Nothing instills backup discipline like listening to your disk doing its russian tractor impression just when you deleted the old backup to make room for a new one.
I second that. The reason that this happens more often than even Murfy's law would suggest is that backup operations give the disk such a good workout, compared to most work a home computer does.
Is there a snapshot-capable filesystem on linux that can backup off of the snapshot, so you don't have to stop your production apps?
I mean, after all, who cares if he backs up to DVD or CD or network, or whatever. We all know linux is good at moving data. I usually backup with tar -cz to a tarball on CD, and I can restore from this from a minimum CD boot, and I don't get the idea to brag about it on slashdot either.
Choosing this or that media is a non-problem, as long as you understand the difference between an off-site and an on-site backup, and as long as you have some plan as to how you're going to restore your backup in case of total system failure, and how you're going to be able to pull individual files off of the backup (this guy doesn't, but at least he realizes that).
Now tell me how you're going to backup your system without stopping it. Of course, if it's a home system, you can stop it with less pain than a large server, but still it's a pain in many cases.
Aside from making the Open Source community *really happy*, who else is going to think this is a good idea?
He who controls the OS, controls the applications market - before you ask me for an example, recall how many office suites there were on Windows in 1995.
IBM tried cashing in on OS software already - and failed. Windows just had too much momentum. IBM decided they'd give away the OS, and cash in by increasing the market share for their software applications and hardware. And what's better to give away than an OS that:
1. Doesn't belong to you in the first place; 2. Has developers working on it for free; 3. Already has a sizeable market share.
Supporting linux is a smart business move for IBM, and releasing a patent portfolio is just a part of it. No selflessness here, just business as usual.
It's not even a new business model, really. Back in the day, computer companies gave away software as part of marketing for their computers long before changes to copyright law made software sales possible. IBM was one of those companies.
Now they are reviving that old business model. Gates, OTOH, keeps blabbering about the opposite - giving away hardware, i.e. sponsoring it with software money. He's not being altruistic either - he feels the heat.
If you are a security researcher, you look for security holes, right? If you are a responsible researcher, and you find some security holes, you better publish them, right? Right? RIGHT?
WRONG!! Hear ya, hear ya, hear ya, from now on doing the responsible thing will get you jail time, and a stiff $900,000 bill. From now on, the right, responsible, thing to do when you find security holes is to sell them to spam virus hackers. That way you:
1. Never get caught. 2. Profit (note lack of... item).
No moral problems either, since the company who looses is the bunch of asshats who'd put you in jail for pointing out their bug, and the people who get spammed are the same shitheads that made the stupid law possible.
Fuck, I'm pissed. Better go drink my milk. Good thing I'm not a security researcher.
PQI iStick has been on the market for a few years now. Maybe 4 years or so. They went from USB1 to USB2. "This year" started a week ago.
I don't know if they managed to patent a shieldless USB connector - after all the idea of not installing a shield on a shielded connector is not new, as anyone who has messed with serial D-type connectors will tell you.
BTW, early PQI iSticks used to sell with an adapter that replaced the missing USB shield, and also served as a protective case, hiding the exposed contacts. You can still order the thing from PQI (for $3.99+s/h or so), but the iSticks you see in a store are not packaged with it anymore.
Ever heard of
PQI iStick? It's a memory card that plugs directly into a USB port. It's smaller than any other memory card but xD. The connector has the shaps of the inner part of the USB A-type plug, w/o the shield, so it can plug directly into a USB port. Internally, it's implemented in a way that allows it to work against either a full USB host, or a simplified interface circuit in a consumer device.
Very nice design.
They were about 2 years late to market. I don't know of any consumer devices that use iStick flash. Not one. I guess they weren't too good at marketing this to consumer electronics designers either.
It's too bad, because I have several of those little cards - they are very handy as a flash disk. They are so small I can keep one or two in my wallet. They are smaller than any other USB flash disk because they don't have the shield part of the connector - the whole thing is <3mm thick.
Good design, bad marketing. Sandisk might do better, since their's works in existing cameras.
Don't use law to stop file sharing in america. Don't use proxys to stop legal action in Iran.
Riiiight. Suuuure. I dunno 'bout them proxies - but as far as file sharing in America is concerned - somehow I don't think they're gonna listen to you.
Now, with a country like Iran, chances are they would quickly execute everyone caught using your proxies, so the proxies won't stop legal action in Iran no matter how much me or you might like that.
how does the target know it's "some dumbass" and not a black-market laser-guided missile?
Who the fuck would be stupid enough to use a visible beam of green light to guide a missile when you'd be much safer with IR, or even visible red?
You don't have to worry until your IR detectors see a modulated beam. I imagine a warplane's defense systems would then shoot something at the source of the beam, like they shoot a HARM at the source of radar.
Do you know if OLED handles the problem of LCDs where they have limited brightness bits.
