Apply apropiate transform function to the sensors data stream, and you could hear 'Lucy in the sky with diamonds' if you would...
Apply appropiate transform function to the data stream on the Slashdot servers, and your comment could be pertinent...
Re:RAID5 is stupid, RAID 10 or no RAID
on
What NAS To Buy?
·
· Score: 1
lol wait, wouldn't a RAID 66 array as you describe it require at least 16 HDDs? Sounds a bit extreme.. I was just wondering if you could just have like say N drives + 4 parity drives (instead of 2 for RAID 6).
Re:RAID5 is stupid, RAID 10 or no RAID
on
What NAS To Buy?
·
· Score: 1
Um, no, try again. RAID-6 is n+2 redundancy, not n+3. RAID-10 is n+2 on a good day but you are really only guaranteed n+1, since if both mirrored disks fail then you are screwed.
So basically not only do you fail at understanding what I wrote but then you say the same thing and don't add anything.
I love the way some people crash their way through moderation.
Re:RAID5 is stupid, RAID 10 or no RAID
on
What NAS To Buy?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Oh yeah good point I forgot that you didn't need to read everything twice for RAID 10. As for RAID 5's write performance there's variations of RAID 5 like RAID-Z that try to address this.
Re:RAID5 is stupid, RAID 10 or no RAID
on
What NAS To Buy?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
With Raid5.. two drives fail and your done
Then go with RAID 6. Takes 3 failures (out of 4!) to lose data. By the way, is there any sort of setup out there with more than 2 parity drives?
Also, if you've got 4 drives in your RAID 10 setup only two drives need to fail for you to be screwed, plus you only get (theoretically) twice the performance of a single drive, as with a RAID 5 setup for the same amount of drives you get 3 times the performance.
Re:NAS: Western Digital MyBook World Edition II
on
What NAS To Buy?
·
· Score: 4, Funny
I've got it set up in RAID 1 mode (mode 5 needs a lot more drives).
According to the WHO, 1.2 million people die from car accidents each year in the entire word (about 670,000 in developed countries and 43,000 in the USA alone), and 50 million are injured (more than there are people in Canada).
Just like the myth of the frog that won't jump out of slowly boiling water, didn't we get too slowly used to the reality of the dangers of driving to realise and conclude that maybe we aren't fit to drive? Why do we still find the risk acceptable? Is it because most of the people who could learn from experience that driving is dangerous cannot drive anymore? Why do we accept so easily to see 43,000 people (14 times 9/11) die every year and not look for a solution for it and get really upset when a hundred of people die from firearm accidents? Why don't we look more actively for a more radical solution that won't reduce casualties by just a very few percents but make us orders of magnitude safer? Can't we see that there's something fundamentally flawed about letting mostly anyone drive a vehicle close to other vehicles at deadly speeds? Why do we seem to worry more about the gases that our cars emit than the lives they take?
And more importantly, where's my fully automated flying car?
Welcome into the English language. Any noun gets turned into a verb, adjective, whatever else that's not a noun, verb or adjective, and it's been like this for a while.
Which raises an important question. Why can't it be like this? Can't the equipment pick up a difference between when we think about running and when we don't? Is it a matter of sensitivity? Or yet something else?
Being a "redneck" is a lifestyle choice and not a biological or geographical designation, just like being an asshole.
*Bzzzp*, wrong. Originally, rednecks are Celts (which is a very "biological" or rather ethnic thing) from Ireland and Scotland who emigrated to the Appalachians and the South of the USA, and are known for being poor and poorly educated. Where's the choice in that? If your parents are rednecks, then you'll be a redneck too. Rednecks are as much a precise group as the Amish are. Now how is it not bigotry to hate them like we do?
Oh wait, we cannot be bigots, we're oh so well educated liberal and libertarians geeks or are oh so much smarter than the rest because we have an interest in technology, science and science-fiction. Now let's laugh at the intellectual inferiority of poor and poorly educated people who fail as human beings for being so ignorant and easy to fool and manipulate!
Well I agree that guns covered by the scope of the 2nd amendment do more good than harm, and I think that's the main point. Anti-gun advocates overlook it and make a point that these guns kill people, but they just tend to over-simplify the whole issue, to the point they don't even make a distinction between legally obtained guns and illegal ones. This being said I wish the government would work harder against the big traffic of guns, although it might be the same kind of battle as the war on drugs.
