Microsoft's approach involves selling software and client retention. That's not even something I could call evil in the same terms that google seems to be claiming.
Indeed. Just because Microsoft's past behaviour was universally considered unethical (when it wasn't ruled illegal) does mean we should be using terms like evil.
You want free? You lose functionality. That seems perfectly reasonable.
Well, that's certainly a better-phrased bullet point than the one that reads "License agreements, upgrade treadmills and vendor lock-in offer a Genuine Advantage to our customers".
You are correct. Fortunately though, for those fond of the term "evil", Microsoft's current and recent behavior fits the same categories that earned them that title years back. Ya know... EU cases and all, failing to release any accurate/real docs for their new open document format, and on and on...
Sadly, it may be implied. Microsoft used to use similar language on their online services to spell out that they could and would sell what information collected from you to their "business partners" - namely anyone who wanted to buy the information to use for advertising.
Whether such a meaning IS implied in Google's ToS, I dont know. But if it is, it would be in the section I have bolded below.
7.1 Obligations. Each party will: (a) protect the other party’s Confidential Information with the same standard of care it uses to protect its own Confidential Information; and (b) not disclose the Confidential Information, except to affiliates, employees and agents who need to know it and who have agreed in writing to keep it confidential. Each party (and any affiliates, employees and agents to whom it has disclosed Confidential Information) may use Confidential Information only to exercise rights and fulfill obligations under this Agreement, while using reasonable care to protect it. Each party is responsible for any actions of its affiliates, employees and agents in violation of this Section....
8.1 Intellectual Property Rights. Except as expressly set forth herein, this Agreement does not grant either party any rights, implied or otherwise, to the other’s content or any of the other’s intellectual property. As between the parties, Customer owns all Intellectual Property Rights in Customer Data, and Google owns all Intellectual Property Rights in the Services.
Where are you getting this information of yours?
Now... I tend to agree with you because Google adds this part: "and who have agreed in writing to keep it confidential"
Copying the footage to a backup drive (due to fragmentation when the files were originally written) took almost a day.
I'm curious as to how you isolated the problem to fragmentation.
Throughput, fragmentation analysis, read/seek overhead. A variety of other methods, which would indicate that the process was being slowed considerably due to fragmentation. Defragging a few and then trying to copy them resulted in much shorter transfer times. Having a file with many fragments does indeed slow things down...
There are analysis tools for this stuff too you know...
If memory serves, Google stopped directly selling HTC's phone that was designed to work on T-Mobile, and is letting the carriers themselves sell it directly. Google is not a hardware manufacturer.
Of course, I am getting old... so maybe it's my senility setting in and my recollection is incorrect.:-)
True - it is the file system, not the OS that determines it. HPFS, while not immune to fragmentation, will often run for years with under 5% fragmentation (my main server is on 3 years, 11 months). But it too has it's limitations - such as a 2GB for file size limit and a small (nowadays) partition size limit of 64GB. Hence, I use JFS (ext3 isnt as stable as I would like for WSeB yet). Thus, HPFS is not suited for this stuff. And while ext3 is better than NTFS for such, would you recommend it for a Windows machine as I suspect many have?
Solution? None. Just add more drives. "Sequential" reads are now at 15M/sec if you balance the load over the raid1 array, it isn't too bad, but if it was an issue I'd take NTFS with its safe and secure online defragmentation API over Linux anytime.
That is always my perfect solution (adding more drives and RAID 1 it) - but it does not fit the "cheap" requirement of the original poster (or mine either for that matter).
And though NTFS may have tested, proven, reliable defrag tools... they can take forever in the scenario of the original post (lots of video files, lots of massive RAW video). As someone who works on such files (dunno if this applies to the original poster), I know I cannot devote a few days to defragging because the machine is always doing something (transcoding day and night, editing, etc) - and I really dont have that type of "downtime" to allocate to the machine.
Windows NTFS (any version) and to a lesser extent, JFS... with many of the other options fitting between those two and HPFS (virtually no fragmentation).
This is why defragmentation software exists.
Also, while I tend to disagree with drsmithy on many issues on varying topics, I absolutely agree with him on this issue.
Actually, you partially agreed with him and partially agreed with me. You agreed with me that NTFS will indeed fragment the files. You agreed with him that it doesnt matter. Just to clear that up.:-)
Unless one is working with an enterprise-level storage system that HAS to have fast data access
Wrong. Take it from someone with experience in this area. When you are working with massive raw video files, speed, access times and fragmentation are a big issue. I do this sorta thing all the time, and believe me, it (fragmentation and drive speed) makes a big issue when you are trying to retrieve, watch and/or edit a 1080P RAW video file.
In most other scenarios, yes, you and drsmithy (who I usually agree with as well) are indeed correct.
