No protection is provided; you just pick up speed. The ACM paper, the only metric/standard that can be applied here, is pretty specific on what constitutes a RAID. They start at 1, mirrored pairs, and stop at five (non-parity, redundantly stiped). If it's not as described, it's not a RAID. The terminology has been abused at other levels, too. There is no RAID 6, just a general agreement that a hot spare is available.
That said, there a lot of 'lesser name' 1U/2/U/XU servers out there with cool storage schemes. I'm sitting next to about 20 of them from HPaq, Gateway (!), Apple, and so on. Brand names are no general assurance of quality these days.
Think for a minute. You can save lots of $$$. And you'll end up with trouble. Servers are built differently, and architecturally. They use SCSI instead of IDE and ATA/SATA. They have PCI-X bus instead of PCI. They use GBE natively, not 10/100. They usually have several NICs instead of one. They have more pre-fetch cache, and more lucid FSB.
You can buy toys to do real work, and they'll last....for a while. If you've got a high duty cycle, then buy real hardware. You can't expect to get Peterbilt performance from Camry hardware. You'll be sorry if you try. Your time is worth money, and mucking with cheezy hardware isn't a good idea. This doesn't mean that you can't find 'enterprise' quality hardware from inexpensive sources-- you can. Just don't expect toy desktops turned into workstations to be worth much. Linux doesn't help hardware problems, and neither does FOSS. There's a real architectural and life-cycle cost differential between slam-it-together desktops and server designs. Don't be fooled by the seeming cost differential.
There is no Raid '0'. Read the ACM paper. Mirrored drives are Raid Level 1. And it's expensive to do this. Raid 5 is likely a better choice, but requires 3+ drives.
Sirius is a great place for Stern. It gets it out of the public media where it never belonged, and gives Sirius a chance to not be Serious.
I don't like Stern, but that doesn't mean he needs to be silenced. This mates listeners that want his flavor of media with a private provider. Now if they could just get Rush off of AFN and onto Sirius......
I want the cameras to:
1) watch for good looking women in abbreviated clothing matching specific geometric characteristics, like 37-22-36
2) look out for old men in hats driving, so that I can avoid their 22mph self-imposed speed limit
and the third camera
3) needs to look for twits that try to turn automobiles into snitches. Long may they rot in a lower level of h-e-double-touthpick
Indeed my editing skills need work.
Ok, let's say you want to do RAW. Lovely. Use PhotoShop or a handful of others. Correct the color temperature reference....white balance, etc. For some shots, it's worth it. It eats up my time, and tempus penunia est. I like to do quality work, quickly, and then cash the check.
I've tested Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Olympus, and a couple of the new Korean cameras coming out; a buddy is a camera merchant, and we look at them long and hard before he'll stock them. They've come a long way.
There've been decided and incremental advances in numerous areas. No one expected the first models to replace analog photography, yet the limitations of digital mean I carry both. I'll love the day when I can carry one of them....where I can use an LCD panel instead of through the lens because the image is usable on it.....when I can rip as many shots as I want-- even to the extent of moving into movie mode so that I can get as many as 60 shots in a second at full res. I long for the day when software has the heuristics to take images and make sensible 'stock' adjustments to photos with the same selections that my eye would make after correcting a dozen or more characteristics.
The Canon is a nice camera; don't get me wrong. Revolutionary it isn't; it's simply evolutionary. My next target are the printer makers, who have their own problems to deal with (awful media, weird business models, and so on).
There are other 'warmth' characteristics that would be nice to have, too. Civilian-proofing some of the current crop of cameras has, in my belief, broadened the market while preventing professional use. The big problems, media size, usable presets, and other whizz-offs are slowly being addessed. WiFi for the camera? Why not FireWire/1394? Better still-- 802.15.4. Then we can start to blow images across to personal/professional media centers. Walk away from the wedding reception or event with a CD/DvD in your hand, or a walk-by download. But I'm dreaming again;)>
Anti-technology bias? No. I don't see it as black and white as you do (pun intended).
To extend the argument of valve vs digital (I'm in the middle somewhere) MP3s frankly suck. Yes, there are better MP3s than others and still better and worse codecs and delivery systems. Each has a cost/benefit/usage model. MP3s that are the general crux of playback devices are usually poor, and their delivery systems are also poor-- but they serve a convenience and do a great job of managing media portability and context. More money pays off. The qualities of tube/valve audio are beyond my hearing now. I can still tell you 10/10 times where a photograph came from. In some cases, I'm lucky enough to tell you the entire food change with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
If I take my Oly digital with me at 5mp or so, it does a very good job and can hold literally 100s of photos on the phat removable media substrate that it's on. But its software leaves a lot to be desired. So do a lot of them that I've tested. They have white balance problems-- like the old Kodak vs FujiFilm color temperature arguments-- but in a new setting. They can't focus; some are noisy; some have crummy lenses; still others have odd moire effects. They can't pipeline shots so that consecutive shots can be programmed via internal or external trigger devices that aren't capped by cache transfer. When I take auto race shots, my ancient film winder can zip 34 shots in under three second if need be.