It's an LED, so the brightness of each pixel would be directly proportional to duty cycle, and should be also proportional to current, if not quite precisely. This should allow for much better color transmission than an LCD.
Exceppt the vacuum-filled glass jar can do multiple resolutions, faster response, better picture quality and it cheaper.
The reason you need multiple resolutions with a tube is that at higher res the tube flickers, and the picture is not as stable, so multiple resolutions give you your compromise:-). Why the heck would you want to run an LCD or an OLED at lower than the highest res?
Better picture quality is only better is you're talking about color transmission. The geometry issue is non-existent on any flat monitor, LCD or OLED, and it will always be an issue for a CRT.
And they are only cheaper because they've been around for 100 years or so, and the tech has been perfected.
4. LCDs are slow. This got better recently, but the problem is inherent in the way an LCD pixel turns off.
To turn a pixel on, you apply an electric potential that breaks up the crystal lattice and turns the liquid crystal molecules vertically WRT to glass. This can be made faster by using higher electric potential, perhaps.
To turn the pixel off, the long molecules of the liquid cristal material have to turn and recrystallize parallel to the glass, creating the twisted lattice that turns the polarization angle of the passing light. This happens by itself, w/o any energy input to the material, so you can't just "crank up the power" and hope for a faster display - you have to invent a material whose energy is significantly lower when it's crystallized parallel to the grooves in the glass than when it's not.
OLED displays, OTOH, turns on and off within microseconds, just like any LED.
I thought that one of the main benefits of OLED was that they'd use a lot less power
This is because an LCD display is inherently inefficient. We can realistically assume that the LCD matrix itself has near-zero power requirements, and the backlight is somewhat more efficient as the OLED in converting electricity to light. However, the color filters in the LCD cut out at least 2/3 of the light output, and the polarizers eats up 1/2 of the rest, and the remaining 16% of the light is the white level. In other words, if your LCD screen is all white the efficiency is no more than 16% of the backlight output, and if your screen is black, the efficiency is 0.
There are other issues with LCD:
1. Contrast. The black areas of the LCD always leak some light, creating the contrast issue. With OLED, black means "light off", so the issue isn't there, unless you were using shitty drive electronics that prevented you from turning the output off completely, which would be stupid.
2. Viewing angle. All LCDs have this issue, even though it's gotten much, much better with the newer ones. The reason for this problem is that. angle of polarization doesn't rotate properly when the light goes through the liquid cristal at an angle.
3. LCDs are mechanically awkward. They are sure better than a vacuum-filled glass jar, but there still have to be two sheets of high-precision glass with a precisely controlled gap in between, and a backlight tube. The whole thing is rather fragile. An OLED doesn't really have to have any glass in it at all, even though the first ones do.
How did we end up with such an expensive system, and how did Communists build such a cheap one?
They couldn't afford an expensive system. They tried, too, but had to stop for lack of funds. Then they had no choice but to keep updating their old Soyuz system. In the meanwhile we abandoned ours, because we had the shuttle.
The whole story shows that you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket, even if you have a lot of eggs, which is a well known fact outside of the context of space programs:-).
Besides, the shuttle is a much bigger ship than Soyuz, and it can do a lot more than just take people in and out of orbit, so they are not really comparable. Just try to imagine a Soyuz-based mission to fix the Hubble.
According to you, they've raised $3,475,284. If there are 100M people who need help, it's $.03 per person. With your mighty $30K contribution it will increase to $.0303 per person. Very significant increase - 1%. You can really help there. Kinda like voting republican in Texas.
They are going to need billions for relief in that area.
Yep. Say, 3 billion. Suppose this personal contribution gig keeps raising $3M per day for 10 days, which is unlikely, because people have a short attention span, after all. Then they would raise 1% of the required 3 billion. And your fabulous $30K will still amount to amazing $.0003 per person. I'm sorry, I just don't see how this is going to be useful. If I could contribute $10M, it would make sense, but $5, or even $30K is just ridiculous - "here, look, I'm helping too!!".
It's better to defend the nebulous "right" to download ripped DVDs.
You're posting faster than you're reading. It's not about ripping DVDs, it's about not creating a precedent that would help corporations destroy people's lives.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing instills backup discipline like listening to your disk doing its russian tractor impression just when you deleted the old backup to make room for a new one.
I second that. The reason that this happens more often than even Murfy's law would suggest is that backup operations give the disk such a good workout, compared to most work a home computer does.
I know a better way yet to study oscillations... Way better than modern dance...
Here's my solution
/home /etc
Backup:
tar -czf backup.tar.gz
Then use k3b or something to record the file to CD
Restore:
Take a wild guess:-)
Restore individual files:
Use mc to browse the tarball (slow but works)
Now, do you see me bragging about this trivial shit on slashdot? No?
