Try using a Linux machine as a digital audio workstation. I dare you.
I do, actually after I post this I'll be using it to produce a Jazz album that I also recorded on a linux machine (Fedora, ccrma). I think Jack is great to hook up different audio applications and I think the resulting production process is a real step forward from existing digital mixing/mastering processes. Not perfect, sure, but I'm not certain it can be duplicated on Mac's and windows boxen.
I've produced three albums so far under linux and the software has come forwards significantly since I started playing around with it in 2003.
In recording mode - where it matters most - I have a machine that is stable because if there are any problems during the recording the musicians are not likely to be understanding. Usually the machine is set to record over a day or two with 16 channels of input and very little interference. The underlying features that a Linux box offers like LVM's, fast file systems like reiserfs, tunable kernels are a bit of a hassle to set up at first but the result is an exceptionally stable system.
There are shortcomings but I just develop new habits to overcome them. With the money I saved on a mac and protools I have bought some great recording equipment. I plan to start donating to the Ardour and jack projects because that is what they need to improve and make them progress a lot faster.
Without the Alsa project as a foundation I don't think any of the sound projects happening now under linux would have been possible.
I'm probably lost here, but I'm confused why it is bad.
Because the patents that are owned by the oil companies can be used the same way software patents are being used, offensively, to block new innovations (or even old innovations) getting to market.
Why do you think it is unintentional? You don't want to imagine the democrats in bed with big evil corporations?
Not at all, it's a very good point you have made. It's hard to believe anything that pertains to maintaining the power structures of the world is not deliberate anymore.
Considering that the oil companies own a lot of energy technology patents it's quite possible that this is a bad thing because they still control when that technology will be released and use those patents offensively for any one re-inventing a technology that is actually effective.
Unintentionally, this bill could be consolidating the oil companies control of the energy market because viable technologies are not being allowed to make it to market.
You should go after them first - they are the easiest to recover.
Okay, I suppose I'll run the commands and software from Linux. Now I need to see how I can install a third hard disk drive in the PC or I'll have to put up with the slowness of USB.
Thanks.
No problem, get stuck into it - it's a good background task.
an international fund created by donations from private citizens and countries have spent close to 1 billion to help implement safety upgrades by 2000
With over 25 operating reactor installations you are talking less that 40 million per reactor - chump change really, and if it has to fund safety improvements from --==*donations*==-- is the nuclear industry in Russia viable any more. Do you feel re-assured, I certainly don't.
AP1000 operational
Of 34 design changes recommended 25 years ago by an NRC chartered an industry panel. To re-iterate 3 design changes recommended 'make the entire facility underground', 'separate processing facilities', 'relocate the control room'. These are fundamental issues that have to be addressed. For accident mitigation the EPR design is better. Briefly the buildings that service the reactor are split into four (main) operational divisions (and the reactor containment). An accident, failure or maintenance in the other areas can be mitigated by the other divisions. It's planning, and being prepared for, problems.
To save money on construction costs the AP-1000 cuts back on concrete and steel, a lot. The result is a ratio of containment volume to thermal power below that of today's PWRs, thereby increasing the risk of containment over-pressurization and failure in event of a severe accident. They have been designed this way to reduce the expense of building them, as the sheer volume of concrete required to build a reactor containment is one of the highest input costs as well as the third greatest contributor of greenhouse gasses.
The information from the site is a little vague and general but the passive failure mode has been around for a while in the genII stations and considered safe.
I think you have to consider why the information is vague and what safe means. A release of highly toxic elements into the environment as opposed to a core excursion such as Chernobyl or meltdowm seen at TMI. It's not just the reactors, it's the entire industry mining, enrichment, reactors and long term containment. None of it is engineers to deal with the geological time frames of the isotopes contained.
I mean if we *have* to have the fucken things can't they be made not too leak and to last as long as the elements they are tasked to contain.
The fact is that Many of Russia's faulty designed fascility has been closed down or redesigned to incorporation automatic safe fail measures. Also, those features were inherent in the rest of the world facilities since that time.
