I'm sick of seeing worthwhile content getting pulled from valid sites. I remember looking for some video clips of Carl Sagan's appearances on Johnny Carson's show, and finding links to them in an index, but then getting there and finding that they had been pulled due to copyright restrictions..
I do hope this site can make it through. Like other posters mention, porn, especially pedo, may be an issue... but it's the cost of free speech. Althgouh I hope at least some level of self-censoring is put into place. I mean, there *has* to be a limit somewhere.... right?
Having the price fall now will definitely help make what you're talking about possible. If the current drive were half as expensive, you could technically get two, or a single drive engineered with redundancy, for the cost of one now.
Also, redundancy need not cost double, minimum. That's the great thing about RAID5 -- you spread the parity of one drive's worth of data across several. If its really sensitive stuff, you could use your double figure and go with RAID1+0 so you can possibly run with two or more failures... so long as the both drives of any pair don't fail. Realistically, you could have two RAID5's set up to mirror (RAID 5+1, or RAID53 to some people) for a great combination of redundancy, speed, and cost effectiveness.
Back to your idea, having hot failover built into drives with redundant equipment is an interesting idea, but I don't know how feasible it would be. There are a few problems with it. Modularity is one. Once one half fails, you're back to today's problem and you have to either replace the drive entirely or have someone with a cleanroom service it to replace the failed portions. With two drives, that problem isn't there. And not having combined them also means the fault tolerant environments don't pay a premium for the extra engineering per drive nor do they defray the cost of the R&D in their purchases from manufacturers.
I honestly think RAID1 mirroring can solve a lot of ills. Really, computers being sold new should, as a STANDARD, use RAID1. Hard drives fail all the time. The problems here are most consumer-grade RAID1 setups are non trivial. The error reporting is CRAP. (Know of several people who thought they were fine, but when that hard drive crash came, they found out that their RAID setup had desynced months ago for who knows what reason.) Also, the tools aren't that friendly in telling people what to do next.
Redundancy is a huge topic however you go with it. Home computers are more than novelties now, and are much more likely to contain irreplaceable data. I do hope to see better solutions that are more widely adopted especially in the consumer market in the future, just like seatbelts.
I agree, at least with the spindle speed. 20ms access and little/no cache not so much. Anyway, slower spindle speed means less heat, less power, longer life. And when you've got a RAID, you end up with fast reads anyway!
Also I'm not concerned with cost. From my POV, even $0.40/g is worthwhile since its high density storage. It means I can pack 2TB usable space via a RAID 5 in a mid-size tower along with either a separate system disk or an optical drive. If you want inexpensive, just wait a couple months and go for the 500's or 750s which should fall in price fairly quickly. Also on the topic of price, these prices are incredible when you compare them to enterprise drives. Its definitely consumer tech even if the price feels high.
All the benefits will be squandered on making bigger, heavier vehicles. At least, that's what's been happening with improvements in efficiency since the 80s. Sigh...
Yes, but it's a laptop. Can you get a battery, screen, input device and the encompassing hardware for $7? Even with volume discount and mass production?
If we take life to Mars, life will evolve there all the same as it has here. Colonization will mean people and a bunch of bacteria, etc. Life will adapt with enough time in an environment that is even barely viable.
I appreciate the heads up -- I wasn't aware of that. I guess it can certainly be used for a bus, though it's all left to the implementation to use it for anything more than point to point.
"A chipset that both AMD and Intel could use," artificially limits what I think the reason for opening their FSB is. As has been said elsewhere, AMD opened HyperTransport (royalty-free) in 2001 and has gotten interest from companies like Cisco, Sun, etc. Having other people use your stuff with a zero entry cost is definitely good. You collaborate with them on the technology when they have implementation problems (goodwill is good for Bus2Bus) and they're also going to have more reason to choose your other chipsets and processors which use that same bus. See: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-528221.html
I don't think AMD would ever move to not having their own FSB. It's too ripe for abuse. I think they're doing this in response to AMD opening HyperTransport royalty-free and getting interest from companies like Cisco, who have an interest in high-power buses. That was in 2001. I've got a hunch that Intel is itching for some of that action. If you get someone else using your transport, you're more likely to (A) sell them processors and other patented technology (chipsets) and to (B) have a collaboration with these partners about the technology and implementation which would benefit both AMD and their partner. AMD was quite smart with that move, and I suspect it had a lot to do with Intel's recent announcement.
