ike, is it 1 cd(i find it hard to believe, but not that hard) or 30? 1000?
This website says that we have about 3 billion base pairs, 30 thousand of which are genes (the rest is the mysterious "junk dna"). There are 4 base pairs, therefore each base pair is 2 bits of data. That's about 7.5kb for all the genes, and 715MB for every base pair - which after compression should fit comfortably on a standard CD.
You obviously haven't heard about things like ChipKill and ELIZA fault-tolerance initiatives.
You know that I am talking about commonly available multi-CPU systems, and not exotic (and insanely expensive) systems with redundant CPUs and memory.
What are you smoking, and where can I get some?
Do you seriously believe that an E6500 or similar system will not crash if there is a faulty CPU? Despite your impressively low slashdot UID, if you believe this, you have virtually no experience with such systems.
No, let's buy those things because, if something in them breaks, the production payroll machine doesn't go offline.
Bullshit. Expensive Sun servers crash all the time due to memory and CPU failures. The more CPUs and the more memory, the more chances for failure. These boxes do not have redundant CPUs and memory until you get into absolutely isnane price levels. If you care about reliability, it is better to have truly independent machines, and let the software handle the redundancy. Sure, mirror the storage, because you know hard drives fail, and have redundant network interfaces to protect against a witch failure. But don't forget that a "high availability" E6500 is 22 times more likely to crash than a "workstation class" ultra 1.
After years of displeasure with netscape crashing on me, I was excited when Mozilla 1.0 came out. And it does rarely crash. Mozilla is barely usable under Linux, if you have a fast machine and lots of memory - sometimes it hangs for a while, but it is better than Netscape by far. On Solaris, even on a fast machine (e.g. 8*900mhz CPU V800), Mozilla is painfully slow - it can't even keep up with my typing! I wish there was a web browser that actually worked on Solaris.
Maybe if you had primary responsibility for rearing some children, you'd have a different perspective.
I have indeed seen this. Previously rational people become completely irrational when the issue at hand is "protecting" their own children. It is pretty excessive to believe that preventing your children from seeing naked people is in some way protecting them.
Beautiful as it may be with a single electron, or photon, or whatever. These have almost no mass. When done with buckeyballs, the double-slit experiment acquires an amazing beautyl.
1,2,3,4,5,6 is a bad bet because if it does come up, there will be many winners, and the jackpot will be divided evenly among the winners. Any obvious combination is a bad choice for that reason.
I've asked for small and have been told "we don't have small, we have medium, large, and extra large", and honestly get confused looks when I say "then medium is your small size drink?"
It always always surprised me how surprised the staff is anywhere I order in the incorrect size. At one particular coffee chain (no not that one, a smaller copy), I order a "grande" (like the menu says) and they sometimes tell me "sorry, we only have large". Sometimes I order a "large" because of this, and I am told "sorry, we only have grande". They are the exact same size.
It seems that the most effective solution for overall quality of life would be to download her brain into a computer. Storage requirements should be relatively modest - on the order of a few terabytes. The details of the implementation will require some consideration. However this should allow for an indefinate lifespan, and an increased quality of life.
Re:Dear lord, how many mp3s do you have?
on
High Definition DVD
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Uh, those disks hold about 30 gigabytes apiece. Are you telling me you have 90 gigs of mp3s?
Power, measured in wattage, is the sum total energy that is available from a system.
Power, measured in wattage, is the rate at which energy is being used.
However, I believe that a different problem does exist in their statement, a P=IE is only part of what is necessary. I believe that stored power is supposed to be measured in watt hours.
A different problem with their statement? That is the problem which I referred to.
A very, very big battery. Or, to be more accurate, 10 of them, each weighing as much as a Volkswagen Bug and together able to store up to a million watts of power.
Are we to take this article seriously, or to believe anything it says? If they do not know the difference between power and energy, there is no telling what else in the article may be untrue.
Do they expect that people will enter real data on the mere promise that it will be stored in some randomized, aggregate, or other form that does not invade their privacy? If the coroporation could not be trusted in the first place, no statement they make will make them trustworthy.
Using a program called "mp3ascd" to generate the CDDB ID, and another program called "rebot" to do the renaming based on the ID. (Both found on freshmeat). Not the best software in the world, and I had to make a shell script to glue them together. But it is entirely possible.
seriously though, where is the fun in looking at the stars on a computer than actually getting outside and looking up at the sky, possibly with the help of a backyard observatory
You can't see the stars where I live. On a really clear night, you can maybe count 10 stars. TEN. Out of billions! And nine of them are probably just helicopters anyway.
