Then on a long trip decent porn is pretty much a mission requirement. They had better figure this out or human spaceflight is doomed to low earth orbit. 0G sex is good for the folks who need to check that box, but novelty wears off after a while.
One of the wonderful things about progress is its dimensionality. A rising tide lifts all boats.
So, if you don't see a use for it for you, that's OK. Google and Amazon will find ever more efficient uses for it and so your web pages will load faster and their servers will use less energy and hence burn less carbon so your children will breathe better. People in less advantaged regions will be more able to share their culture and compete in the world economy. The storage clusters I design for your local government will cost 1/10th as much as they did before, so my customers will need less tax money from you.
It's offensive to ban a system of belief. If a system of belief arises specifically to exploit a prohibition against such a ban, what is it? Is it fairly a religion, or is it a cynical tool to exploit the openness of openness? I really don't think there is an answer to this question except to grant to all secular organizations the permissions granted to ordinate ones, and to restrict all organizations to limits that preserve the social order. Here on slashdot we split these hairs every day as Microsoft announces yet another open format (NDA and patent disclaimer required).
L. Ron Hubbard was a smart guy, and he was competing for SciFi religiosity against the very best. In the end he "won" in that his vision consumed him, as is the rightful end of all natural prophets. I believe he was competing against RAH, and you will find the reasons for RAH's surrender on this issue in I will fear no evil and later works. In the end Heinlein determined that the pot was not worth the stakes. RAH's legacy endures as the Dean of Science Fiction. L. Ron Hubbard is remembered as a hack who invented Scientology and rode it until his invention bested him and rode him to his grave.
Some of the above is my own interpretation of events and subtext in published and unpublished writings. Heinlein and Hubbard played cards on a regular basis, with a number of SciFi Literati of their era, and it's well established that they drank like naval cadets. Gambling was a frequent component of their interaction, as was plots. But to the point of a "Bet between sci-fi authors regarding the invention of a popular religion" I have no evidence. If any reader of this might have a citation I would be grateful.
In the same organization I ordered an ergo chair through regular channels after I had been there two weeks. It had to be approved by five people throughout the chain. I worked the issue for over a year before I let it go (I had since made a deal with a supply manager for all the good chairs I wanted). Two and a half years later as I was checking out the guy came with the chair. "Put it over there" I told him - "my replacement will need it."
Once upon a time (long ago) a reasonably high government comptroller came to me and said: "I have to get rid of $10m, today." I blinked a couple times and said, "We could use some computer stuff." We went to a computer store and bought out almost their entire stock. The motor pool was loading stuff at midnight. We had to hit a second store to polish it off.
Oddly enough we got better value than if we had put it out to bid, and we needed it all but were afraid to ask for it. IIRC it took four months to integrate the gear into our environment. Government procurement is weird.
Unfortunately in the southern hemisphere the spin is reversed, which could result in the anti-god particle. They'll play with black holes, but there are limits to their hubris.
The next version is the Trans-equator Hadron Collider (THC) which will circle the equator and have a branch that passes through the core in an attempt to discover stuff that's like, really cool, man. Here's a diagram.
A few reasons spring to mind. One is that expanders are cheaper than controllers. Another is that they don't take a slot. That's handy if you're using a case that supports 25 drives. A third is that you want to maximize throughput per slot for various reasons. A last is that you want to attach external storage and you want the maximum amount of external storage per connection - because some people want to connect 48TB of storage to one 4-port SATA card, which ain't going to work directly unless you've got a source for 12TB HDDs.
The attach of the next generation of internal storage media is PCIe. And the attach of next generation expansion storage media is... external PCIe. 2-3 years out flash storage will be cheaper per TB than spinning disc. Sometime before that most folks will realize that millisecond latency is not as good as microsecond latency. So... Yeah, I agree with you.
You've missed this one. When CDROM and DVD-ROM manufacturers faced this problem they came up with the obvious answer: Read multiple tracks at once. I believe modern drives read up to 16 tracks at a time.
For random I/O seek time can seriously degrade throughput. Since these days we're talking about multiple VM's contending for disk, this is becoming an issue we need to be more aware of unless we're using Solid State Drives - because of course SSD's don't seek.
What you're looking for is "SATA Expander". It allows you to connect several drives to one 3Gb/s SATA port. The drives, the expander and the controller must all be compatible and support this mode. But yes, you can saturate a single SATA port using only spinning drives if you want to.
There are several SSDs currently that offer more than 1GB/s Read/Write, which would more than saturate this bus. I mentioned them here. The trick is that they don't use this bus. Because that would be silly.