Do you have a link detailing those Russian reactors changes I can read? Have you considered where that presumption comes from? Automatic fail-safe are one of the design recommendations the nuclear industry made for itself then ignored in the design of the *new* AP-1000. Current reactor facilities have very limited automation, and that's US reactors, forget Russian reactors.
with minor leakage that will dissipate quickly.
They do not dissipate, *ALL* radioactive isotopes bio-accumulate in the food chain, meaning one day someone will eat it. Radioactive isotopes look like nutrients to the body, i.e plutonium looks like iron, strontium-90 looks like calcium, once they are deposited in the body internal organs are exposed to the radiation they emit, alpha, beta, gamma - cancer.
I see your point now but I think it is largely already accounted for.
From the link you submitted (thank's -btw) 1.1. The present publication supersedes the Code on the Safety of Nuclear Power Plants: Design (Safety Series No. 50-C-D (Rev. 1), issued in 1988). This document was published in 2000 and the bulk of it refers to design changes intended for new reactor facilities.
Back in 1997 the trend for Licencee Event Reports and Accident Sequence Precursors was going up. Of the 563 design basis issues for 1997 only 238 were found due to a deliberate effort, the remainder were 'self revealing' and the bulk identified by 'luck'.
All good intentions but an increasing trend of Accident Sequence Pre-Cursors and Licensee Event Reports (reported to the NRC) indicates an event of *any* kind is more *probable* every day especially as the reactors approach the end of their designed lifespan. The cost of safety overshadow the actual implementation, because perception of safety will always be cheaper than concrete and steel. It's analogous to 'Computer security by obscurity'.
If I could guarantee that when X, Y, and Z are followed, no accident on that scale would happen, then would that be in addition to the costs of an incident if it did happen or could the costs of it not happening be considered the costs of it happening.
Well the 900 pound gorilla in the room is the Price Anderson act. I could guarantee that if it *wasn't* in place there would be no Nuclear industry at all. As the act is still in place it simply illustrates that when a professional risk assessment is carried out on a Nuclear plant the Insurance industry won't touch it without a regulatory construct, and if they won't neither will investors. If you want a sincere guarantee and if you are in favor of responsible nuclear advocacy then lobby to have the Price Anderson act repealed.
This design consideration has been designed from the start or has been or is in the process of being retrofitted into almost every nuclear plant.
Well I think you will find 'make the entire facility underground' or 'separate processing facilities' or 'relocate the control room' precludes anything but the most superficial changes to a reactor retro fit. Any meaningful changes to operational safety of a reactor can only occur during the design phase. Once deployed you are pretty much stuck with the design as implemented.
It appears, though, your premise in posting it has two questionable basis:
1) That all the knowledge required to prevent any of those incidents was freely available to humanity before we started experimenting with nuclear power.
2) That people in the nuclear power industry don't learn from these events and design & train against them.
I think you've made some flawed assumptions in your reasoning. Over time the knowledge does not have to be freely available to humanity, it only has to be available to the industries building the nuclear power plants, and it has been for some time.
A Nuclear industry panel comprising Westinghouse, General Electric, Bechtel, Sargent & Lundy, Northern States Power and Commonwealth Edison compiled design recommendations specifically targeted at reducing the opportunities to sabotage a nuclear reactor installation and improve the operational safety of the reactors. The reactor design proposed as 'standardised for deployment', the AP-1000, incorporates none of the design changes the industry *itself* recommends be applied to reactor facility design. AP-1000 is a rehash of the Standard Westinghouse Nuclear Utility Power Plant (SNUPPs) examples of which are installed at Wolf Creek and Callaway, you will note in the picture the uncanny resemblence to the AP-1000 design (and similar capacity).
The acquisition of knowledge isn't 'free'- sorry, no one is smart enough to foresee everything. Once the knowledge is acquired, however, it spreads rapidly throughout the industry.