And it still just works. Down servers should never happen, but if they do you'll find that sane OS will either a) give you the option to force break the mount (Solaris and Irix iirc, possibly others - haven't looked),
I'm sorry, but down servers just DO happen in the real world. Again sorry, but you are wrong about Solaris. Solaris 8 introduced an option to umount to "force" the umount, but the reality is that it rarely works. The simple fact is that Solaris is extremely poor about unmounting a failed NFS mount - especially if there open files, in which case even killing the process with open files (if it works, sometimes you can't kill -9 it) will not make the OS un-busy the filesystem. Linux (recent kernel versions) actually beats Solaris in this regard (overall both lose equally however). If you had any real EXTENSIVE experience with using NFS on a variety of Unixes, you would not feel that you have a place to question me.
I have never had to reboot a machine to fix an NFS problem, you're doing something wrong dude.
Just because you have your first Unix sysadmin job does not mean that your experience is significant.
What do you propose to do on Solaris when it tells you "umount: filesystem busy", accessing any files on it just hangs, and fuser -c tells you no processes have that filesystem busy?
The automounter does not solve any of the problems I listed. Usually I have such problems when using the automounter - it actually makes them worse, by making it so easy to use (and rely on) an NFS mount.
I will be scared if we live in a country where people even have to wonder if modifying their own hardware is "totally legal" or not.
The strangest thing about the US is that people live in a fantasy world, believing that the government really is protecting their rights, instead of the "rights" of corporations to make a profit. It is illegal to modify your cable modem to increase your bandwidth. It is illegal to modify your cable box, or put anything in line with it, to descramble channels. It is illegal to modify a DVD player to remove the region restrictions. It is illegal to modify a scanner to listen to certain frequencies. It is illegal to modify a semiautomatic firearm to be fully automatic.
1. What's wrong with NFS? I use it daily, and it just works.
Please. This is silly. I use NFS daily also - on an extremely limited basis. No important servers of mine use NFS.
On ALL Unixes, not just Linux, NFS fails catastrophically in the event of a failure. If the server goes down, there is no way to unmount the NFS mount so that it can be mounted off another server (Linux actually wins here, allowing an NFS mount on top of another NFS mount). If the server or the network to it goes down and comes back, sometimes the mount just breaks. There is no facility in Linux for a redundant NFS mount (Solaris supports this, but it is read-only). There is no way to have an NFS mount cleanly fail if the server is down. If a machine has an NFS mount to a server that is permanantly down (or in some (random) cases a server that went down but has come back up), "df" will fail every time, as will "ls -l" in the directory of the mountpoint, or any attempt to change directories under the mountpoint or in any way operate on files in it. And not fail cleanly! They will all hang, forever. (Soft mounts -sometimes- allow you to kill -9 the process that hung).
NFS is terrible and is only used in production environments in an extremely limited capacity. NFS is the only reason I ever have to reboot Unix servers.
Slashdot Mirror
This website says that we have about 3 billion base pairs, 30 thousand of which are genes (the rest is the mysterious "junk dna"). There are 4 base pairs, therefore each base pair is 2 bits of data. That's about 7.5kb for all the genes, and 715MB for every base pair - which after compression should fit comfortably on a standard CD.
Channel One?
You know that I am talking about commonly available multi-CPU systems, and not exotic (and insanely expensive) systems with redundant CPUs and memory.
What are you smoking, and where can I get some?
Do you seriously believe that an E6500 or similar system will not crash if there is a faulty CPU? Despite your impressively low slashdot UID, if you believe this, you have virtually no experience with such systems.
Bullshit. Expensive Sun servers crash all the time due to memory and CPU failures. The more CPUs and the more memory, the more chances for failure. These boxes do not have redundant CPUs and memory until you get into absolutely isnane price levels. If you care about reliability, it is better to have truly independent machines, and let the software handle the redundancy. Sure, mirror the storage, because you know hard drives fail, and have redundant network interfaces to protect against a witch failure. But don't forget that a "high availability" E6500 is 22 times more likely to crash than a "workstation class" ultra 1.
After years of displeasure with netscape crashing on me, I was excited when Mozilla 1.0 came out. And it does rarely crash. Mozilla is barely usable under Linux, if you have a fast machine and lots of memory - sometimes it hangs for a while, but it is better than Netscape by far. On Solaris, even on a fast machine (e.g. 8*900mhz CPU V800), Mozilla is painfully slow - it can't even keep up with my typing! I wish there was a web browser that actually worked on Solaris.
A DVD burner costs less than an 11 megapixel camera.
I have indeed seen this. Previously rational people become completely irrational when the issue at hand is "protecting" their own children. It is pretty excessive to believe that preventing your children from seeing naked people is in some way protecting them.
Beautiful as it may be with a single electron, or photon, or whatever. These have almost no mass. When done with buckeyballs, the double-slit experiment acquires an amazing beautyl.
This is not pure mathematics, as it relies on the numbers being represented in a certain base.
