By that logic, the best way to prevent 9/11 would have been to cover up the small thermal exhaust port on the World Trade Center that led directly to the main reactor.
There are really four epocs of Doctor Who.
Epoc 1: The Black & White years. Doctors 1 & 2 (Hartnell & Troughton). The show in its earliest days. While there are things to be enjoyed here for hard core fans (like me) it's probably not for everyone. Unfortunately, many of the shows in this era do not survive, so it's impossible to fully appreciate or judge the first two doctors as fully as we might.
Epoc 2: The Cheesy years. Doctors 3 & 4 (Pertwee & Tom Baker). Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this era immensely. Jon Pertwee is probably my favorite Doctor. But the budgets and production values of this era is like watching a B-movie when you're used to big-budget Hollywood blockbusters. It can be painful. Still, a lot of seminal Doctor Who lore stems from this era, and for a true appreciation of Who, one must really start at the beginning of Pertwee's era and follow through to the end. (If you start with Tom Baker, you miss such formative events as the debut of The Autons, The Master, Sarah Jane Smith, and much of the background of The Doctor himself, as well as the Time Lords.)
Epoc 3: The 80's. Doctors 5, 6 & 7 (Davison, Colin Baker, McCoy). Peter Davison was fantastic. Colin Baker was a joke. Sylester McCoy was intriguing, unfortunately the show ended (at least the original run) on his watch, so we didn't see as much of him as we should have. Cheesiness is still evident, but the show was evolving in this era. If you like the Modern Who enough to want to explore more, you could do well to start with the first 5th Doctor episode and see how far your interest takes you from there.
Epoc 4: The Modern Era. Doctors 9, 10, 11 (Eccelson, Tennant, Smith). If you can't enjoy this show from the 2005 reboot, then you have no reason to watch anything earlier. The show has evolved into the modern era and become far more than anything before it. As others have suggested, you can watch from 2005 and get the vast majority of good "Who" without missing much.
I have been a Who fan for over 20 years, and watched every extant episode at least once (as well as reconstructions of most of the "lost" episodes). I won't encourage anyone to take their interest in Who as deeply as I do (I mean, get a life, already). That being said, my vote would be to give the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th Doctors a chance. They all have their charms, and if you like what you see, the others might have something to offer you, as well.
For a fixed database of static information, this may be true. The vast majority of database implementation, however, is one that is also being written to in realtime, such as a webserver database, or POS system where the overhead created by decreased write performance will more than negate any advantage in decreased seek times.
Really, it all depends on the application you are running, and the specific circumstances of your network/system setup. RAID1 can be useful. I just rarely see it used correctly.
...unless the data is lost due to file corruption (the most common cause), in which case, the corrupted data will be instantly mirrored to the second disk in your array and the data will be lost anyway.
Honestly, there's only so often you can perform a backup without losing all your productivity altogether. Assuming daily backups, RAID1 is really only useful for saving a few hours work, at most, and only in certain extremely specific circumstances (i.e. a hardware disk failure, and NOTHING else).
RAID1 serves only one function. Increased uptime. If avoiding having to spend 2 hours restoring from a backup is your primary goal, then RAID1 might make sense for you. Do you have an office full of workers that will all lose productivity if you have a system crash? If so, then RAID may make sense.
Any other use of RAID1 is fool's gold. It will not protect your data from a system-level problem. It will not protect your data from corruption (especially not on a FAT32 file system, which was never intended for any partition size above 32GB in the first place). It will not even always protect you from a single drive failure, since the rebuild process in a RAID1 setup often kills the second drive while trying to recover data.
As many have said already on the thread, RAID is not backup. Backup needs to be a completely independent device. Unless you have serious uptime considerations, RAID1 should not be part of your backup strategy.
While there were only 4 production seasons of the show, Fox spread these episodes out over 5 on-air seasons.
The DVD-movies which aired on Comedy Central do not properly count as a "season".
The whole of the Prydan Chronicles (The Book of Three, The Black Cauldron, The Castle of Llyr, Taran Wanderer, The High King) are excellent examples of non-Tolkein high fantasy that are aimed at late grade-school/early middle school age kids, but that I still enjoy as an adult.
Basically, theWelsh fables, but very well told, and appropriate for youngsters.
There's even a NAS version of this same drive (http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?pid=10953), although it's brand new and hasn't shipped yet.
Pricier than the ED Mini or ED Big Disk at the same capacities, but a little more flexible.
Have you looked at the LaCie ED Mini?
on
Best Home Network NAS
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I hate to pimp for the company I work for, but these are actually pretty good, and I don't see a lot of breakdowns with them. $200, 500GB. You don't get blazing speed, but you're not likely to find that in any prepackaged NAS system.
It's certainly cheaper than you could build a box (with equivalent capacity) for.
http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?pid=10844
If you need more capacity, there's also the 1TB ED Big Disk ($299), though that's a two-drive unit, and somewhat more prone to breakdowns.
http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?pid=10882
Slashdot Mirror
They're not insects. They're called Midicholrians.