There's no perfect solution regarding that problem in this very country, we just have to choose pragmatically (and not appeal to emotions and go "Hi evil Mr. Heston, look at this picture of a cute little white girl who died because of a gun!") the lesser of these two evils (well of course that's if we simply it all to a false dichotomy, in reality the way we do things and enforce things in details can make a lot of difference)
Frex, last stats that I recall for Los Angeles, over several years averaged around 12 NON-GANG-RELATED homicides per year (and dropping), and that was ALL NON-GANG homicides, not just those involving a gun. That's for a city with over 3 million people officially, and probably another million illegals, and a daily influx of another two million people going to their daily jobs. Suddenly a mere 12 homicides, of which (statistically) approximately 8 were gun-related, sounds... trivial.
Well that's interesting, but I looked up some figures (which are fairly hard to find by the way) and it seems that gang related homicides make up half of homicides in Los Angeles, so it's more like you'd have about 200 non-gang related murders a year in Los Angeles.
By the way, what's that 0.00011% figure?? Here's what I've got : about 2.5 million deaths a year in the USA, and it's hard to get recent figures for that one but it seems that there's about 9,000 gun homicides a year in the USA (give or take a couple thousands), so that's about 0.36% of all deaths, not 0.00011%... You've got your facts/maths wrong man.
I regularly observe on this site that a "redneck" is stereotypically utterly stupid, and it reminds me of the now universally unacceptable stereotype that black people were dumb. So is "redneck" the new black, in that it has become our new 'generic group of intellectually inferior people' with the advantage of not being deemed racist because "redneck" is conveniently not regarded as a race? Doesn't it make us bigots anyways to pick regularly on this group of people? Am I the only one who feels offended despite not being part of this "redneck" group? Is it a sort of food chain of intelligence in which black <- redneck <- non-redneck American <- European?
Slashdot Mirror
Funny... nobody from North Korea downloaded Firefox 3.
You mean THAT country? Yeah, really, how surprising. Last time I saw them on TV, they hardly had any teeth, let alone electricity.
Hal: I'm afraid I can't do that Dave.
Your geek badge. Now.
17th century England just called, they want their written language back....
lol.. are you French by any chance? (that's unrelated to your comment by the way, just the pun in your name)
The easiest way to win at something is just to declare yourself the winner as soon as you possibly can
And if that doesn't work, just 'adapt' the definition of "winning".
I prefer the Web 3.1 alpha blogs.
I, for one, can't wait for Web 95!
Apply apropiate transform function to the sensors data stream, and you could hear 'Lucy in the sky with diamonds' if you would...
Apply appropiate transform function to the data stream on the Slashdot servers, and your comment could be pertinent...
lol wait, wouldn't a RAID 66 array as you describe it require at least 16 HDDs? Sounds a bit extreme.. I was just wondering if you could just have like say N drives + 4 parity drives (instead of 2 for RAID 6).
Um, no, try again. RAID-6 is n+2 redundancy, not n+3. RAID-10 is n+2 on a good day but you are really only guaranteed n+1, since if both mirrored disks fail then you are screwed.
So basically not only do you fail at understanding what I wrote but then you say the same thing and don't add anything.
I love the way some people crash their way through moderation.
Oh yeah good point I forgot that you didn't need to read everything twice for RAID 10. As for RAID 5's write performance there's variations of RAID 5 like RAID-Z that try to address this.
With Raid5 .. two drives fail and your done
Then go with RAID 6. Takes 3 failures (out of 4!) to lose data. By the way, is there any sort of setup out there with more than 2 parity drives?
Also, if you've got 4 drives in your RAID 10 setup only two drives need to fail for you to be screwed, plus you only get (theoretically) twice the performance of a single drive, as with a RAID 5 setup for the same amount of drives you get 3 times the performance.
I've got it set up in RAID 1 mode (mode 5 needs a lot more drives).
Sure, if by "a lot" you mean 1
Your point please? (I assume there's one, or at least I'm pretending to)
According to the WHO, 1.2 million people die from car accidents each year in the entire word (about 670,000 in developed countries and 43,000 in the USA alone), and 50 million are injured (more than there are people in Canada).