AMD opened their HyperTransport bus, royalty free, in 2001. They've signed people like Sun and Cisco, who have a big interest in moving a lot of data on buses. And if you get people using your bus, you can easily talk them into using your processors in their embedded devices.
That was a while ago, but I suspect it's coming to fruition or perhaps gaining more traction, if only now Intel is saying "me too."
I think this is a clear example of leveraging software to benefit the company. If a user wants to play it on their PC, they have to run Vista and/or upgrade their computer. Otherwise you have to go buy a not-inexpensive limited-purpose console. Both options benefit Microsoft.
It's absolutely their right, and it absolutely sucks. As has been said elsewhere in this thread.. the technology used in Halo 2 doesn't require DX10. Maybe I could be coaxed into thinking that if Halo 2 only played on the Xbox 360, but the fact that they have it running on the original... grrrr...
I've been on the verge of going one route or another for some time now, so I feel that Halo 2 is definitely something that will help drive Vista sales. Gamers are more likely to be early adopters, and hanging a popular game out there that only runs under Vista would probably be enough to make a lot of them bite the bullet, even if they were already very happy with their XP rig.
As for me, I was ranting about this very issue with a coworker, and he ended up offering to let me borrow his XBox and copy of Halo 2. I'd rather own the game, but neither option that would have me buying it sits well with me, so Microsoft gets none of my money and none of my goodwill.
Accessing Oracle from PHP is child's play. What's the mystery? Besides, the comment was about the extensions and capabilities. PHP is great, though perl is better. I don't know of any other languages that are as flexible in that regard.
Next, 120% slower under [undisclosed] circumstances. Browser rendering, network setup, capabilities of server/client, will impact things.
Additional, and this also relates to your 3rd point, there are are wide variety of PHP accelerators which give PHP quite a speed boost. From Wiki: Most work by caching the compiled bytecode form of PHP scripts to avoid the overhead on every page request of parsing and compiling source code that may never even get executed. For best performance, caching is to shared memory with direct execution from the shared memory and the minimum of memory copying at runtime. A PHP accelerator typically reduces server load and increases the speed of PHP code anywhere from 2-10 times[...]
And yeah, PHP's fast and loose flexibility creates the necessity for things like === however the requirement that one is more aware of how types are handled is easily outweighed by the flexibility it gives the developer and the ease of use.
... it's the UNIX philosophy. But it's really not just applicable to UNIX... it applies to software development in general.
Things can always be improved and tweaked, but while that code is unreleased, users are living with previous versions which may lack other features a new version brings. This is why lists of known issues are maintained. That list of caveats to let the users decide.
Also, at some point you just have to get that sucker out there for people to start using. Mac OS X 10.0 comes to mind. It was such a departure from OS9 with so many changes that Apple pushed it out the door just to get people using it and to give developers a reason to stop concentrating solely on OS9, even though it had many usability issues. Early adopters were affected, but people were able to make that choice for themselves. (Apple did release 10.1 as a free upgrade, unlike the following releases.)
Finally, as for abuse by companies constantly releasing paid frivolous updates/fixes.. the marketplace should take care of them and limit this abuse.
It would prolong the longevity of the torrent by keeping it active longer.
Also, I didn't intend for my comment to sound as though it would only help those who aren't uploading much, but a combination of weights based on a client's upload rate and completion status. In fact, though it might help my ratio, I abhor people who just connect to leach and disappear.
Different swarms have different problem behaviors. Private trackers versus public trackers versus commercial versus 'sponsored' trackers (my neologism for trackers hosting 'permanent,' widely available content like linux distributions.) On some you have an issue of hit and run. On others, it's a different game.
In the end, I think these seeding/peering strategies need to be options left up to the user. Let the trackers decide how to deal with users whose clients seem to be behaving against the wishes of the tracker owner.