By that logic, the best way to prevent 9/11 would have been to cover up the small thermal exhaust port on the World Trade Center that led directly to the main reactor.
There are really four epocs of Doctor Who. Epoc 1: The Black & White years. Doctors 1 & 2 (Hartnell & Troughton). The show in its earliest days. While there are things to be enjoyed here for hard core fans (like me) it's probably not for everyone. Unfortunately, many of the shows in this era do not survive, so it's impossible to fully appreciate or judge the first two doctors as fully as we might. Epoc 2: The Cheesy years. Doctors 3 & 4 (Pertwee & Tom Baker). Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed this era immensely. Jon Pertwee is probably my favorite Doctor. But the budgets and production values of this era is like watching a B-movie when you're used to big-budget Hollywood blockbusters. It can be painful. Still, a lot of seminal Doctor Who lore stems from this era, and for a true appreciation of Who, one must really start at the beginning of Pertwee's era and follow through to the end. (If you start with Tom Baker, you miss such formative events as the debut of The Autons, The Master, Sarah Jane Smith, and much of the background of The Doctor himself, as well as the Time Lords.) Epoc 3: The 80's. Doctors 5, 6 & 7 (Davison, Colin Baker, McCoy). Peter Davison was fantastic. Colin Baker was a joke. Sylester McCoy was intriguing, unfortunately the show ended (at least the original run) on his watch, so we didn't see as much of him as we should have. Cheesiness is still evident, but the show was evolving in this era. If you like the Modern Who enough to want to explore more, you could do well to start with the first 5th Doctor episode and see how far your interest takes you from there. Epoc 4: The Modern Era. Doctors 9, 10, 11 (Eccelson, Tennant, Smith). If you can't enjoy this show from the 2005 reboot, then you have no reason to watch anything earlier. The show has evolved into the modern era and become far more than anything before it. As others have suggested, you can watch from 2005 and get the vast majority of good "Who" without missing much. I have been a Who fan for over 20 years, and watched every extant episode at least once (as well as reconstructions of most of the "lost" episodes). I won't encourage anyone to take their interest in Who as deeply as I do (I mean, get a life, already). That being said, my vote would be to give the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 7th Doctors a chance. They all have their charms, and if you like what you see, the others might have something to offer you, as well.
But some of them are more equal than others.
For a fixed database of static information, this may be true. The vast majority of database implementation, however, is one that is also being written to in realtime, such as a webserver database, or POS system where the overhead created by decreased write performance will more than negate any advantage in decreased seek times. Really, it all depends on the application you are running, and the specific circumstances of your network/system setup. RAID1 can be useful. I just rarely see it used correctly.
...unless the data is lost due to file corruption (the most common cause), in which case, the corrupted data will be instantly mirrored to the second disk in your array and the data will be lost anyway. Honestly, there's only so often you can perform a backup without losing all your productivity altogether. Assuming daily backups, RAID1 is really only useful for saving a few hours work, at most, and only in certain extremely specific circumstances (i.e. a hardware disk failure, and NOTHING else).
RAID1 serves only one function. Increased uptime. If avoiding having to spend 2 hours restoring from a backup is your primary goal, then RAID1 might make sense for you. Do you have an office full of workers that will all lose productivity if you have a system crash? If so, then RAID may make sense. Any other use of RAID1 is fool's gold. It will not protect your data from a system-level problem. It will not protect your data from corruption (especially not on a FAT32 file system, which was never intended for any partition size above 32GB in the first place). It will not even always protect you from a single drive failure, since the rebuild process in a RAID1 setup often kills the second drive while trying to recover data. As many have said already on the thread, RAID is not backup. Backup needs to be a completely independent device. Unless you have serious uptime considerations, RAID1 should not be part of your backup strategy.
While there were only 4 production seasons of the show, Fox spread these episodes out over 5 on-air seasons. The DVD-movies which aired on Comedy Central do not properly count as a "season".
The whole of the Prydan Chronicles (The Book of Three, The Black Cauldron, The Castle of Llyr, Taran Wanderer, The High King) are excellent examples of non-Tolkein high fantasy that are aimed at late grade-school/early middle school age kids, but that I still enjoy as an adult. Basically, theWelsh fables, but very well told, and appropriate for youngsters.
Thanks to you, the great Lobachevsky, Hai!
There's even a NAS version of this same drive (http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?pid=10953), although it's brand new and hasn't shipped yet. Pricier than the ED Mini or ED Big Disk at the same capacities, but a little more flexible.
I hate to pimp for the company I work for, but these are actually pretty good, and I don't see a lot of breakdowns with them. $200, 500GB. You don't get blazing speed, but you're not likely to find that in any prepackaged NAS system. It's certainly cheaper than you could build a box (with equivalent capacity) for. http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?pid=10844 If you need more capacity, there's also the 1TB ED Big Disk ($299), though that's a two-drive unit, and somewhat more prone to breakdowns. http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?pid=10882