The reality of the situation is that existing design changes (reducing valves, gravity fed cooling water) have been made for economic reasons, not to engineer the reactor installations so they are hardened, if anything they are more vulnerable to attack. As technological improvements in reactor design cannot be implemented once they are deployed, application of new knowledge is actually slow, because it only takes place when the reactors are built. The new designs do not take the opportunity to implement design improvements that the industry *itself* recommended on the behest of the NRC. It's not best of breed, it's the whelp of the pack, the solid engineering improvements have not be put into the design. The only knowledge that was spread was 'how do we build a cheaper reactor' not 'how do we build a safer reactor'.
You and others have said to use dd to image the old drive then use the image. Does dd or df format disks or require them to be formated?
No, it reads a stream of 'raw' characters and it doesn't matter what media is being read.
so perhaps I can use my Mac to work on the drive
was the drive originally from a Mac?, even so Linux is the way to go as it has support for all the filesystem types in kernel and the distribution should also have filesystem tools like reiser.fsck. Is it from a linux distribution this hard drive?
Oh, I see you suggest not to use USB but to install it internally.
yeah, it will take days to read 500Gb via usb - just don't bother.
Unfortunately I'll probably have a problem with the next part
That's as far as filesystem recovery goes. It depends on the way the crash happened but if you are lucky enough to pick up the top level directory inodes then you *may* (on a good day, with the winds blowing in the right direction, proper offering to the gods done and a bit of luck) be able to recover the filesystem structure such as
as an example. Which is why you want to have all the right tools available from the get go and no resistance from the OS. It's crap doing this sort of thing but I totally empathise with you. Stick with the routine and you should be ok, just get ready for a lot of repetitive stuff.
That will make things interesting indeed. From memory reiserfs has back-up superblocks and it might be possible to replay the journal to recover the filesystem. If it's been initialised with another reiserfs journal may have been erased and only the backup superblock remains. What that means is the chance of recovery from the filesystem as a damaged item is decreased and you *may* have to fall back on recovery tools. Regardless the first steps will be the same, set them up to run overnight.
I now have 2 1.5 TB drives, an internal one I'll use to replace the older drive and an external drive for backups.
Whatever you do do not perform any write operations to the target (damaged, older) disk. The disk must remain as close to it's damaged state to increase the chances of recovery. Even mounting the disk now with a new filesystem is not desirable as it will update the superblocks on the disk. Conversely though, that it is formatted with the *same* filesystem means that the data areas are unlikely to be affected in it's basic initialised state.
Have your destination drive ready in the chassis. It should be formatted, mounted etc etc so that you can write files to it. There are two schools of thought here, write the damaged drive out as a file (my choice) or as a partition. Go for the file option, it will be simpler for the time being. You will need to use the mount or df command to establish which *device* are present, say as root do
df -ah > normalDrives
- checking the file it produces (nomalDrives) will tell you which devices (/dev/sd??) are mounted. You need to know this so you can *exclude* those drives when you dump the data, even so putting in another sata drive may change the *order* of the drives in the system so you should have enough information to establish which device you target drive is.
ls -l/dev/sd* > normalDriveListing
is your friend. shutdown your system.
Put the target drive (sata, I'm guessing) on an internal interface for speed - usb will be too slow and may try to auto mount the fs on the drive. Restart the machine.
As root check the above two commands against the results now, there is no guarantee that the devices will be the same so use the files generated earlier to compare what you have now. the device that is not mounted is you candidate, you can also check by using fdisk to check the sizer of the partition table, while you are at it check the partion type - if it's Linux LVM you may have other options, if it's Linux keep going - check the fdisk options for partition type.
DD? Does it clone drives or what? Guess I'll look into it.
data destroyer, data deliverer or damn dangerous, dd is all these things - http://linux.die.net/man/1/dd. You are concerned with two options 'if=' and 'of=' for now. Basically you want to do this from a root shell
insert appropriate replacement parameters. The trick for you is you don't know if the target partition is the same size as it was before (ie/dev/sdc for the whole disk or/dev/sdc1 for the first partition), take a chance that it is and 'data dump' partition 1, you can always go back and start again by reading from the drive as you know this drive does not have some looming hardware failure threatening it.