Digitals are convenient. I've sold lots of digital shots. I've sold more analog shots, either as photo journalism or as art shots. Film is inconvenient. But it's still of a higher resolution, depending on what we'll agree on as a number of variables.
It's stinky and lethal to develop, and enlarge. It's bad chemistry where digital is no chemistry until you print it on over-priced papers using horrid printers. Civilians will be charmed. That's ok; there's a civilian world and a digital world. I code for both.
But analog photography, while on a fast downhill slide, has qualities that will be eventually surpassed by digital at a reasonable cost. That day isn't today, and it's not next year.
Then there are white balance corrections, and weird depth of field problems caused by auto-focus software that becomes really distracted by weird problems.
I use Olympus for low-noise, too; but when you're out in the field, and the shot comes around, I can grab a camera out of the bag and snap in about a seconds. That's about the time that the digital camera decided you'd pressed the on-button. I've got fifteen images as fast as I can shoot with a winder; others are waiting for the cache to dump to media-- and dozy media at that.
Wedding cake shots? Digital if the lighting is right. If I'm the hired photog, then it's whatever the customer wants-- or both.
To a civilian, the differences can't be understood. When I take a large-format photo of a desert scene, and blow it up to wall-size, the reduced noice and grain are enchanting.
Perhaps it's a tube/valve stereo amp argument, but the effect becomes pretty dramatic in a lot of usage scenarios.
And you spent ten grand. That's $10,000,00 including accessories by the time your done. It'll be progress when you can do 200mp for less than a grand. Then it gets interesting.
Computers are fun, but making them do analog things requires thought. We're on the way, but I'd hate to see digital photography turn out like digital audio, with lots of usage madness.
One micron resolution. This isn't to denigrate the achievement, but rather to contrast the fact that chemical photography still bests even the coolest CMOS CCD-- and doesn't require batteries, or a backpack full of a notebook-WiFi, and so on.
Get a large format camera, and a good photographer, and even the best benefits melt away. Ok, I have a killer Olympus digital, but the old Olympus analog and antique cameras can produce jaw-dropping photos.
This is what the federal government is for. You're distracting what the problem is-- HDTV is here. The gov wants to sell the recovered spectrum that was given out with poor forethought 50yrs and more ago. Funny thing about spectrum, they don't make it any more.
Lots of history is missing from this post, and you need a score card to keep track of it all. The telcos are of a different mindset than datacom people; the two are distinct disciplines. Telcos have had the luxury of 20yr depreciation tables for vast amounts of infrastructure. The analog PSTN network got a boost with ISDN but it took telcos a long time before they'd test the water, and with good reason-- the payback was short for them.
Then came DSL, and tested the fabric of their infrastructure with datacom signals that they were clueless about. They had ATM infrastructure because ATM was reliable and 5-nines reliability means $$$ to them....it should to us as well. The VoIP networks that are mushrooming can take advantage of less latency, but the standards are few, security sucks, and while SIP is a wonderful idea, DNS has to be fixed before it can be relied upon as a public switch with the same kind of reliability that Nortel, Lucent, Mitel, Seimens, and Ericsson have built in to them.
VoIP has to be paid for. It can't be free as in beer. It uses real materials and has real costs associated with maintenance, service, upgrades, and so on. Add in SIP security problems, add a dash of latency and/or OSPF nightmares, sprinkle with QoS that really doesn't exist, and it's a recipe for unreliability.
Want spam voice mail that's exempt from all of the bozo FTC and state rulings? Want your VM box filled with the same tripe that you have on your inbox? Is that how you want voice?
There's a lot that has to be done before VoIP becomes a useful replacement for the PSTN, no matter how much you hate the carriers-- I hate them as much or more than you. But their infrastructure is built to a different standard, and is bereft of the lack of forethought problems that we have on the Internet today.
Will your phone get rooted? Want a virus on it? How about a pop-up sex call invite? How about a SIP spoof so that we can re-route your calls to your competition, or your ex-mother-in-law? Think about it. VoIP suffers from freebie-itis. You can't really save money on VoIP unless you control your infrastructure. And while you're running VoIP on many long distance calls, it's because those networks are bereft of the madness on the Internet-- these calls run on private networks-- they don't transverse the Internet-- they're behind NAT!
I'm not the RIAA or anything like them, but until there's a service that works in.de, you can't do what you want to do. Music isn't free unless the artist says it is. Certainly it's an inconvenience to buy CDs, but that's what you're stuck with. If ripped-off music (not your own rip) is more important to you than being legal, then use a p2p and suffer the consequences-- if there are any.
