so far everyone's got it wrong. since you don't want unauthorized people in the DC you seal it up (with only exhaust ports and a door). Pump LN2 into evaps in the room. Authorized techs are issued Scott Air Packs. Unauthorized people expire before they can do damage, and as a bonus the room has built in fire suppression;-)
yes, but NAND is sloooow compared to NOR for reads. NOR memory (and PCM) looks like a SRAM to your system, thus you can execute directly out of it. NAND is awkward in its structure, so you can not execute directly out of it, instead you must copy the contents of the flash device to RAM.
Practical implications? If your device uses NOR or PCM you can use less DRAM in your design, if you use NAND then you need to increase the amount of RAM, often by as much as the size of the NAND memory (for smaller designs, larger ones will page memory from NAND)
Blanking the NVRAM and not loading configs remotely, but rather from a terminal server in case of power failure seems a bit too far for this install IMHO. I understand not storing the config locally on machines not absolutely physically secure (don't want that getting out too easily), but not having them remote load *and* having only one (that we know of) copy on an encrypted DVD that only you can access is way too far. Aside from that (on in spite of it) it's obvious the guy was competent on multiple levels. * the system ran for quite a while without him and without support from others. * just the ability to set it up as trapped as it was is pretty spiffy.
I'd consider hiring him (so long as there were specific controls and clear guidelines as to permissions). -nB
which also resets the configs. rebuilding those configs properly is where the cost estimate comes from. My router in my lab has a simple config. The upstream router in the network closet? Not so simple. The router in the DC? I don't want to be responsible for losing that config, it's a minefield. Frankly I'm surprised that the estimate to rebuild all the configs was only $200K, given that the WAN would be down while that operation was in process.
I used to be a sony whore, but some years ago swore them off (IIRC the final straw was the rootkit, but I already didn't like them much by then). Eventually the time came that I wanted to buy a new camcorder. One of my requirements is MiniDV tape (multiple reasons, one of which is archival storage of the source tape after shooting). Sadly Sony was the *only* brand that met my requirements and my price range... I felt soooo dirty buying that thing:(
just *wow*. That is paranoia at its finest. I was thinking the same thing as the GP, but with the added thought that no admin would do that because it's so fragile that if anything went sideways you're screwed. Ok then, if Childs really did that I have less of an issue with what went down. And like many others here, thanks for coming here to share. more illuminating than the last several months of speculation...
However, arguing with a mall rentacop over the finer points of law is downright fun. After the real cops arrive then you get all polite and stuff (and do what they say, because they have handcuffs, guns, and Miranda cards, and while in theory you will get your property (camera) back, in reality this is not always the case).
I have the same problem, but one format size up. I can do up to 6x7 in my film scanner, but if I shoot my graflex it's back to the flatbed:-) The last 5 time I took the graflex out it's been to shoot techpan though, so I suppose no loss... I've largely re-purposed it to a large format enlarger for poster prints and specialty work. -nB
I know. And it pisses me off too. I bailed on Canon when they switched from the FD mount and went to Nikon...
Meh, with my investment in glass I have little choice but to go with a high end body (still cheaper than any other option).
I am working on a digital back for my F3 though. I have a couple spare backs and I'm going to cut one up to put a deep depleted CCD onto it. I have not bought the sensor yet, I'll do that once I get the cooling and data management stuff done. Plan on mounting power and storage for non-cooled shooting in a motor winder frame, and for cooled operations it'll have to be plugged in, but I should be able to take IR shots of 10-15 seconds without pixel noise. -nB
not really. There is a non trivial amount of space used on the memory chips that is not storage, but rather support circuitry. This would have to be replicated for each device, whereas if it was a larger capacity device this circuitry is only needed once. Also, this is not the type of stuff the reader can have and "share" among devices. It is specific to that device (trimmed analog values and such) burned in at wafer sort.
All you've said is true, but... While agree a K1000 is not a likely candidate for a digital back, there are a lot of Nikon owners who have invested heavily in excellent glass that will not work correctly on their newer bodies (Yes, in theory the D300 should work, but it really doesn't). As far as turning on and off the sensor a CCD does not suffer the same limitations, that is an issue with CMOS sensors.
apparently we were thinking the same thing... that would be the most awesome thing ever to see: The old school workhorse K1000 with a digital back:) I'd seriously consider trading in a tooth or two, maybe even a pinkey finger for a 10MP FX CCD (not CMOS) for my F3hp...