What about clusters with distributed data? No shared storage. What software does this?
1,2,3,4,5,6 is a bad bet because if it does come up, there will be many winners, and the jackpot will be divided evenly among the winners. Any obvious combination is a bad choice for that reason.
It's called being so high that you don't realize how much water you are drinking.
I've asked for small and have been told "we don't have small, we have medium, large, and extra large", and honestly get confused looks when I say "then medium is your small size drink?"
It always always surprised me how surprised the staff is anywhere I order in the incorrect size. At one particular coffee chain (no not that one, a smaller copy), I order a "grande" (like the menu says) and they sometimes tell me "sorry, we only have large". Sometimes I order a "large" because of this, and I am told "sorry, we only have grande". They are the exact same size.
It seems that the most effective solution for overall quality of life would be to download her brain into a computer. Storage requirements should be relatively modest - on the order of a few terabytes. The details of the implementation will require some consideration. However this should allow for an indefinate lifespan, and an increased quality of life.
Oh my. I have nearly half a terabyte.
Power, measured in wattage, is the rate at which energy is being used.
However, I believe that a different problem does exist in their statement, a P=IE is only part of what is necessary. I believe that stored power is supposed to be measured in watt hours.
A different problem with their statement? That is the problem which I referred to.
Not true. Floppies are so unreliable, that you have a less than 50% chance of really being able to recover the data.
A very, very big battery. Or, to be more accurate, 10 of them, each weighing as much as a Volkswagen Bug and together able to store up to a million watts of power.
Are we to take this article seriously, or to believe anything it says? If they do not know the difference between power and energy, there is no telling what else in the article may be untrue.
Do they expect that people will enter real data on the mere promise that it will be stored in some randomized, aggregate, or other form that does not invade their privacy? If the coroporation could not be trusted in the first place, no statement they make will make them trustworthy.
Using a program called "mp3ascd" to generate the CDDB ID, and another program called "rebot" to do the renaming based on the ID. (Both found on freshmeat). Not the best software in the world, and I had to make a shell script to glue them together. But it is entirely possible.
You can't see the stars where I live. On a really clear night, you can maybe count 10 stars. TEN. Out of billions! And nine of them are probably just helicopters anyway.
I'm sorry, but down servers just DO happen in the real world. Again sorry, but you are wrong about Solaris. Solaris 8 introduced an option to umount to "force" the umount, but the reality is that it rarely works. The simple fact is that Solaris is extremely poor about unmounting a failed NFS mount - especially if there open files, in which case even killing the process with open files (if it works, sometimes you can't kill -9 it) will not make the OS un-busy the filesystem. Linux (recent kernel versions) actually beats Solaris in this regard (overall both lose equally however). If you had any real EXTENSIVE experience with using NFS on a variety of Unixes, you would not feel that you have a place to question me.
I have never had to reboot a machine to fix an NFS problem, you're doing something wrong dude.
Just because you have your first Unix sysadmin job does not mean that your experience is significant.
What do you propose to do on Solaris when it tells you "umount: filesystem busy", accessing any files on it just hangs, and fuser -c tells you no processes have that filesystem busy?
The automounter does not solve any of the problems I listed. Usually I have such problems when using the automounter - it actually makes them worse, by making it so easy to use (and rely on) an NFS mount.
The strangest thing about the US is that people live in a fantasy world, believing that the government really is protecting their rights, instead of the "rights" of corporations to make a profit. It is illegal to modify your cable modem to increase your bandwidth. It is illegal to modify your cable box, or put anything in line with it, to descramble channels. It is illegal to modify a DVD player to remove the region restrictions. It is illegal to modify a scanner to listen to certain frequencies. It is illegal to modify a semiautomatic firearm to be fully automatic.
Please. This is silly. I use NFS daily also - on an extremely limited basis. No important servers of mine use NFS.
On ALL Unixes, not just Linux, NFS fails catastrophically in the event of a failure. If the server goes down, there is no way to unmount the NFS mount so that it can be mounted off another server (Linux actually wins here, allowing an NFS mount on top of another NFS mount). If the server or the network to it goes down and comes back, sometimes the mount just breaks. There is no facility in Linux for a redundant NFS mount (Solaris supports this, but it is read-only). There is no way to have an NFS mount cleanly fail if the server is down. If a machine has an NFS mount to a server that is permanantly down (or in some (random) cases a server that went down but has come back up), "df" will fail every time, as will "ls -l" in the directory of the mountpoint, or any attempt to change directories under the mountpoint or in any way operate on files in it. And not fail cleanly! They will all hang, forever. (Soft mounts -sometimes- allow you to kill -9 the process that hung).
NFS is terrible and is only used in production environments in an extremely limited capacity. NFS is the only reason I ever have to reboot Unix servers.