Slashdot Mirror
No protection is provided; you just pick up speed. The ACM paper, the only metric/standard that can be applied here, is pretty specific on what constitutes a RAID. They start at 1, mirrored pairs, and stop at five (non-parity, redundantly stiped). If it's not as described, it's not a RAID. The terminology has been abused at other levels, too. There is no RAID 6, just a general agreement that a hot spare is available. That said, there a lot of 'lesser name' 1U/2/U/XU servers out there with cool storage schemes. I'm sitting next to about 20 of them from HPaq, Gateway (!), Apple, and so on. Brand names are no general assurance of quality these days.
Think for a minute. You can save lots of $$$. And you'll end up with trouble. Servers are built differently, and architecturally. They use SCSI instead of IDE and ATA/SATA. They have PCI-X bus instead of PCI. They use GBE natively, not 10/100. They usually have several NICs instead of one. They have more pre-fetch cache, and more lucid FSB. You can buy toys to do real work, and they'll last....for a while. If you've got a high duty cycle, then buy real hardware. You can't expect to get Peterbilt performance from Camry hardware. You'll be sorry if you try. Your time is worth money, and mucking with cheezy hardware isn't a good idea. This doesn't mean that you can't find 'enterprise' quality hardware from inexpensive sources-- you can. Just don't expect toy desktops turned into workstations to be worth much. Linux doesn't help hardware problems, and neither does FOSS. There's a real architectural and life-cycle cost differential between slam-it-together desktops and server designs. Don't be fooled by the seeming cost differential.
There is no Raid '0'. Read the ACM paper. Mirrored drives are Raid Level 1. And it's expensive to do this. Raid 5 is likely a better choice, but requires 3+ drives.
Sirius is a great place for Stern. It gets it out of the public media where it never belonged, and gives Sirius a chance to not be Serious.
I don't like Stern, but that doesn't mean he needs to be silenced. This mates listeners that want his flavor of media with a private provider. Now if they could just get Rush off of AFN and onto Sirius......
I want the cameras to: 1) watch for good looking women in abbreviated clothing matching specific geometric characteristics, like 37-22-36 2) look out for old men in hats driving, so that I can avoid their 22mph self-imposed speed limit and the third camera 3) needs to look for twits that try to turn automobiles into snitches. Long may they rot in a lower level of h-e-double-touthpick
Indeed my editing skills need work. Ok, let's say you want to do RAW. Lovely. Use PhotoShop or a handful of others. Correct the color temperature reference....white balance, etc. For some shots, it's worth it. It eats up my time, and tempus penunia est. I like to do quality work, quickly, and then cash the check. I've tested Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Olympus, and a couple of the new Korean cameras coming out; a buddy is a camera merchant, and we look at them long and hard before he'll stock them. They've come a long way. There've been decided and incremental advances in numerous areas. No one expected the first models to replace analog photography, yet the limitations of digital mean I carry both. I'll love the day when I can carry one of them....where I can use an LCD panel instead of through the lens because the image is usable on it.....when I can rip as many shots as I want-- even to the extent of moving into movie mode so that I can get as many as 60 shots in a second at full res. I long for the day when software has the heuristics to take images and make sensible 'stock' adjustments to photos with the same selections that my eye would make after correcting a dozen or more characteristics. The Canon is a nice camera; don't get me wrong. Revolutionary it isn't; it's simply evolutionary. My next target are the printer makers, who have their own problems to deal with (awful media, weird business models, and so on). There are other 'warmth' characteristics that would be nice to have, too. Civilian-proofing some of the current crop of cameras has, in my belief, broadened the market while preventing professional use. The big problems, media size, usable presets, and other whizz-offs are slowly being addessed. WiFi for the camera? Why not FireWire/1394? Better still-- 802.15.4. Then we can start to blow images across to personal/professional media centers. Walk away from the wedding reception or event with a CD/DvD in your hand, or a walk-by download. But I'm dreaming again ;)>
Anti-technology bias? No. I don't see it as black and white as you do (pun intended). To extend the argument of valve vs digital (I'm in the middle somewhere) MP3s frankly suck. Yes, there are better MP3s than others and still better and worse codecs and delivery systems. Each has a cost/benefit/usage model. MP3s that are the general crux of playback devices are usually poor, and their delivery systems are also poor-- but they serve a convenience and do a great job of managing media portability and context. More money pays off. The qualities of tube/valve audio are beyond my hearing now. I can still tell you 10/10 times where a photograph came from. In some cases, I'm lucky enough to tell you the entire food change with a reasonable degree of accuracy. If I take my Oly digital with me at 5mp or so, it does a very good job and can hold literally 100s of photos on the phat removable media substrate that it's on. But its software leaves a lot to be desired. So do a lot of them that I've tested. They have white balance problems-- like the old Kodak vs FujiFilm color temperature arguments-- but in a new setting. They can't focus; some are noisy; some have crummy lenses; still others have odd moire effects. They can't pipeline shots so that consecutive shots can be programmed via internal or external trigger devices that aren't capped by cache transfer. When I take auto race shots, my ancient film winder can zip 34 shots in under three second if need be. Digitals are convenient. I've sold lots of digital shots. I've sold more analog shots, either as photo journalism or as art shots. Film is inconvenient. But it's still of a higher resolution, depending on what we'll agree on as a number of variables. It's stinky and lethal to develop, and enlarge. It's bad chemistry where digital is no chemistry until you print it on over-priced papers using horrid printers. Civilians will be charmed. That's ok; there's a civilian world and a digital world. I code for both. But analog photography, while on a fast downhill slide, has qualities that will be eventually surpassed by digital at a reasonable cost. That day isn't today, and it's not next year.