Go to bed and check it in the morning - depending on when you start it it may not even be finished by morning 8 or more hours is not unreasonable. if you like you can send dd a kill USR1 dd's_pid to get it to dump it progress.
Actually, it's by far the most dangerous. It is completely unshielded, and its ionizing radiation is responsible for thousands of cancer deaths each year.
ummmm, I'm sure the magnetosphere shields us from the suns radiation.
We definitely do not have the technology to accomplish or even begin that goal. We'd need a multi-generational ship, capable of growing food without sunlight. It would need to survive longer than any culture or nation has by far.
And how much do you think it will cost to invest in the technologies for us to get to that point.
You have completely missed his point, which is spot on.
Slashdot Mirror
I do, actually after I post this I'll be using it to produce a Jazz album that I also recorded on a linux machine (Fedora, ccrma). I think Jack is great to hook up different audio applications and I think the resulting production process is a real step forward from existing digital mixing/mastering processes. Not perfect, sure, but I'm not certain it can be duplicated on Mac's and windows boxen.
I've produced three albums so far under linux and the software has come forwards significantly since I started playing around with it in 2003.
In recording mode - where it matters most - I have a machine that is stable because if there are any problems during the recording the musicians are not likely to be understanding. Usually the machine is set to record over a day or two with 16 channels of input and very little interference. The underlying features that a Linux box offers like LVM's, fast file systems like reiserfs, tunable kernels are a bit of a hassle to set up at first but the result is an exceptionally stable system.
There are shortcomings but I just develop new habits to overcome them. With the money I saved on a mac and protools I have bought some great recording equipment. I plan to start donating to the Ardour and jack projects because that is what they need to improve and make them progress a lot faster.
Without the Alsa project as a foundation I don't think any of the sound projects happening now under linux would have been possible.
Because the patents that are owned by the oil companies can be used the same way software patents are being used, offensively, to block new innovations (or even old innovations) getting to market.
Not at all, it's a very good point you have made. It's hard to believe anything that pertains to maintaining the power structures of the world is not deliberate anymore.
Considering that the oil companies own a lot of energy technology patents it's quite possible that this is a bad thing because they still control when that technology will be released and use those patents offensively for any one re-inventing a technology that is actually effective.
Unintentionally, this bill could be consolidating the oil companies control of the energy market because viable technologies are not being allowed to make it to market.
You should go after them first - they are the easiest to recover.
No problem, get stuck into it - it's a good background task.
With over 25 operating reactor installations you are talking less that 40 million per reactor - chump change really, and if it has to fund safety improvements from --==*donations*==-- is the nuclear industry in Russia viable any more. Do you feel re-assured, I certainly don't.
Of 34 design changes recommended 25 years ago by an NRC chartered an industry panel. To re-iterate 3 design changes recommended 'make the entire facility underground', 'separate processing facilities', 'relocate the control room'. These are fundamental issues that have to be addressed. For accident mitigation the EPR design is better. Briefly the buildings that service the reactor are split into four (main) operational divisions (and the reactor containment). An accident, failure or maintenance in the other areas can be mitigated by the other divisions. It's planning, and being prepared for, problems.
To save money on construction costs the AP-1000 cuts back on concrete and steel, a lot. The result is a ratio of containment volume to thermal power below that of today's PWRs, thereby increasing the risk of containment over-pressurization and failure in event of a severe accident. They have been designed this way to reduce the expense of building them, as the sheer volume of concrete required to build a reactor containment is one of the highest input costs as well as the third greatest contributor of greenhouse gasses.
I think you have to consider why the information is vague and what safe means. A release of highly toxic elements into the environment as opposed to a core excursion such as Chernobyl or meltdowm seen at TMI. It's not just the reactors, it's the entire industry mining, enrichment, reactors and long term containment. None of it is engineers to deal with the geological time frames of the isotopes contained.
I mean if we *have* to have the fucken things can't they be made not too leak and to last as long as the elements they are tasked to contain.
Do you have a link detailing those Russian reactors changes I can read? Have you considered where that presumption comes from? Automatic fail-safe are one of the design recommendations the nuclear industry made for itself then ignored in the design of the *new* AP-1000. Current reactor facilities have very limited automation, and that's US reactors, forget Russian reactors.