Just like the myth of the frog that won't jump out of slowly boiling water, didn't we get too slowly used to the reality of the dangers of driving to realise and conclude that maybe we aren't fit to drive? Why do we still find the risk acceptable? Is it because most of the people who could learn from experience that driving is dangerous cannot drive anymore? Why do we accept so easily to see 43,000 people (14 times 9/11) die every year and not look for a solution for it and get really upset when a hundred of people die from firearm accidents? Why don't we look more actively for a more radical solution that won't reduce casualties by just a very few percents but make us orders of magnitude safer? Can't we see that there's something fundamentally flawed about letting mostly anyone drive a vehicle close to other vehicles at deadly speeds? Why do we seem to worry more about the gases that our cars emit than the lives they take?
And more importantly, where's my fully automated flying car?
Text is a noun, not a verb.
Welcome into the English language. Any noun gets turned into a verb, adjective, whatever else that's not a noun, verb or adjective, and it's been like this for a while.
Isn't WoW more like Warcraft 4?
No, if WoW was anything like that I would have played it. Do we know if they have any plans to go back to the old Warcraft formula? Cause I loved it!
Doesn't the Blizzard native OS X installer, also discussed here, work on MacIntels?
Oh, great job! Now he won't even have until Diablo III comes out anymore to enjoy what would have been left of his life!
I think you didn't reply to the comment you meant to reply to..
Which raises an important question. Why can't it be like this? Can't the equipment pick up a difference between when we think about running and when we don't? Is it a matter of sensitivity? Or yet something else?
Being a "redneck" is a lifestyle choice and not a biological or geographical designation, just like being an asshole.
*Bzzzp*, wrong. Originally, rednecks are Celts (which is a very "biological" or rather ethnic thing) from Ireland and Scotland who emigrated to the Appalachians and the South of the USA, and are known for being poor and poorly educated. Where's the choice in that? If your parents are rednecks, then you'll be a redneck too. Rednecks are as much a precise group as the Amish are. Now how is it not bigotry to hate them like we do?
Oh wait, we cannot be bigots, we're oh so well educated liberal and libertarians geeks or are oh so much smarter than the rest because we have an interest in technology, science and science-fiction. Now let's laugh at the intellectual inferiority of poor and poorly educated people who fail as human beings for being so ignorant and easy to fool and manipulate!
lol. En effet.
Well I agree that guns covered by the scope of the 2nd amendment do more good than harm, and I think that's the main point. Anti-gun advocates overlook it and make a point that these guns kill people, but they just tend to over-simplify the whole issue, to the point they don't even make a distinction between legally obtained guns and illegal ones. This being said I wish the government would work harder against the big traffic of guns, although it might be the same kind of battle as the war on drugs.
There's no perfect solution regarding that problem in this very country, we just have to choose pragmatically (and not appeal to emotions and go "Hi evil Mr. Heston, look at this picture of a cute little white girl who died because of a gun!") the lesser of these two evils (well of course that's if we simply it all to a false dichotomy, in reality the way we do things and enforce things in details can make a lot of difference)
Frex, last stats that I recall for Los Angeles, over several years averaged around 12 NON-GANG-RELATED homicides per year (and dropping), and that was ALL NON-GANG homicides, not just those involving a gun. That's for a city with over 3 million people officially, and probably another million illegals, and a daily influx of another two million people going to their daily jobs. Suddenly a mere 12 homicides, of which (statistically) approximately 8 were gun-related, sounds... trivial.
Well that's interesting, but I looked up some figures (which are fairly hard to find by the way) and it seems that gang related homicides make up half of homicides in Los Angeles, so it's more like you'd have about 200 non-gang related murders a year in Los Angeles.
By the way, what's that 0.00011% figure?? Here's what I've got : about 2.5 million deaths a year in the USA, and it's hard to get recent figures for that one but it seems that there's about 9,000 gun homicides a year in the USA (give or take a couple thousands), so that's about 0.36% of all deaths, not 0.00011%... You've got your facts/maths wrong man.
I regularly observe on this site that a "redneck" is stereotypically utterly stupid, and it reminds me of the now universally unacceptable stereotype that black people were dumb. So is "redneck" the new black, in that it has become our new 'generic group of intellectually inferior people' with the advantage of not being deemed racist because "redneck" is conveniently not regarded as a race? Doesn't it make us bigots anyways to pick regularly on this group of people? Am I the only one who feels offended despite not being part of this "redneck" group? Is it a sort of food chain of intelligence in which black <- redneck <- non-redneck American <- European?
"Will Charon leave Pluto for a real planet?"
Crap, that's what I should have said instead :-(