Until recently to get decent performance in a reasonable size you needed a huge SAN with hundreds of spindles. Now that you can get stuff like The OCZ Z-Drive, the PhotoFast G-Monster and of course the Fusion-IO IODrive Duo that's not really necessary unless you also need >6TB. The 50 microsecond latency is just bonus.
And oh, joy, there will be more. The SAN vendors who are betting their next year's revenue on those $million+ performance SAN's better get a plan B, and quick.
In response to today's nuclear weapon test by North Korea the United Nations has activated their Quick Reaction Typist Team to being drafting the customary firmly worded letter. Expert linguists will be holding meetings for the next few months to refine a specification for verbiage of appropriate strength to correctly and effectively deal with this issue. Iran will chair the committee, and Libya will sit. Venezuela has already filed an objection to the process as discriminatory and inappropriate.
I think it's time we bump the return rate on Windows machines by taking back our new laptops a few times. I'm tired of seeing this argument. As of right now my preferred recommendation for malware becomes "take it back to the store and exchange it for one that doesn't have that problem".
What about all those Iranian observers they were stepping through the build process for a little hands-on knowledge transfer. Do we want to consider that at all here?
This is another grand option. Many of the folk who use this service will have a server with fixed IP address. They might also offer a service like dynamic dns for the people who suffer with dynamic IP address.
This is going to sound like fangeek adoration because it is. You intuit better math than most of the math geeks I've ever known, and I've known a good number.
But... I disagree. We can do this if we try, and if you think about how to solve this problem the answer will become obvious to you.
With 4-6 multiples per client of storage this is a good metric. With 10x and VI distribution it's safe at 5 9's. The backlog length and intelligence of distribution are implementation details. It's all about Recovery Time Objective and those metrics are well established. My post implied fixed backlog lengths, it's true, but that was for a different audience than you and that paradigm isn't required to solve this problem.
It's their client and they're well equipped to implement our discussion so we've done good work here.
It would be wiser to accept 1-3 days latency from reported theft to recovery data. With that much lag and the requirement that the clients themselves store some redundant multiple of the data they send in encrypted format the problem becomes trivial.
Surrendering privacy or security is NEVER a valid option in a distributed application.
Slashdot Mirror
Then on a long trip decent porn is pretty much a mission requirement. They had better figure this out or human spaceflight is doomed to low earth orbit. 0G sex is good for the folks who need to check that box, but novelty wears off after a while.
One of the wonderful things about progress is its dimensionality. A rising tide lifts all boats.
So, if you don't see a use for it for you, that's OK. Google and Amazon will find ever more efficient uses for it and so your web pages will load faster and their servers will use less energy and hence burn less carbon so your children will breathe better. People in less advantaged regions will be more able to share their culture and compete in the world economy. The storage clusters I design for your local government will cost 1/10th as much as they did before, so my customers will need less tax money from you.
You win anyway whether you care or not.
There's a razor here. It's sharp.
It's offensive to ban a system of belief. If a system of belief arises specifically to exploit a prohibition against such a ban, what is it? Is it fairly a religion, or is it a cynical tool to exploit the openness of openness? I really don't think there is an answer to this question except to grant to all secular organizations the permissions granted to ordinate ones, and to restrict all organizations to limits that preserve the social order. Here on slashdot we split these hairs every day as Microsoft announces yet another open format (NDA and patent disclaimer required).
L. Ron Hubbard was a smart guy, and he was competing for SciFi religiosity against the very best. In the end he "won" in that his vision consumed him, as is the rightful end of all natural prophets. I believe he was competing against RAH, and you will find the reasons for RAH's surrender on this issue in I will fear no evil and later works. In the end Heinlein determined that the pot was not worth the stakes. RAH's legacy endures as the Dean of Science Fiction. L. Ron Hubbard is remembered as a hack who invented Scientology and rode it until his invention bested him and rode him to his grave.
Some of the above is my own interpretation of events and subtext in published and unpublished writings. Heinlein and Hubbard played cards on a regular basis, with a number of SciFi Literati of their era, and it's well established that they drank like naval cadets. Gambling was a frequent component of their interaction, as was plots. But to the point of a "Bet between sci-fi authors regarding the invention of a popular religion" I have no evidence. If any reader of this might have a citation I would be grateful.
/But of course you would know this, Michael Smith.
Separate story - memory is a strange thing.
In the same organization I ordered an ergo chair through regular channels after I had been there two weeks. It had to be approved by five people throughout the chain. I worked the issue for over a year before I let it go (I had since made a deal with a supply manager for all the good chairs I wanted). Two and a half years later as I was checking out the guy came with the chair. "Put it over there" I told him - "my replacement will need it."
Once upon a time (long ago) a reasonably high government comptroller came to me and said: "I have to get rid of $10m, today." I blinked a couple times and said, "We could use some computer stuff." We went to a computer store and bought out almost their entire stock. The motor pool was loading stuff at midnight. We had to hit a second store to polish it off.