They do not dissipate, *ALL* radioactive isotopes bio-accumulate in the food chain, meaning one day someone will eat it. Radioactive isotopes look like nutrients to the body, i.e plutonium looks like iron, strontium-90 looks like calcium, once they are deposited in the body internal organs are exposed to the radiation they emit, alpha, beta, gamma - cancer.
From the link you submitted (thank's -btw) 1.1. The present publication supersedes the Code on the Safety of Nuclear Power Plants: Design (Safety Series No. 50-C-D (Rev. 1), issued in 1988). This document was published in 2000 and the bulk of it refers to design changes intended for new reactor facilities.
Back in 1997 the trend for Licencee Event Reports and Accident Sequence Precursors was going up. Of the 563 design basis issues for 1997 only 238 were found due to a deliberate effort, the remainder were 'self revealing' and the bulk identified by 'luck'.
All good intentions but an increasing trend of Accident Sequence Pre-Cursors and Licensee Event Reports (reported to the NRC) indicates an event of *any* kind is more *probable* every day especially as the reactors approach the end of their designed lifespan. The cost of safety overshadow the actual implementation, because perception of safety will always be cheaper than concrete and steel. It's analogous to 'Computer security by obscurity'.
Well the 900 pound gorilla in the room is the Price Anderson act. I could guarantee that if it *wasn't* in place there would be no Nuclear industry at all. As the act is still in place it simply illustrates that when a professional risk assessment is carried out on a Nuclear plant the Insurance industry won't touch it without a regulatory construct, and if they won't neither will investors. If you want a sincere guarantee and if you are in favor of responsible nuclear advocacy then lobby to have the Price Anderson act repealed.
Well I think you will find 'make the entire facility underground' or 'separate processing facilities' or 'relocate the control room' precludes anything but the most superficial changes to a reactor retro fit. Any meaningful changes to operational safety of a reactor can only occur during the design phase. Once deployed you are pretty much stuck with the design as implemented.
I think you've made some flawed assumptions in your reasoning. Over time the knowledge does not have to be freely available to humanity, it only has to be available to the industries building the nuclear power plants, and it has been for some time.
A Nuclear industry panel comprising Westinghouse, General Electric, Bechtel, Sargent & Lundy, Northern States Power and Commonwealth Edison compiled design recommendations specifically targeted at reducing the opportunities to sabotage a nuclear reactor installation and improve the operational safety of the reactors. The reactor design proposed as 'standardised for deployment', the AP-1000, incorporates none of the design changes the industry *itself* recommends be applied to reactor facility design. AP-1000 is a rehash of the Standard Westinghouse Nuclear Utility Power Plant (SNUPPs) examples of which are installed at Wolf Creek and Callaway, you will note in the picture the uncanny resemblence to the AP-1000 design (and similar capacity).
The reality of the situation is that existing design changes (reducing valves, gravity fed cooling water) have been made for economic reasons, not to engineer the reactor installations so they are hardened, if anything they are more vulnerable to attack. As technological improvements in reactor design cannot be implemented once they are deployed, application of new knowledge is actually slow, because it only takes place when the reactors are built. The new designs do not take the opportunity to implement design improvements that the industry *itself* recommended on the behest of the NRC. It's not best of breed, it's the whelp of the pack, the solid engineering improvements have not be put into the design. The only knowledge that was spread was 'how do we build a cheaper reactor' not 'how do we build a safer reactor'.
I know it's a bit trolloish bit I'm pissed ans I',m ust saying.
Which, fortunately, beat Xemunium. Those whacky scientist-o-logists!
No, it reads a stream of 'raw' characters and it doesn't matter what media is being read.
was the drive originally from a Mac?, even so Linux is the way to go as it has support for all the filesystem types in kernel and the distribution should also have filesystem tools like reiser.fsck. Is it from a linux distribution this hard drive?
yeah, it will take days to read 500Gb via usb - just don't bother.