Eh, wait...
Is there a snapshot-capable filesystem on linux that can backup off of the snapshot, so you don't have to stop your production apps?
I mean, after all, who cares if he backs up to DVD or CD or network, or whatever. We all know linux is good at moving data. I usually backup with tar -cz to a tarball on CD, and I can restore from this from a minimum CD boot, and I don't get the idea to brag about it on slashdot either.
Choosing this or that media is a non-problem, as long as you understand the difference between an off-site and an on-site backup, and as long as you have some plan as to how you're going to restore your backup in case of total system failure, and how you're going to be able to pull individual files off of the backup (this guy doesn't, but at least he realizes that).
Now tell me how you're going to backup your system without stopping it. Of course, if it's a home system, you can stop it with less pain than a large server, but still it's a pain in many cases.
E-mail messages succeptable to interception!!
It takes many miles, lots of planning, and lots of energy to turn around a battleship.
I thought it was: "Scotty, bring'er about / aye-aye, sir!". Or something.
Yeah, if that's the way you want to put it...
Aside from making the Open Source community *really happy*, who else is going to think this is a good idea?
He who controls the OS, controls the applications market - before you ask me for an example, recall how many office suites there were on Windows in 1995.
IBM tried cashing in on OS software already - and failed. Windows just had too much momentum. IBM decided they'd give away the OS, and cash in by increasing the market share for their software applications and hardware. And what's better to give away than an OS that:
1. Doesn't belong to you in the first place;
2. Has developers working on it for free;
3. Already has a sizeable market share.
Supporting linux is a smart business move for IBM, and releasing a patent portfolio is just a part of it. No selflessness here, just business as usual.
It's not even a new business model, really. Back in the day, computer companies gave away software as part of marketing for their computers long before changes to copyright law made software sales possible. IBM was one of those companies.
Now they are reviving that old business model. Gates, OTOH, keeps blabbering about the opposite - giving away hardware, i.e. sponsoring it with software money. He's not being altruistic either - he feels the heat.
What were his intentions?
... item).
Who gives a fuck?
If you are a security researcher, you look for security holes, right? If you are a responsible researcher, and you find some security holes, you better publish them, right? Right? RIGHT?
WRONG!! Hear ya, hear ya, hear ya, from now on doing the responsible thing will get you jail time, and a stiff $900,000 bill. From now on, the right, responsible, thing to do when you find security holes is to sell them to spam virus hackers. That way you:
1. Never get caught.
2. Profit (note lack of
No moral problems either, since the company who looses is the bunch of asshats who'd put you in jail for pointing out their bug, and the people who get spammed are the same shitheads that made the stupid law possible.
Fuck, I'm pissed. Better go drink my milk. Good thing I'm not a security researcher.
Now what about an adapter on these memory cards so the punch-card reader can read them in?
How many computers are there still around that have punch card readers?
...until this year...
PQI iStick has been on the market for a few years now. Maybe 4 years or so. They went from USB1 to USB2. "This year" started a week ago.
I don't know if they managed to patent a shieldless USB connector - after all the idea of not installing a shield on a shielded connector is not new, as anyone who has messed with serial D-type connectors will tell you.
BTW, early PQI iSticks used to sell with an adapter that replaced the missing USB shield, and also served as a protective case, hiding the exposed contacts. You can still order the thing from PQI (for $3.99+s/h or so), but the iSticks you see in a store are not packaged with it anymore.
Very nice design.
They were about 2 years late to market. I don't know of any consumer devices that use iStick flash. Not one. I guess they weren't too good at marketing this to consumer electronics designers either.
It's too bad, because I have several of those little cards - they are very handy as a flash disk. They are so small I can keep one or two in my wallet. They are smaller than any other USB flash disk because they don't have the shield part of the connector - the whole thing is <3mm thick.
Good design, bad marketing. Sandisk might do better, since their's works in existing cameras.
When you look at the wavy meteorite trail, it's not a perfect sine wave.
Perhaps the meteor has a highly irregular elongated shape, and reflects light unevenly as it rotates, producing the irregular trail.
Don't use law to stop file sharing in america.
Don't use proxys to stop legal action in Iran.
Riiiight. Suuuure. I dunno 'bout them proxies - but as far as file sharing in America is concerned - somehow I don't think they're gonna listen to you.
Now, with a country like Iran, chances are they would quickly execute everyone caught using your proxies, so the proxies won't stop legal action in Iran no matter how much me or you might like that.
how does the target know it's "some dumbass" and not a black-market laser-guided missile?
Who the fuck would be stupid enough to use a visible beam of green light to guide a missile when you'd be much safer with IR, or even visible red?
You don't have to worry until your IR detectors see a modulated beam. I imagine a warplane's defense systems would then shoot something at the source of the beam, like they shoot a HARM at the source of radar.