Oddly enough we got better value than if we had put it out to bid, and we needed it all but were afraid to ask for it. IIRC it took four months to integrate the gear into our environment. Government procurement is weird.
Unfortunately in the southern hemisphere the spin is reversed, which could result in the anti-god particle. They'll play with black holes, but there are limits to their hubris.
The next version is the Trans-equator Hadron Collider (THC) which will circle the equator and have a branch that passes through the core in an attempt to discover stuff that's like, really cool, man. Here's a diagram.
A few reasons spring to mind. One is that expanders are cheaper than controllers. Another is that they don't take a slot. That's handy if you're using a case that supports 25 drives. A third is that you want to maximize throughput per slot for various reasons. A last is that you want to attach external storage and you want the maximum amount of external storage per connection - because some people want to connect 48TB of storage to one 4-port SATA card, which ain't going to work directly unless you've got a source for 12TB HDDs.
Was that enough reasons?
The attach of the next generation of internal storage media is PCIe. And the attach of next generation expansion storage media is... external PCIe. 2-3 years out flash storage will be cheaper per TB than spinning disc. Sometime before that most folks will realize that millisecond latency is not as good as microsecond latency. So... Yeah, I agree with you.
You've missed this one. When CDROM and DVD-ROM manufacturers faced this problem they came up with the obvious answer: Read multiple tracks at once. I believe modern drives read up to 16 tracks at a time.
For random I/O seek time can seriously degrade throughput. Since these days we're talking about multiple VM's contending for disk, this is becoming an issue we need to be more aware of unless we're using Solid State Drives - because of course SSD's don't seek.
What you're looking for is "SATA Expander". It allows you to connect several drives to one 3Gb/s SATA port. The drives, the expander and the controller must all be compatible and support this mode. But yes, you can saturate a single SATA port using only spinning drives if you want to.
There are several SSDs currently that offer more than 1GB/s Read/Write, which would more than saturate this bus. I mentioned them here. The trick is that they don't use this bus. Because that would be silly.
Here you go. Knock yourself out - but close the drapes.
Until recently to get decent performance in a reasonable size you needed a huge SAN with hundreds of spindles. Now that you can get stuff like The OCZ Z-Drive, the PhotoFast G-Monster and of course the Fusion-IO IODrive Duo that's not really necessary unless you also need >6TB. The 50 microsecond latency is just bonus.
And oh, joy, there will be more. The SAN vendors who are betting their next year's revenue on those $million+ performance SAN's better get a plan B, and quick.
By extending copyright forever then we'll talk. Until then STFU.
In response to today's nuclear weapon test by North Korea the United Nations has activated their Quick Reaction Typist Team to being drafting the customary firmly worded letter. Expert linguists will be holding meetings for the next few months to refine a specification for verbiage of appropriate strength to correctly and effectively deal with this issue. Iran will chair the committee, and Libya will sit. Venezuela has already filed an objection to the process as discriminatory and inappropriate.
Is functionally equivalent to book publishers opposing the sale of blank paper.
I think it's time we bump the return rate on Windows machines by taking back our new laptops a few times. I'm tired of seeing this argument. As of right now my preferred recommendation for malware becomes "take it back to the store and exchange it for one that doesn't have that problem".
What about all those Iranian observers they were stepping through the build process for a little hands-on knowledge transfer. Do we want to consider that at all here?
It's wise to take a system image with clonezilla now and then - especially before fooling around with updates to major systems.
This is another grand option. Many of the folk who use this service will have a server with fixed IP address. They might also offer a service like dynamic dns for the people who suffer with dynamic IP address.
This is going to sound like fangeek adoration because it is. You intuit better math than most of the math geeks I've ever known, and I've known a good number.
But... I disagree. We can do this if we try, and if you think about how to solve this problem the answer will become obvious to you.
With 4-6 multiples per client of storage this is a good metric. With 10x and VI distribution it's safe at 5 9's. The backlog length and intelligence of distribution are implementation details. It's all about Recovery Time Objective and those metrics are well established. My post implied fixed backlog lengths, it's true, but that was for a different audience than you and that paradigm isn't required to solve this problem.
It's their client and they're well equipped to implement our discussion so we've done good work here.
With closed source the loss of service is guaranteed after some period, usually 3-7 years. It's called end-of life.
Break the unbreakable security commitment? NO!
Bruce, I repectfully disagree.
It would be wiser to accept 1-3 days latency from reported theft to recovery data. With that much lag and the requirement that the clients themselves store some redundant multiple of the data they send in encrypted format the problem becomes trivial.
Surrendering privacy or security is NEVER a valid option in a distributed application.