It may be that the codec you are using now isn't bug-for-bug compatible with the codec that was used to store the file.
It's also possible that the file was saved in a "not quite industry standard format" but that it would look fine on vintage hardware running a vintage OS with vintage device drivers and vintage software, but today's hardware and software interprets these "not quite industry standard-format" files in a way that exposes their flaws.
Got a Pentium II computer and a copy of Windows 98 in the basement?
If I understand you correctly, you are asking what filesystems can error-correct in the face of physical bit rot.
I don't know of any commonly-used "disk-type" (local, not specifically designed for archival/offline media) file systems that have checksumming or RAID-style redundant data within the filesystem itself. Some distributed/clustered file systems have features like this, but they aren't well suited for offline storage in the way that you are thinking about (or, when used for offline storage, the redundancy is likely "optimized away."). I'm not familiar enough with the filesystems used by optical media and tape drives or their underlying hardware to know how much redundancy exists or at what layer the redundancy exists at, but I suspect it is "below" the filesystem level.
If you aren't interested in inventing an "optimal" solution in terms of storage space or time-to-create-or-read the backup, a "not much thought required/you can think it through in far less than an hour" solution is to create checksums for every backup you make (either per-file, per-"block," or some other way) then make a second copy of both the backup and the checksums. Store the two copies in different places. If it's very important, make a third copy but use a different format for this backup (for some documents, like a business letter, a printout is an acceptable backup).
--
If it's really really important, encrypt it and upload it to PasteBin and tell the world that it's political dirt on [insert politician's name here] and that you will release the encryption key if the politician doesn't resign. This will ensure that there will always be many copies in existence. *joke*
That is, assuming they don't become illegal to manufacture or regulations don't make them too expensive to make due to the lead and other toxic chemicals.
Imagine a robo-call-DDOS attack on certain lawmakers' phones during a crucial debate, denying those lawmakers input from consituents?
Imagine an attack on a company, either to force them to spend money they wouldn't have to spend, to embarrass them, or to distract them from doing things that would compete with another company in which you ("you" being a corrupt person, company, or government) has an interest in.
Sure, this is a nice human interest story when someone has a new late-in-life career, but "news for nerds?"
People in their 60s find new things to do and new-for-them ways to make the world a better place all the time. Sometimes, those things will overlap with the tech world, but it's not/.-worthy.
About the only "nerd news" is that the gaming industry hasn't paid attention to games for older people. But that's hardly/.-worthy.
I guess it must've been a slow news day to get the up-votes in the Firehose to make the main page, or one of the/. editors really liked it.
Slack may not have end-to-end crypto, but there is nothing technical stopping me and the person I am taking to from using a Secret Decoder Ring or for that matter, a one-time pad, to encrypt our messages.
If that one thing is "communicate," well, then that "one thing" may encompass sharing screens, sharing code, sharing text, sharing audio, sharing video, etc. etc. etc. or at the very least, calling some under-the-hood program to do those things for you while the user perceives it as "one seamless thing."
If that "one thing" is "texting" then that "one thing" may include getting typed input from the user, determining who the recipient is, determining how to send it to the recipient, sending it, receiving data from someone else, displaying it on the screen, or at the very least, calling some under-the-hood program to do those things for you while the user perceives it as "one seamless thing."
Now, you and those you communicate with may communicate more efficiently using a "text only" medium most of the time, but not every team does. Some teams actually communicate better using a seamlessly-integrated multi-media communications tool that has audio, video, screen-sharing, file-sharing, etc. If that tool happens to use IRC protocols, VNC protocols, gitlib, pastebin, etc., under the hood or if it is using some other technology, the people who are participating in the conversation don't care nor should they have to.
When you (Google) detect that a medium- or high-volume submitter has "obvious flaws" in more than a very small percentage of its submissions, suspend their "trusted sender" status until the flaws are fixed.
Ditto if more than a small percentage of a medium- or high-volume submitter's requests get overturned or "overturned by default" by an un-challenged counter-notice.
For low-volume submitters, the "kick out" threshold would need to be much higher, something like "5 bad submissions out of the last 10 or 10 bad submissions out of the last 100," along with a "you can't become 'trusted' until we see at least 10 consecutive submissions that aren't challenged and at least 90% of the ones submitted in the last month are okay."