Like you mentioned, one can set Azureus or most other clients to seed indefinitely. What I'd ideally like to see is the opposite of what BitTyrant does. BitTyrant optimizes by selectively choosing peers based on up to down ratio, weighted by upload capacity. I'm assuming at this point that it doesn't do any special handing for seeding.
What would be cool is if there were the ability to have the client selectively prioritize based on completion status and download rate, especially given a limited number of upload slots. Something that will not only guarantee I'll use the amount of upstream I intend, but which will also prolong the amount of demand for my seed. (instead of being optimized to create more seeds, thus reducing my specific seed's demand.)
I'd like to see the opposite. Haven't these researchers heard of ratio sites? It'd be cool if, when among 20 seeders and 5 peers, my client were involved in the uploading more often. As it stands, in that situation my client usually appears to be sitting idle most of the time, or occasionally uploading 5 - 10K/sec for 30s to a minute before idling again.
Make my client have the ability to seed more proactively and I'll be happy.
Any device you want to turn on and off via remote control needs to have a standby mode. Any device with an internal timer or clock needs a standby mode (and/or a battery.) There are plenty of reasons and uses, but it should be efficient if the capability is in place.
Because flipping a physical switch doesn't scale well, and most consumers are too idiotic to, (1) think/know to do this each time, and (2) flip it back on (without calling tech support first) the next time they decide to use the computer.
Not in a trusted computing platform. It could refuse to play without a completely secured path. I guess you could always make your own screeners, but that's just ridiculous.
Frontloading the cost of technology isn't always a bad thing. A 486SX/25 powered the first computer owned in my family: a $1500 Gateway2000 box with 4MB RAM, 170MB HDD and 1MB ISA video card. It was purchased in December 93 for Christmas.
I imagine if you bought a 486 in 1990, you got years of service out of it, and if nothing else, you got to have a killer machine for years before other people started catching up, albeit for less.
For some people, that more than warrants the extra cost. It's capitalism at work.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sick of seeing worthwhile content getting pulled from valid sites. I remember looking for some video clips of Carl Sagan's appearances on Johnny Carson's show, and finding links to them in an index, but then getting there and finding that they had been pulled due to copyright restrictions.. I do hope this site can make it through. Like other posters mention, porn, especially pedo, may be an issue... but it's the cost of free speech. Althgouh I hope at least some level of self-censoring is put into place. I mean, there *has* to be a limit somewhere.... right?
Having the price fall now will definitely help make what you're talking about possible. If the current drive were half as expensive, you could technically get two, or a single drive engineered with redundancy, for the cost of one now.
Also, redundancy need not cost double, minimum. That's the great thing about RAID5 -- you spread the parity of one drive's worth of data across several. If its really sensitive stuff, you could use your double figure and go with RAID1+0 so you can possibly run with two or more failures... so long as the both drives of any pair don't fail. Realistically, you could have two RAID5's set up to mirror (RAID 5+1, or RAID53 to some people) for a great combination of redundancy, speed, and cost effectiveness.
Back to your idea, having hot failover built into drives with redundant equipment is an interesting idea, but I don't know how feasible it would be. There are a few problems with it. Modularity is one. Once one half fails, you're back to today's problem and you have to either replace the drive entirely or have someone with a cleanroom service it to replace the failed portions. With two drives, that problem isn't there. And not having combined them also means the fault tolerant environments don't pay a premium for the extra engineering per drive nor do they defray the cost of the R&D in their purchases from manufacturers.
I honestly think RAID1 mirroring can solve a lot of ills. Really, computers being sold new should, as a STANDARD, use RAID1. Hard drives fail all the time. The problems here are most consumer-grade RAID1 setups are non trivial. The error reporting is CRAP. (Know of several people who thought they were fine, but when that hard drive crash came, they found out that their RAID setup had desynced months ago for who knows what reason.) Also, the tools aren't that friendly in telling people what to do next.
Redundancy is a huge topic however you go with it. Home computers are more than novelties now, and are much more likely to contain irreplaceable data. I do hope to see better solutions that are more widely adopted especially in the consumer market in the future, just like seatbelts.
That's the dumbest fucking idea I've heard since I've been at Microsoft!
I agree, at least with the spindle speed. 20ms access and little/no cache not so much. Anyway, slower spindle speed means less heat, less power, longer life. And when you've got a RAID, you end up with fast reads anyway!
