USA [as in the company, not the country] has been running NASA ops for about 10 years now per a large contract and having won the bid.
There are currently relatively few 'non-contractor' people working at NASA; the sheer majority are contractors.
Granted, the current NASA/USA arrangement is a shell game of sorts; the government still pays out the USD $12B+ budget and the same people still do it (albeit with checks signed by someone else).
The new proposal, in theory, might see the government moving to reduce payout and let private industry assume the risk and expense?
Running Win98 on an older machine -- that would normally sound ok, except that past a point, MS isn't doing security fixes.
So, even if you're happy with it, it's going to get hacked at some point. That's when life becomes miserable.
Not a slag on Windows, either... same problem exists for older Linux distributions where they're no longer releasing security patches, forcing the users to religiously track every single one of their application and doing the necessary source builds and stuff...
But at least, that's usually an option there. With Windows, can't recompile IE or OE with the latest third party contributed open source patch.:-)
Tape media is dirt cheap and lasts about as long as hard drives. They are, after all, both essentially hermetically sealed boxes of magnetic media.
Difference is, the tape drives are expensive because that's where the guts and expensive logic is.
With HDs, it's self-contained with each drive.
I've got 200 GB LTO-2 tapes -- native capacity; hardware compression pushes that to 400 GB. We get around 450 GB in actual use due to our particular backup data mixture. That's at 70 MB/sec for writes -- so what if it isn't random access? That's still pretty darn fast.
IBM's got 400/800 GB tapes (latest gen 3590's) with the 800 GB/1.6 TB tapes out soon, I think.
The tape media, for that, is about $100 per tape. With 450 GB of data per $100... about 22.2 cents per GB.
I'm seeing about $280 for cheapest 400 and 500 GB drives. That's nearly 3 times the cost of the same tape cartridge, for about the same write performance or a little less.
Drop a HD, can you reasonably expect to lose your data? Seriously.
Drop a tape, can you expect to lose your data?
Which eats more power and puts out more heat? 10 tape drives + 600 tapes sitting there in library slots, or 600 hard drives spinning?
Of course, the down side with tape is that said LTO-2 drive is pretty pricey... goes for between USD $12,000-$19,000 each.
Still, this ain't your dad's old 9 track reel tape of decades ago.:-)
Still a perfectly legitimate option today.
We don't use tapes as sole backup method; we combine on-disk backups (first level backups) because it's fast, and then we *also* backup to tapes as additional insurance.
Granted, tape isn't for everybody. Fair 'nuff. But don't just shudder and dismiss it out of hand.:P
Cool. Does that mean if I'm profoundly deaf and don't speak with my voice at all, I should expect to show up at the airport 4 hours early to have enough time to deal with the searches?:)
The original point of the resource fork was to provide a system wide "poor man's database" so that any arbitrary application or data file could have arbitrary tagged data appended to it without breaking or confusing apps that originally read the file.
The irony of that?:)
Apple published a Technical Note in 1988 saying the Resource Manager was *NOT* [to be used as] a database. Or rather, Apple was asking that it not be used for more full-blown database-type stuff.
Yes, I agree with your comment about the original intention. It may have been later abused in interesting ways, to the point where Apple may have reconsidered the original intention to an extent?
People are forgetting something important about Hubble: it MUST be deorbited safely if there are no funding for continued use or if no interest in fixing it up.
Reason? NASA is required to design safe deorbit mechanisms into everything they deploy, though Hubble might have been grandfathered before this requirement took effect.
Hubble also has no propulsion, so it cannot boost itself into a higher orbit, nor can it deorbit at the precisely right moment to hit a specific targeted area.
So... unless Hubble is somehow deorbited by humans or robotic equipment, or has a servicing mission that adds some sort of propulsion... then Hubble will go down where and when 'nature' decides it should.
It's not easy pinpointing the impact zone with any real certainty if you lose the ability to control when and where an object starts its fiery plunge.
Mir had such an huge potential area of impact because they had lost sufficient control by that point. A number of nations in this potential area took out insurance in the event of impact causing problems. Definitely something of real concern, however remote.
I don't recall the exact odds of an uncontrolled Hubble hitting populated areas, but think it was somewhere in 1:500. Not great odds, and would truly be a public relations disaster for the U.S. government if it does hit populated areas and causes death or damage.
Ultimately, Hubble needs to be safely aimed towards a watery grave if its human creators don't wish to continue to run it. We can't just say 'ok, tired of that thing up there... we'll just stop funding and ignore it from now on. It's gonna come down one way or another.'
Slashdot Mirror
How about the OpenBSD Project? I know, some folks have issues with Theo deRaadt himself -- and I must admit to some mutterings, myself.
But in the realm of technical computing, they've raised the bar higher for everybody. Kudos to them.
http://www.openbsd.org/donations.html
Got any personal favo(u)rites as to which to donate to, for the poor and infirm?
(Having had accidental hyponatremia earlier in the year, I swear it is absolutely not fun at all!)
http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/
USA [as in the company, not the country] has been running NASA ops for about 10 years now per a large contract and having won the bid.
There are currently relatively few 'non-contractor' people working at NASA; the sheer majority are contractors.
Granted, the current NASA/USA arrangement is a shell game of sorts; the government still pays out the USD $12B+ budget and the same people still do it (albeit with checks signed by someone else).