I own a blad, but there is no way I can afford this back (yet). Nor would it be justified for the shooting I do. That said, if Nikon would offer backs that would fit their older cameras I would be in the market, especially if they were <$1000 and FX sensor size, even if "only" 6 to 10 MP.
Dear Nikon: I want a digital back for my F3HP and my 90s please. -nB
no, I'm pissed off that I lost several days of testing...
Seriously, how is it being an ass to expect IT to test these patches and updates against the standard build (which is why they claim to need draconian control over our machines rather than letting us update as we feel is necessary.)
What I want to know is WTF my IT dept is doing? Not their job, that's for damn sure.
We are impacted (~100K employees multinational semiconductor). Our machines do not pull patches from the vendors, but rather from an internal server (Windows, McAfee, etc.) The whole damn point of this is so that IT can vet patches don't affect the software we use. I would understand if the DAT borked a couple specialized non-standard machines (like my dev box, which ironically is unaffected), but this borked the standard IT build. While I sympathize that IT support can be a PITA, they have only themselves to blame on this one. Should have been trapped in eval before being pushed out to the corporate network.
Slashdot Mirror
The laws of my country are only 1 page.
in fact, they fit on a fortune cookie slip:
networkBoy is always right.
so far everyone's got it wrong. ;-)
since you don't want unauthorized people in the DC you seal it up (with only exhaust ports and a door). Pump LN2 into evaps in the room. Authorized techs are issued Scott Air Packs. Unauthorized people expire before they can do damage, and as a bonus the room has built in fire suppression
-nB
Dude! WTF? Just read the linked articles...
That's fucked up.
If GP is taking those then I've got dibs on:
"What could possibly go wrong"
yes, but NAND is sloooow compared to NOR for reads. NOR memory (and PCM) looks like a SRAM to your system, thus you can execute directly out of it. NAND is awkward in its structure, so you can not execute directly out of it, instead you must copy the contents of the flash device to RAM.
Practical implications? If your device uses NOR or PCM you can use less DRAM in your design, if you use NAND then you need to increase the amount of RAM, often by as much as the size of the NAND memory (for smaller designs, larger ones will page memory from NAND)
Blanking the NVRAM and not loading configs remotely, but rather from a terminal server in case of power failure seems a bit too far for this install IMHO. I understand not storing the config locally on machines not absolutely physically secure (don't want that getting out too easily), but not having them remote load *and* having only one (that we know of) copy on an encrypted DVD that only you can access is way too far.
Aside from that (on in spite of it) it's obvious the guy was competent on multiple levels.
* the system ran for quite a while without him and without support from others.
* just the ability to set it up as trapped as it was is pretty spiffy.
I'd consider hiring him (so long as there were specific controls and clear guidelines as to permissions).
-nB
which also resets the configs. rebuilding those configs properly is where the cost estimate comes from. My router in my lab has a simple config. The upstream router in the network closet? Not so simple. The router in the DC? I don't want to be responsible for losing that config, it's a minefield. Frankly I'm surprised that the estimate to rebuild all the configs was only $200K, given that the WAN would be down while that operation was in process.
I don't know about you, but I don't consider the police authorized. Manager, however, I would think by definition, is authorized.
I used to be a sony whore, but some years ago swore them off (IIRC the final straw was the rootkit, but I already didn't like them much by then). :(
Eventually the time came that I wanted to buy a new camcorder. One of my requirements is MiniDV tape (multiple reasons, one of which is archival storage of the source tape after shooting). Sadly Sony was the *only* brand that met my requirements and my price range...
I felt soooo dirty buying that thing
just *wow*. That is paranoia at its finest.
I was thinking the same thing as the GP, but with the added thought that no admin would do that because it's so fragile that if anything went sideways you're screwed.
