous delegates in the language) in version 2.0, released in 2005. Java still doesn't have them, and they will only likely come in Java 7, to be released by the end of this year. To give another example, C# 2.0 and above has generics that Java language designers would call "reified". Java doesn't, and there's no telling when, or even if, it will."
Hold your horses here. If you mean with "evolved" that C# tries to do everything under the sky then you are certainly right. And certainly there are things that I really would like to have in Java (e.g. more runtime checks, such as "reified" generics). But IMHO C# has become too much of a "D" language, trying to tick each feature box. And while it does it will grow and grow and it will become harder and harder to manage. Java is trying to be a simple language. This makes it easier for developers to read each other's code. It makes it much easier to debug as well. It makes it easier to create an IDE that is really good at refactoring things and doing other interesting things with the AST (abstract syntax tree, the tree you get after parsing the code).
Many programming languages become harder to manage as time goes by, because there is much pressure on them to add features. In the Java community there is still much discussion on adding lambda functions. And with good reason; I'm rather strongly opposed because it adds to the cost of maintainability. And in the end, that's where most of the resources are spend. If you want to do functional programming? Fine, use a functional language compatible with the JVM and use that. I don't want for most of our programmers to deal with constructs out of functional languages, and for good reasons.
Eh,yeah, sorry I got confused there. My apologies to Da Silva, I mean de Icaza of course. Ugh! Good of you to spot it.
I haven't seen too many (== any) applications outside of video streaming of Silverlight anyway. But maybe I'm not looking hard enough, I'm not one for playing flash games and such.
Not true, gopher is still alive and well. Most of the people reading this still have a gopher client on their machine :)
I fully agree, it was the only time that I felt anything positive was happening over there. The assassination showed clearly that though peace with Jew Israelites and Palestinians will be hard thing to accomplish, it won't happen as long as those moronic extremists are there to fuck things up. But at that time, the peace price was definitely called for - even if the receivers had blood on their hands before they started the process.
Silverlight does not stream any video to my Linux machine. Of course it should, but somehow it doesn't. Weird isn't it, even though there is this moonlight thingy, the most important internet application somehow does not work right. So Silverlight is basically just working on Windows (and I presume, Windows mobile). Da Silva, I know you are reading, care to comment on that?
"Also, consumer-grade MHC SSDs are _not_ tremendously faster than spinning disks in transfer speed. Maybe 20%. Access time is where SSDs shine, 0.2 ms vs 8-10ms ."
My Intel consumer-grade SSD is pushing way more than 20% extra, especially on reads. These things do 250 MB/s, what hard drive gets even close to that?
"The real issue here is the fact that security is sometimes not taken as seriously with hardware and firmware design in commodity devices as it is with software."
I love that last statement. It's not only not taken seriously, it is rarely programmed by someone educated on the subject. And the users of these systems are also to "blame". Even I, when browsing for a new ADSL modem, don't look at the state of the security in a device. I'll look if a router has WPA2 but that's about the extend of it. This is not strange, since it is simply not the prime use of the device. For these kind of Femto cells, no manager will select on security, but rather at cost, signal strength and manageability.
About 3 years ago I looked at the security of an Enterprise Service Bus and literally on the last page it was stated that the software used AES 168 bit encryption (including screen shot, no less). It's not just commodity devices, it is all products that are not primarily designed with security in mind.
"I assume it means that the cryptosystem is too strong for a realtime attack. It's a damn rare cryptosystem that can't be broken using enough stored ciphertext, so if the modified femtocell is storing and forwarding all traffic, traffic analysis + theoretical weaknesses in the algo + massive compute power == recovered clear material at some point in the future."
It's not such a rare cryptosystem that can't be broken given enough stored ciphertext,. And it is definitely not hard to construct nowadays (especially with good counters, session key renewal through key agreement algorithms). The question is is if the aging, proprietary GSM crypto that is in use actually falls within that definition. What I've heard, that's quite a definite "NO".
That's not a good idea, since the serial number normally is - eh - serial in nature. You can easily scan the range. The other option is to use a random "serial" number but then you need to make changes to the organization. If you are going that way, just print a random number after the serial number (starting with "PW" to distinguish it from the serial number, svp, we've got enough "anonymous" numbers as it is).
The 15 dollars is 15 dollars because that is what an average citizen in the USA is willing to pay for it. Nothing more and nothing less. I'd be very surprised if the amount was any different if they would sell half the amount - or twice the amount for that matter. Put it higher, and the total profit will drop because people won't buy DVD's on a hunch. Lower hurts profit because those wanting to buy it already do.
Did you see the price hike during the recession? Of course not, a price drop would be more logical (more budget DVD's) since people can still afford those without being yelled at by their spouse.
Hello lucky arsehole.
My mother barely survived two accidents. Once she was hit by a car that went on straight in a turn. The second time she was hit from behind while waiting for a red light. The van driver did not see the red light (or, apparently, a rather large car or two sitting in front of it).
Sometimes there is simply no way to avoid mishaps. Fortunately it does not happen to most people (in the western world); that many people never have accidents is not because they are smart, it's because they are the lucky ones. Sure enough, thinking ahead can remove a large amount of danger, but in the end you are always left with some uncertainty.
You act like you are mighty smart. But actually you are a awful TWAT, thinking you have full control over your life, and claiming other people are stupid because bad things happen to them.