The new proposal, in theory, might see the government moving to reduce payout and let private industry assume the risk and expense?
http://people.freenet.de/
http://scifi.pages.at/
http://home.pages.at/
http://free.pages.at/
http://home.arcor.de/
I do wish they hadn't publicized it... might have scared off the guy or convinced him to really hide identity when registering.
Also some risk that sites around the world might indiscriminately block traffic to/from these sites, rather than specific URLs there. :(
Though, I guess, your point regarding disinfection is well taken. :)
Though, might I gently suggest that if they screw up the order badly once, that may not be a worthy place for future business?
(Sometimes it's just an honest mistake, but you mentioned they badly botched at least two past orders before this one? Hmm...)
Thanks for the warning. Good to know about con artists like them (apparently).
So, even if you're happy with it, it's going to get hacked at some point. That's when life becomes miserable.
Not a slag on Windows, either... same problem exists for older Linux distributions where they're no longer releasing security patches, forcing the users to religiously track every single one of their application and doing the necessary source builds and stuff...
But at least, that's usually an option there. With Windows, can't recompile IE or OE with the latest third party contributed open source patch. :-)
Slight clarification: the $100/tape was for LTO-2, not for the more expensive and faster 3490 tapes. :)
Difference is, the tape drives are expensive because that's where the guts and expensive logic is.
With HDs, it's self-contained with each drive.
I've got 200 GB LTO-2 tapes -- native capacity; hardware compression pushes that to 400 GB. We get around 450 GB in actual use due to our particular backup data mixture. That's at 70 MB/sec for writes -- so what if it isn't random access? That's still pretty darn fast.
IBM's got 400/800 GB tapes (latest gen 3590's) with the 800 GB/1.6 TB tapes out soon, I think.
The tape media, for that, is about $100 per tape. With 450 GB of data per $100... about 22.2 cents per GB.
I'm seeing about $280 for cheapest 400 and 500 GB drives. That's nearly 3 times the cost of the same tape cartridge, for about the same write performance or a little less.
Drop a HD, can you reasonably expect to lose your data? Seriously.
Drop a tape, can you expect to lose your data?
Which eats more power and puts out more heat? 10 tape drives + 600 tapes sitting there in library slots, or 600 hard drives spinning?
Of course, the down side with tape is that said LTO-2 drive is pretty pricey... goes for between USD $12,000-$19,000 each.
Still, this ain't your dad's old 9 track reel tape of decades ago. :-)
Still a perfectly legitimate option today.
We don't use tapes as sole backup method; we combine on-disk backups (first level backups) because it's fast, and then we *also* backup to tapes as additional insurance.
Granted, tape isn't for everybody. Fair 'nuff. But don't just shudder and dismiss it out of hand. :P
Prosecutor Greg "Dr. Evil" Abbott:
"...Two Million Dollars!" *pause for dramatic effect* *laughter in background*
"*ahem*... Two Billion Dollars!" *pause* *more laughter*
"*GRR!* TWO TRILLION DOLLARS!!" *holds up pinky to mouth* *laughter stops*
I mean, think about the 'keyboard rash'...
Cool. Does that mean if I'm profoundly deaf and don't speak with my voice at all, I should expect to show up at the airport 4 hours early to have enough time to deal with the searches? :)
Guess what is pretty popular at Microsoft these days? Yep. The iPod. :-)
There was an article on that a while ago.
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/02/ 1523224&tid=176
The irony of that? :)
Apple published a Technical Note in 1988 saying the Resource Manager was *NOT* [to be used as] a database. Or rather, Apple was asking that it not be used for more full-blown database-type stuff.
http://developer.apple.com/technotes/ov/ov_08.html
Yes, I agree with your comment about the original intention. It may have been later abused in interesting ways, to the point where Apple may have reconsidered the original intention to an extent?
Like this one:
http://www.sun.com/servers/entry/v20z/index.jsp
Just pointing out a possibility. Though, agreed, 'UNIX hardware' in a Windows context doesn't make much sense.
In fact, the EPA actually offered a waiver for NASA/Space Shuttle Program.
You can see a letter from NASA in response to the EPA firmly stating they *need* to continue to use CFCs for the Space Shuttle Program, specifically.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/45329main_hcfc4_001.pdf
Reason? NASA is required to design safe deorbit mechanisms into everything they deploy, though Hubble might have been grandfathered before this requirement took effect.
Hubble also has no propulsion, so it cannot boost itself into a higher orbit, nor can it deorbit at the precisely right moment to hit a specific targeted area.
So... unless Hubble is somehow deorbited by humans or robotic equipment, or has a servicing mission that adds some sort of propulsion... then Hubble will go down where and when 'nature' decides it should.
It's not easy pinpointing the impact zone with any real certainty if you lose the ability to control when and where an object starts its fiery plunge.
Mir had such an huge potential area of impact because they had lost sufficient control by that point. A number of nations in this potential area took out insurance in the event of impact causing problems. Definitely something of real concern, however remote.
I don't recall the exact odds of an uncontrolled Hubble hitting populated areas, but think it was somewhere in 1:500. Not great odds, and would truly be a public relations disaster for the U.S. government if it does hit populated areas and causes death or damage.
Ultimately, Hubble needs to be safely aimed towards a watery grave if its human creators don't wish to continue to run it. We can't just say 'ok, tired of that thing up there... we'll just stop funding and ignore it from now on. It's gonna come down one way or another.'