Ok then, if Childs really did that I have less of an issue with what went down. And like many others here, thanks for coming here to share. more illuminating than the last several months of speculation...
you're close, but CREA sounds like a 'terrorist state' and is too consumer oriented.
I propose RECA...
you ass.
I had actually forgotten about lantastic till you brought it up.
To be fair though, that's about ideal kite flying weather... Not bridge flying weather.
However, arguing with a mall rentacop over the finer points of law is downright fun. After the real cops arrive then you get all polite and stuff (and do what they say, because they have handcuffs, guns, and Miranda cards, and while in theory you will get your property (camera) back, in reality this is not always the case).
I have the same problem, but one format size up. I can do up to 6x7 in my film scanner, but if I shoot my graflex it's back to the flatbed :-)
The last 5 time I took the graflex out it's been to shoot techpan though, so I suppose no loss...
I've largely re-purposed it to a large format enlarger for poster prints and specialty work.
-nB
yeah, and they work fairly well too. I have an older gen and I love it.
-nB
I know.
And it pisses me off too.
I bailed on Canon when they switched from the FD mount and went to Nikon...
Meh, with my investment in glass I have little choice but to go with a high end body (still cheaper than any other option).
I am working on a digital back for my F3 though. I have a couple spare backs and I'm going to cut one up to put a deep depleted CCD onto it. I have not bought the sensor yet, I'll do that once I get the cooling and data management stuff done. Plan on mounting power and storage for non-cooled shooting in a motor winder frame, and for cooled operations it'll have to be plugged in, but I should be able to take IR shots of 10-15 seconds without pixel noise.
-nB
not really.
There is a non trivial amount of space used on the memory chips that is not storage, but rather support circuitry. This would have to be replicated for each device, whereas if it was a larger capacity device this circuitry is only needed once. Also, this is not the type of stuff the reader can have and "share" among devices. It is specific to that device (trimmed analog values and such) burned in at wafer sort.
3D printers are starting to change that (at least for the gears and such).
I don't think you have your prices quite right...
Hasselblad Flextight X5 Scanner
* Virtual Drum, Vertical Loading
* Glare-Free Path to Film
* Scan 35mm to 4x5" Film & Prints
* 4.9 D-max
* 8000 dpi Maximum Resolution
* Fast 300 MB per Minute Speed
* Batch Scanning Capacity
* Auto Cropping/Formatting/Naming
* Rodenstock Optical Lens
* FlexTouch Dust Removal
* Mfr #
* 70380301
* Price : $ 19,995.00
All you've said is true, but...
While agree a K1000 is not a likely candidate for a digital back, there are a lot of Nikon owners who have invested heavily in excellent glass that will not work correctly on their newer bodies (Yes, in theory the D300 should work, but it really doesn't). As far as turning on and off the sensor a CCD does not suffer the same limitations, that is an issue with CMOS sensors.
apparently we were thinking the same thing... :)
that would be the most awesome thing ever to see:
The old school workhorse K1000 with a digital back
I'd seriously consider trading in a tooth or two, maybe even a pinkey finger for a 10MP FX CCD (not CMOS) for my F3hp...
I own a blad, but there is no way I can afford this back (yet). Nor would it be justified for the shooting I do. That said, if Nikon would offer backs that would fit their older cameras I would be in the market, especially if they were <$1000 and FX sensor size, even if "only" 6 to 10 MP.
Dear Nikon:
I want a digital back for my F3HP and my 90s please.
-nB
no, I'm pissed off that I lost several days of testing...
Seriously, how is it being an ass to expect IT to test these patches and updates against the standard build (which is why they claim to need draconian control over our machines rather than letting us update as we feel is necessary.)
What I want to know is WTF my IT dept is doing?
Not their job, that's for damn sure.
We are impacted (~100K employees multinational semiconductor). Our machines do not pull patches from the vendors, but rather from an internal server (Windows, McAfee, etc.) The whole damn point of this is so that IT can vet patches don't affect the software we use. I would understand if the DAT borked a couple specialized non-standard machines (like my dev box, which ironically is unaffected), but this borked the standard IT build. While I sympathize that IT support can be a PITA, they have only themselves to blame on this one. Should have been trapped in eval before being pushed out to the corporate network.
-nB