Also I'm not concerned with cost. From my POV, even $0.40/g is worthwhile since its high density storage. It means I can pack 2TB usable space via a RAID 5 in a mid-size tower along with either a separate system disk or an optical drive. If you want inexpensive, just wait a couple months and go for the 500's or 750s which should fall in price fairly quickly. Also on the topic of price, these prices are incredible when you compare them to enterprise drives. Its definitely consumer tech even if the price feels high.
All the benefits will be squandered on making bigger, heavier vehicles. At least, that's what's been happening with improvements in efficiency since the 80s. Sigh...
Yes, but it's a laptop. Can you get a battery, screen, input device and the encompassing hardware for $7? Even with volume discount and mass production?
If we take life to Mars, life will evolve there all the same as it has here. Colonization will mean people and a bunch of bacteria, etc. Life will adapt with enough time in an environment that is even barely viable.
I appreciate the heads up -- I wasn't aware of that. I guess it can certainly be used for a bus, though it's all left to the implementation to use it for anything more than point to point.
"A chipset that both AMD and Intel could use," artificially limits what I think the reason for opening their FSB is. As has been said elsewhere, AMD opened HyperTransport (royalty-free) in 2001 and has gotten interest from companies like Cisco, Sun, etc. Having other people use your stuff with a zero entry cost is definitely good. You collaborate with them on the technology when they have implementation problems (goodwill is good for Bus2Bus) and they're also going to have more reason to choose your other chipsets and processors which use that same bus. See: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-528221.html
I don't think AMD would ever move to not having their own FSB. It's too ripe for abuse. I think they're doing this in response to AMD opening HyperTransport royalty-free and getting interest from companies like Cisco, who have an interest in high-power buses. That was in 2001. I've got a hunch that Intel is itching for some of that action. If you get someone else using your transport, you're more likely to (A) sell them processors and other patented technology (chipsets) and to (B) have a collaboration with these partners about the technology and implementation which would benefit both AMD and their partner. AMD was quite smart with that move, and I suspect it had a lot to do with Intel's recent announcement.
AMD opened their HyperTransport bus, royalty free, in 2001. They've signed people like Sun and Cisco, who have a big interest in moving a lot of data on buses. And if you get people using your bus, you can easily talk them into using your processors in their embedded devices.
That was a while ago, but I suspect it's coming to fruition or perhaps gaining more traction, if only now Intel is saying "me too."
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-528221.html
I think this is a clear example of leveraging software to benefit the company. If a user wants to play it on their PC, they have to run Vista and/or upgrade their computer. Otherwise you have to go buy a not-inexpensive limited-purpose console. Both options benefit Microsoft.
It's absolutely their right, and it absolutely sucks. As has been said elsewhere in this thread.. the technology used in Halo 2 doesn't require DX10. Maybe I could be coaxed into thinking that if Halo 2 only played on the Xbox 360, but the fact that they have it running on the original... grrrr...
I've been on the verge of going one route or another for some time now, so I feel that Halo 2 is definitely something that will help drive Vista sales. Gamers are more likely to be early adopters, and hanging a popular game out there that only runs under Vista would probably be enough to make a lot of them bite the bullet, even if they were already very happy with their XP rig.
As for me, I was ranting about this very issue with a coworker, and he ended up offering to let me borrow his XBox and copy of Halo 2. I'd rather own the game, but neither option that would have me buying it sits well with me, so Microsoft gets none of my money and none of my goodwill.
Thanks for the recommendation. Took me a little while to google it, given its shorthand name.
For others reading this, here is a link to the PartImg Is Not Ghost tool: http://ping.windowsdream.com/
Accessing Oracle from PHP is child's play. What's the mystery? Besides, the comment was about the extensions and capabilities. PHP is great, though perl is better. I don't know of any other languages that are as flexible in that regard.
Next, 120% slower under [undisclosed] circumstances. Browser rendering, network setup, capabilities of server/client, will impact things.