If the legal requirements of the DMCA prevent this, then take "bad submitters" to court and get a court order declaring that you (Google) can ignore requests from that submitter that haven't been approved by the court.
The authors should have done it themselves before publication
In the rush to "publish or perish," you don't have time to re-run your experiment.
A "solution" would be "split publication" - publish results after the first experiment but call it "unverified." Then when you or another researcher reproduces the experiment, publish again.
The first researcher would receive the primary "credit" but only if the results held up under scrutiny.
Over time, researchers who accumulated a lot of "un-verified" initial publications would see their reputations suffer.
It is much easier to prove there are no software (including firmware and microcode) bugs in a system that small than in a modern $5 single-board computer.
There are systems where a single-bit computer with 40 bits of storage is the right tool for the right job. Maybe not many systems, but they do exist.
Detecting the difference between lies, exaggerations, BS, sincere-but-false claims, and facts should be taught on an age-appropriate basis from birth through adulthood, at home, in school, and in life.
For school-aged children and teenagers, this doesn't have to be a formal class every year, it can be integrated into the curriculum across most or all disciplines.
Ditto for detecting the difference between a sound argument and an unsound argument and the difference between an unsound argument that leads to a false conclusion and an unsound argument that leads to a conclusion that happens to be true anyway.
How expensive would it be to re-create the Apollo program?
Would it be cheaper to do an "Apollo plus" with SOME modern technology where modern tech happens to be cheaper or the same price, but leaving out modern tech where it's more expensive?
In other words, would we save $BIGBUCKS by building on what we have instead of starting nearly from scratch?
Before anyone points it out, I am aware that significant amounts of the original Apollo program's designs have been lost, either literally though lost blueprints/design-documents or in practice because the "institutional knowledge" is long-gone. I also know that the original manufacturing facilities are long gone and they would have to be rebuilt. However, significant parts of the design work is either available or easily reverse-engineered, so we wouldn't be starting from scratch.
Probably never for USB sticks or built into phones etc. To get the full bandwidth you need 12 antennas it appears
I should've specified that I was accounting for this.
To rephrase:
How long before non-routers with "up to a 4x increase in throughput speed in a crowded network [and] 2x2 MU-MIMO" using the new.ax standard for under $20 on a USB stick (including antennas) or built-in to laptops and phones for about the same as currently-popular high-speed WiFi technology?
How long before this tech or some other vendor's version of the same thing is widely available in under-$40 home WiFi routers, under-$20 USB sticks, and at about the same cost to build into phones and laptops as today's commonly-used WiFi chips?
Maybe in a closed loop environment where there is a ton of printing for short-term purposes where the week-long lifetime doesn't matter AND you can re-use the paper close to the maximum number
Yes, this. Someone mentioned convention centers and church bulletins as possible applications.
However, even these are limited as many of these documents are typically multiple-color at least on part of the page and/or they are being replaced with apps, screens all over the place, or other paper-less versions.
Ok, which is it. Do liberals cry "DONT TOUCH THE HOLY FREE MARKET" or do they cry "SOCIALISM! COMMUNISM! REGULATION!"
I'm confused.
The "parent post" was referring to "liberal-radicals" whatever they are.
Perhaps this will help:
Person 1: What's the difference between an extreme left-winger and an extreme right-winger? Person 2: I don't know. Person 1: I don't know either, I don't think there is one, but for some reason they keep fighting each other.
Slashdot Mirror
It may be that the codec you are using now isn't bug-for-bug compatible with the codec that was used to store the file.
It's also possible that the file was saved in a "not quite industry standard format" but that it would look fine on vintage hardware running a vintage OS with vintage device drivers and vintage software, but today's hardware and software interprets these "not quite industry standard-format" files in a way that exposes their flaws.
Got a Pentium II computer and a copy of Windows 98 in the basement?
If I understand you correctly, you are asking what filesystems can error-correct in the face of physical bit rot.