Then there are white balance corrections, and weird depth of field problems caused by auto-focus software that becomes really distracted by weird problems. I use Olympus for low-noise, too; but when you're out in the field, and the shot comes around, I can grab a camera out of the bag and snap in about a seconds. That's about the time that the digital camera decided you'd pressed the on-button. I've got fifteen images as fast as I can shoot with a winder; others are waiting for the cache to dump to media-- and dozy media at that. Wedding cake shots? Digital if the lighting is right. If I'm the hired photog, then it's whatever the customer wants-- or both.
To a civilian, the differences can't be understood. When I take a large-format photo of a desert scene, and blow it up to wall-size, the reduced noice and grain are enchanting. Perhaps it's a tube/valve stereo amp argument, but the effect becomes pretty dramatic in a lot of usage scenarios.
And you spent ten grand. That's $10,000,00 including accessories by the time your done. It'll be progress when you can do 200mp for less than a grand. Then it gets interesting. Computers are fun, but making them do analog things requires thought. We're on the way, but I'd hate to see digital photography turn out like digital audio, with lots of usage madness.
One micron resolution. This isn't to denigrate the achievement, but rather to contrast the fact that chemical photography still bests even the coolest CMOS CCD-- and doesn't require batteries, or a backpack full of a notebook-WiFi, and so on. Get a large format camera, and a good photographer, and even the best benefits melt away. Ok, I have a killer Olympus digital, but the old Olympus analog and antique cameras can produce jaw-dropping photos.
This is what the federal government is for. You're distracting what the problem is-- HDTV is here. The gov wants to sell the recovered spectrum that was given out with poor forethought 50yrs and more ago. Funny thing about spectrum, they don't make it any more.
Lots of history is missing from this post, and you need a score card to keep track of it all. The telcos are of a different mindset than datacom people; the two are distinct disciplines. Telcos have had the luxury of 20yr depreciation tables for vast amounts of infrastructure. The analog PSTN network got a boost with ISDN but it took telcos a long time before they'd test the water, and with good reason-- the payback was short for them. Then came DSL, and tested the fabric of their infrastructure with datacom signals that they were clueless about. They had ATM infrastructure because ATM was reliable and 5-nines reliability means $$$ to them....it should to us as well. The VoIP networks that are mushrooming can take advantage of less latency, but the standards are few, security sucks, and while SIP is a wonderful idea, DNS has to be fixed before it can be relied upon as a public switch with the same kind of reliability that Nortel, Lucent, Mitel, Seimens, and Ericsson have built in to them. VoIP has to be paid for. It can't be free as in beer. It uses real materials and has real costs associated with maintenance, service, upgrades, and so on. Add in SIP security problems, add a dash of latency and/or OSPF nightmares, sprinkle with QoS that really doesn't exist, and it's a recipe for unreliability. Want spam voice mail that's exempt from all of the bozo FTC and state rulings? Want your VM box filled with the same tripe that you have on your inbox? Is that how you want voice? There's a lot that has to be done before VoIP becomes a useful replacement for the PSTN, no matter how much you hate the carriers-- I hate them as much or more than you. But their infrastructure is built to a different standard, and is bereft of the lack of forethought problems that we have on the Internet today. Will your phone get rooted? Want a virus on it? How about a pop-up sex call invite? How about a SIP spoof so that we can re-route your calls to your competition, or your ex-mother-in-law? Think about it. VoIP suffers from freebie-itis. You can't really save money on VoIP unless you control your infrastructure. And while you're running VoIP on many long distance calls, it's because those networks are bereft of the madness on the Internet-- these calls run on private networks-- they don't transverse the Internet-- they're behind NAT!
I'm not the RIAA or anything like them, but until there's a service that works in .de, you can't do what you want to do. Music isn't free unless the artist says it is. Certainly it's an inconvenience to buy CDs, but that's what you're stuck with. If ripped-off music (not your own rip) is more important to you than being legal, then use a p2p and suffer the consequences-- if there are any.