Congratulations on your nice LCD monitor. How is the color resoluton, though (how many shades of grey)?
Slice up bananas (better yet, plantain), pan-fry, and sprinkle with grated cheese. Green bananas work better, the ripe ones tend to fall apart.
Do you know if OLED handles the problem of LCDs where they have limited brightness bits.
It's an LED, so the brightness of each pixel would be directly proportional to duty cycle, and should be also proportional to current, if not quite precisely. This should allow for much better color transmission than an LCD.
Exceppt the vacuum-filled glass jar can do multiple resolutions, faster response, better picture quality and it cheaper.
The reason you need multiple resolutions with a tube is that at higher res the tube flickers, and the picture is not as stable, so multiple resolutions give you your compromise:-). Why the heck would you want to run an LCD or an OLED at lower than the highest res?
Better picture quality is only better is you're talking about color transmission. The geometry issue is non-existent on any flat monitor, LCD or OLED, and it will always be an issue for a CRT.
And they are only cheaper because they've been around for 100 years or so, and the tech has been perfected.
4. LCDs are slow. This got better recently, but the problem is inherent in the way an LCD pixel turns off.
To turn a pixel on, you apply an electric potential that breaks up the crystal lattice and turns the liquid crystal molecules vertically WRT to glass. This can be made faster by using higher electric potential, perhaps.
To turn the pixel off, the long molecules of the liquid cristal material have to turn and recrystallize parallel to the glass, creating the twisted lattice that turns the polarization angle of the passing light. This happens by itself, w/o any energy input to the material, so you can't just "crank up the power" and hope for a faster display - you have to invent a material whose energy is significantly lower when it's crystallized parallel to the grooves in the glass than when it's not.
OLED displays, OTOH, turns on and off within microseconds, just like any LED.
I thought that one of the main benefits of OLED was that they'd use a lot less power
This is because an LCD display is inherently inefficient. We can realistically assume that the LCD matrix itself has near-zero power requirements, and the backlight is somewhat more efficient as the OLED in converting electricity to light. However, the color filters in the LCD cut out at least 2/3 of the light output, and the polarizers eats up 1/2 of the rest, and the remaining 16% of the light is the white level. In other words, if your LCD screen is all white the efficiency is no more than 16% of the backlight output, and if your screen is black, the efficiency is 0.
There are other issues with LCD:
1. Contrast. The black areas of the LCD always leak some light, creating the contrast issue. With OLED, black means "light off", so the issue isn't there, unless you were using shitty drive electronics that prevented you from turning the output off completely, which would be stupid.
2. Viewing angle. All LCDs have this issue, even though it's gotten much, much better with the newer ones. The reason for this problem is that. angle of polarization doesn't rotate properly when the light goes through the liquid cristal at an angle.
3. LCDs are mechanically awkward. They are sure better than a vacuum-filled glass jar, but there still have to be two sheets of high-precision glass with a precisely controlled gap in between, and a backlight tube. The whole thing is rather fragile. An OLED doesn't really have to have any glass in it at all, even though the first ones do.
Nuff said:-). I dropped my old 3360 out of a 3rd story windows, and then played hockey with it, and it still works.
Thirty years from now, we'll use bionic eyes giving us 'zoom vision' for faster reactions.
For now, we just have to settle for penis-enhancement scams.
How did we end up with such an expensive system, and how did Communists build such a cheap one?
They couldn't afford an expensive system. They tried, too, but had to stop for lack of funds. Then they had no choice but to keep updating their old Soyuz system. In the meanwhile we abandoned ours, because we had the shuttle.
The whole story shows that you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket, even if you have a lot of eggs, which is a well known fact outside of the context of space programs:-).
Besides, the shuttle is a much bigger ship than Soyuz, and it can do a lot more than just take people in and out of orbit, so they are not really comparable. Just try to imagine a Soyuz-based mission to fix the Hubble.
Every penny toward that goal is significant.
According to you, they've raised $3,475,284. If there are 100M people who need help, it's $.03 per person. With your mighty $30K contribution it will increase to $.0303 per person. Very significant increase - 1%. You can really help there. Kinda like voting republican in Texas.
They are going to need billions for relief in that area.
Yep. Say, 3 billion. Suppose this personal contribution gig keeps raising $3M per day for 10 days, which is unlikely, because people have a short attention span, after all. Then they would raise 1% of the required 3 billion. And your fabulous $30K will still amount to amazing $.0003 per person. I'm sorry, I just don't see how this is going to be useful. If I could contribute $10M, it would make sense, but $5, or even $30K is just ridiculous - "here, look, I'm helping too!!".
It's better to defend the nebulous "right" to download ripped DVDs.
You're posting faster than you're reading. It's not about ripping DVDs, it's about not creating a precedent that would help corporations destroy people's lives.