Additional, and this also relates to your 3rd point, there are are wide variety of PHP accelerators which give PHP quite a speed boost. From Wiki: Most work by caching the compiled bytecode form of PHP scripts to avoid the overhead on every page request of parsing and compiling source code that may never even get executed. For best performance, caching is to shared memory with direct execution from the shared memory and the minimum of memory copying at runtime. A PHP accelerator typically reduces server load and increases the speed of PHP code anywhere from 2-10 times[...]
And yeah, PHP's fast and loose flexibility creates the necessity for things like === however the requirement that one is more aware of how types are handled is easily outweighed by the flexibility it gives the developer and the ease of use.
... it's the UNIX philosophy. But it's really not just applicable to UNIX... it applies to software development in general.
Things can always be improved and tweaked, but while that code is unreleased, users are living with previous versions which may lack other features a new version brings. This is why lists of known issues are maintained. That list of caveats to let the users decide.
Also, at some point you just have to get that sucker out there for people to start using. Mac OS X 10.0 comes to mind. It was such a departure from OS9 with so many changes that Apple pushed it out the door just to get people using it and to give developers a reason to stop concentrating solely on OS9, even though it had many usability issues. Early adopters were affected, but people were able to make that choice for themselves. (Apple did release 10.1 as a free upgrade, unlike the following releases.)
Finally, as for abuse by companies constantly releasing paid frivolous updates/fixes.. the marketplace should take care of them and limit this abuse.
I second that analysis. Or an INTP. Pretty similar also.
It would prolong the longevity of the torrent by keeping it active longer.
Also, I didn't intend for my comment to sound as though it would only help those who aren't uploading much, but a combination of weights based on a client's upload rate and completion status. In fact, though it might help my ratio, I abhor people who just connect to leach and disappear.
Different swarms have different problem behaviors. Private trackers versus public trackers versus commercial versus 'sponsored' trackers (my neologism for trackers hosting 'permanent,' widely available content like linux distributions.) On some you have an issue of hit and run. On others, it's a different game.
In the end, I think these seeding/peering strategies need to be options left up to the user. Let the trackers decide how to deal with users whose clients seem to be behaving against the wishes of the tracker owner.
Like you mentioned, one can set Azureus or most other clients to seed indefinitely. What I'd ideally like to see is the opposite of what BitTyrant does. BitTyrant optimizes by selectively choosing peers based on up to down ratio, weighted by upload capacity. I'm assuming at this point that it doesn't do any special handing for seeding.
What would be cool is if there were the ability to have the client selectively prioritize based on completion status and download rate, especially given a limited number of upload slots. Something that will not only guarantee I'll use the amount of upstream I intend, but which will also prolong the amount of demand for my seed. (instead of being optimized to create more seeds, thus reducing my specific seed's demand.)
I'd like to see the opposite. Haven't these researchers heard of ratio sites? It'd be cool if, when among 20 seeders and 5 peers, my client were involved in the uploading more often. As it stands, in that situation my client usually appears to be sitting idle most of the time, or occasionally uploading 5 - 10K/sec for 30s to a minute before idling again.
Make my client have the ability to seed more proactively and I'll be happy.
Any device you want to turn on and off via remote control needs to have a standby mode. Any device with an internal timer or clock needs a standby mode (and/or a battery.) There are plenty of reasons and uses, but it should be efficient if the capability is in place.
Because flipping a physical switch doesn't scale well, and most consumers are too idiotic to, (1) think/know to do this each time, and (2) flip it back on (without calling tech support first) the next time they decide to use the computer.
Standby includes these devices. For most consumer devices, even those without remote controls, 'standby' and 'off' are synonymous.
Not in a trusted computing platform. It could refuse to play without a completely secured path. I guess you could always make your own screeners, but that's just ridiculous.
DRM FTL.
Use control-w (or cmd-w if you're on a mac)
Frontloading the cost of technology isn't always a bad thing. A 486SX/25 powered the first computer owned in my family: a $1500 Gateway2000 box with 4MB RAM, 170MB HDD and 1MB ISA video card. It was purchased in December 93 for Christmas.
I imagine if you bought a 486 in 1990, you got years of service out of it, and if nothing else, you got to have a killer machine for years before other people started catching up, albeit for less.
For some people, that more than warrants the extra cost. It's capitalism at work.