I don't know of any commonly-used "disk-type" (local, not specifically designed for archival/offline media) file systems that have checksumming or RAID-style redundant data within the filesystem itself. Some distributed/clustered file systems have features like this, but they aren't well suited for offline storage in the way that you are thinking about (or, when used for offline storage, the redundancy is likely "optimized away."). I'm not familiar enough with the filesystems used by optical media and tape drives or their underlying hardware to know how much redundancy exists or at what layer the redundancy exists at, but I suspect it is "below" the filesystem level.
If you aren't interested in inventing an "optimal" solution in terms of storage space or time-to-create-or-read the backup, a "not much thought required/you can think it through in far less than an hour" solution is to create checksums for every backup you make (either per-file, per-"block," or some other way) then make a second copy of both the backup and the checksums. Store the two copies in different places. If it's very important, make a third copy but use a different format for this backup (for some documents, like a business letter, a printout is an acceptable backup).
--
If it's really really important, encrypt it and upload it to PasteBin and tell the world that it's political dirt on [insert politician's name here] and that you will release the encryption key if the politician doesn't resign. This will ensure that there will always be many copies in existence. *joke*
... someone will make them.
That is, assuming they don't become illegal to manufacture or regulations don't make them too expensive to make due to the lead and other toxic chemicals.
Imagine a robo-call-DDOS attack on certain lawmakers' phones during a crucial debate, denying those lawmakers input from consituents?
Imagine an attack on a company, either to force them to spend money they wouldn't have to spend, to embarrass them, or to distract them from doing things that would compete with another company in which you ("you" being a corrupt person, company, or government) has an interest in.
Sure, this is a nice human interest story when someone has a new late-in-life career, but "news for nerds?"
People in their 60s find new things to do and new-for-them ways to make the world a better place all the time. Sometimes, those things will overlap with the tech world, but it's not /.-worthy.
About the only "nerd news" is that the gaming industry hasn't paid attention to games for older people. But that's hardly /.-worthy.
I guess it must've been a slow news day to get the up-votes in the Firehose to make the main page, or one of the /. editors really liked it.
Slack may not have end-to-end crypto, but there is nothing technical stopping me and the person I am taking to from using a Secret Decoder Ring or for that matter, a one-time pad, to encrypt our messages.
Do one thing, and do it well.
If that one thing is "communicate," well, then that "one thing" may encompass sharing screens, sharing code, sharing text, sharing audio, sharing video, etc. etc. etc. or at the very least, calling some under-the-hood program to do those things for you while the user perceives it as "one seamless thing."
If that "one thing" is "texting" then that "one thing" may include getting typed input from the user, determining who the recipient is, determining how to send it to the recipient, sending it, receiving data from someone else, displaying it on the screen, or at the very least, calling some under-the-hood program to do those things for you while the user perceives it as "one seamless thing."
Now, you and those you communicate with may communicate more efficiently using a "text only" medium most of the time, but not every team does. Some teams actually communicate better using a seamlessly-integrated multi-media communications tool that has audio, video, screen-sharing, file-sharing, etc. If that tool happens to use IRC protocols, VNC protocols, gitlib, pastebin, etc., under the hood or if it is using some other technology, the people who are participating in the conversation don't care nor should they have to.
It is NOT "Texas-based."
by mykepredko ( 40154 ) on Thursday February 23, 2017 @02:17PM (#53919283) Homepage
When were the standards set higher?
Before 2002-11-14?
When you (Google) detect that a medium- or high-volume submitter has "obvious flaws" in more than a very small percentage of its submissions, suspend their "trusted sender" status until the flaws are fixed.
Ditto if more than a small percentage of a medium- or high-volume submitter's requests get overturned or "overturned by default" by an un-challenged counter-notice.
For low-volume submitters, the "kick out" threshold would need to be much higher, something like "5 bad submissions out of the last 10 or 10 bad submissions out of the last 100," along with a "you can't become 'trusted' until we see at least 10 consecutive submissions that aren't challenged and at least 90% of the ones submitted in the last month are okay."
If the legal requirements of the DMCA prevent this, then take "bad submitters" to court and get a court order declaring that you (Google) can ignore requests from that submitter that haven't been approved by the court.