That's as far as filesystem recovery goes. It depends on the way the crash happened but if you are lucky enough to pick up the top level directory inodes then you *may* (on a good day, with the winds blowing in the right direction, proper offering to the gods done and a bit of luck) be able to recover the filesystem structure such as
as an example. Which is why you want to have all the right tools available from the get go and no resistance from the OS. It's crap doing this sort of thing but I totally empathise with you. Stick with the routine and you should be ok, just get ready for a lot of repetitive stuff.
Did you get sideways looks every time you went to have a meal and everything looked ok?
interesting
That will make things interesting indeed. From memory reiserfs has back-up superblocks and it might be possible to replay the journal to recover the filesystem. If it's been initialised with another reiserfs journal may have been erased and only the backup superblock remains. What that means is the chance of recovery from the filesystem as a damaged item is decreased and you *may* have to fall back on recovery tools. Regardless the first steps will be the same, set them up to run overnight.
Whatever you do do not perform any write operations to the target (damaged, older) disk. The disk must remain as close to it's damaged state to increase the chances of recovery. Even mounting the disk now with a new filesystem is not desirable as it will update the superblocks on the disk. Conversely though, that it is formatted with the *same* filesystem means that the data areas are unlikely to be affected in it's basic initialised state.
Have your destination drive ready in the chassis. It should be formatted, mounted etc etc so that you can write files to it. There are two schools of thought here, write the damaged drive out as a file (my choice) or as a partition. Go for the file option, it will be simpler for the time being. You will need to use the mount or df command to establish which *device* are present, say as root do
- checking the file it produces (nomalDrives) will tell you which devices (/dev/sd??) are mounted. You need to know this so you can *exclude* those drives when you dump the data, even so putting in another sata drive may change the *order* of the drives in the system so you should have enough information to establish which device you target drive is.
is your friend. shutdown your system.
Put the target drive (sata, I'm guessing) on an internal interface for speed - usb will be too slow and may try to auto mount the fs on the drive. Restart the machine.
As root check the above two commands against the results now, there is no guarantee that the devices will be the same so use the files generated earlier to compare what you have now. the device that is not mounted is you candidate, you can also check by using fdisk to check the sizer of the partition table, while you are at it check the partion type - if it's Linux LVM you may have other options, if it's Linux keep going - check the fdisk options for partition type.
data destroyer, data deliverer or damn dangerous, dd is all these things - http://linux.die.net/man/1/dd. You are concerned with two options 'if=' and 'of=' for now. Basically you want to do this from a root shell
insert appropriate replacement parameters. The trick for you is you don't know if the target partition is the same size as it was before (ie /dev/sdc for the whole disk or /dev/sdc1 for the first partition), take a chance that it is and 'data dump' partition 1, you can always go back and start again by reading from the drive as you know this drive does not have some looming hardware failure threatening it.
Go to bed and check it in the morning - depending on when you start it it may not even be finished by morning 8 or more hours is not unreasonable. if you like you can send dd a kill USR1 dd's_pid to get it to dump it progress.
Welcome to data forensics 101.
google returned these three first:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_antitrust_case http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.htmlSo I compared that to Yahoo:
http://www.microsoft-antitrust.gov/ http://www.zdnet.com.au/tag/anti_trust-eu-microsoft.htm http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/0,2000061744,39202361,00.htmBing returned these three first:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legalnews.mspx http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/legal_newsroomarchive.mspx?case=Government%20Anti-Trust%20Case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_antitrust_caseIf you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. - Joseph Goebbels
I've gotta get my vitamin D from somewhere.
ummmm, I'm sure the magnetosphere shields us from the suns radiation.
Precisely, will power spent on maintaining the status quo. Excellent post!
And how much do you think it will cost to invest in the technologies for us to get to that point.
You have completely missed his point, which is spot on.
Maybe the aliens want to eat us?
Window's install disc, $150. iMac, $1500. The Gospel of Tux (v1.0), $Priceless.
Solar Power, it's the safest form of nuclear power.
So? You fight like a farmer. ;-)
Freed software, it's Free!