The authors should have done it themselves before publication
In the rush to "publish or perish," you don't have time to re-run your experiment.
A "solution" would be "split publication" - publish results after the first experiment but call it "unverified." Then when you or another researcher reproduces the experiment, publish again.
The first researcher would receive the primary "credit" but only if the results held up under scrutiny.
Over time, researchers who accumulated a lot of "un-verified" initial publications would see their reputations suffer.
It is much easier to prove there are no software (including firmware and microcode) bugs in a system that small than in a modern $5 single-board computer.
There are systems where a single-bit computer with 40 bits of storage is the right tool for the right job. Maybe not many systems, but they do exist.
Detecting the difference between lies, exaggerations, BS, sincere-but-false claims, and facts should be taught on an age-appropriate basis from birth through adulthood, at home, in school, and in life.
For school-aged children and teenagers, this doesn't have to be a formal class every year, it can be integrated into the curriculum across most or all disciplines.
Ditto for detecting the difference between a sound argument and an unsound argument and the difference between an unsound argument that leads to a false conclusion and an unsound argument that leads to a conclusion that happens to be true anyway.
How expensive would it be to re-create the Apollo program?
Would it be cheaper to do an "Apollo plus" with SOME modern technology where modern tech happens to be cheaper or the same price, but leaving out modern tech where it's more expensive?
In other words, would we save $BIGBUCKS by building on what we have instead of starting nearly from scratch?
Before anyone points it out, I am aware that significant amounts of the original Apollo program's designs have been lost, either literally though lost blueprints/design-documents or in practice because the "institutional knowledge" is long-gone. I also know that the original manufacturing facilities are long gone and they would have to be rebuilt. However, significant parts of the design work is either available or easily reverse-engineered, so we wouldn't be starting from scratch.
Am I the only one that thought "LISP machines, okay, but Pascal?"
That's fine in the Android space where there is some real competition, but it's not fine in the iOS space where Apple has a monopoly.
Probably never for USB sticks or built into phones etc. To get the full bandwidth you need 12 antennas it appears
I should've specified that I was accounting for this.
To rephrase:
How long before non-routers with "up to a 4x increase in throughput speed in a crowded network [and] 2x2 MU-MIMO" using the new .ax standard for under $20 on a USB stick (including antennas) or built-in to laptops and phones for about the same as currently-popular high-speed WiFi technology?
How long before this tech or some other vendor's version of the same thing is widely available in under-$40 home WiFi routers, under-$20 USB sticks, and at about the same cost to build into phones and laptops as today's commonly-used WiFi chips?
Then (1980s): Modem viruses aren't real
Now: Routers and other gateway devices are under attack, for real this time.
READY.
?OUT OF DATA ERROR
READY.
That's what you get in a Commodore 64 if you it the backspace and return key.
The real hacker who grew up in the early 1980s will know why you get that error.
Maybe in a closed loop environment where there is a ton of printing for short-term purposes where the week-long lifetime doesn't matter AND you can re-use the paper close to the maximum number
Yes, this. Someone mentioned convention centers and church bulletins as possible applications.
However, even these are limited as many of these documents are typically multiple-color at least on part of the page and/or they are being replaced with apps, screens all over the place, or other paper-less versions.
you, insensitive clod!
Well, make sure the shade of blue and the shade of white aren't the same shade and you should be able to tell them apart by light/dark value.
If someone markets paper that doesn't have sufficiently different contrast, then complain.
Either that, or embrace it as a feature: "Sorry boss, you say I didn't follow the instructions but the memo you sent looked blank to me."
Ok, which is it. Do liberals cry "DONT TOUCH THE HOLY FREE MARKET" or do they cry "SOCIALISM! COMMUNISM! REGULATION!"
I'm confused.
The "parent post" was referring to "liberal-radicals" whatever they are.
Perhaps this will help:
Person 1: What's the difference between an extreme left-winger and an extreme right-winger?
Person 2: I don't know.
Person 1: I don't know either, I don't think there is one, but for some reason they keep fighting each other.
how DO you get to paperless?
This way worked for a large part of human history.
It's not efficient but the way things are going we may get to that point.
I can still print out animated .GIFs, right?
Yes.