But the point is, for the specific scenario this topic is about, fragmentation and drive speed are indeed an issue. Offsetting fragmentation with drive speed, while not ideal, is very helpful. Offsetting drive speed with defragging would also work... but that can be a process that takes DAYS. I know. When I was working on the RAW footage for "Star Trek Phase 2 Kitumba" it took that long. Copying the footage to a backup drive (due to fragmentation when the files were originally written) took almost a day. On a high end dual core Opteron with 7200rpm drives. I suspect (ie: know) that using a slower drive would have made the process take even longer.
As you probably know, defragging takes so long in this scenario because a lot of large files need to be moved, re-moved and moved again in chunks to free up space to make them contiguous - or multiple defrag runs depending on how "intelligent" the defragger is (unless of course the drive has lots of free space). Considering the person who asked the question is looking for more drive space, I suspect it is because s/he does not have lots of free drive space.
So, yes, under the normal conditions most users encounter, drsmithy is indeed correct (as he usually is)... but under the specific conditions and usage requirements of the original poster, it's a totally different situation.
You see, even your experiences aside, the part you missed was this:
"and I also produce a lot of raw uncompressed video" - something I have loads of experience with. 1080P h264 video - wonderful!!! RAW 1080P video on the other hand can be a HUNDRED times the size. As an example, Kitumba takes up 3 TERABYTES of space in RAW format - instead of 30GB or so of space in high quality h.264 format.
So... I simply think you both simply missed that point in the original post.
Certain file systems, even with tons of free space, will fragment files that are in the low megabyte range.
[citation needed]
I suspect fragmentation gets even worse on the large files the OP is asking about.
Sadly, that is speculation on your part.
Windows NTFS (any version) and to a lesser extent, JFS... with many of the other options fitting between those two and HPFS (virtually no fragmentation).
Heck, on a new Windows install, with one file being written at a time by the installer, on a massive disk, some of them manage to get fragmented anyway.
I do video work (Star Trek Phase 2), and have watched fragmentation issues on both my Windows NTFS box and OS/2 JFS boxes (while finding nothing worth defragging on the OS/2 HPFS/HPFS386 partitions - which is simply "working as designed").
While that is gorgeous, if he's maxed out his boxes at ten 3TB drives each already, replacing his current setup doesnt gain him much (7TB) and costs an extra $3000 over the cost of two file servers and 20 3TB drives.
Supplementing his current setup that way would also be more expensive. It would be about $4800 to add two more machines as file servers and dump ten more drives in them each - saves roughly $3000 while only being 7TB less space.
Dont get me wrong... if I had the money, I'd go the route you suggest. Far nicer looking and far more elegant.
Check again: you're almost certainly comparing 1TB 7200RPM drives to 2TB 5900RPM drives. And Hitachi drives don't count, being the cheap pieces of garbage they are.
When it's going to be used by only a handful of people, nearly always in a sequential access pattern, on the other end of a 1GbE link, why would you want hotter, noisier, 7200rpm drives ?
Because sadly, that is probably speculative on your part. Certain file systems, even with tons of free space, will fragment files that are in the low megabyte range. I suspect fragmentation gets even worse on the large files the OP is asking about.
I don't particularly find Facebook's stance and practices on privacy anymore troubling that societies general attitude toward to the subject.
If by society, you mean governments, then yes, you are correct. But that doesnt mean that it's a good thing. What you posted is like saying "I dont find that murderer any worse than this murderer over here"
Don't let the "regular" laptop keyboard look fool you, it's even better than the keyboard on my Toshiba, as well as my girlfriend's modern Lenovo laptop. The keys have a buttery softness to them, a firm response, and they're quiet.
Oh baby... wait, are we still talking about the keyboards here?
Interestingly, it is mostly (or entirely) a laptop keyboard. The IBM Thinkpad keyboards were simply a lot better than the Toshiba (or other) keyboards. Some notable exceptions in the non-Mac world were various of the older Dell keyboards - but I dont count those, since they were manufactured by IBM/Lenovo (or their manufacturing companies) for Dell (including, on many, the Trackpoint).
The model I have is definitely a laptop keyboard (Model SK-8845). The difference is, the IBM laptop keyboards had multiple screw-down points along the back and side edges. It was not uncommon to find an IBM laptop keyboard (like the ones in the Thinkpad 600 series) that used ELEVEN or MORE screws on top and bottom edges, and across the middle (instead of the customary 2 or 4 on the top edge) to hold the keyboard rigid to the laptop (or in this case to the keyboard casing), and was made of thicker metal, with curved-upward edges to help prevent flex.
The Thinkpad keyboards were never exactly "regular" laptop keyboards though - like the reviewer said.:-)
On an IBM^H^H^H^H Lenovo laptop, it's a TrackPoint. Much more convenient than the lame touchpads most computers have (with the possible exception of Apple) and can give you much finer control. And you don't need to move your hands from the typing position at all, so it's even more convenient than an external mouse for quick tasks.
The one downside is that it will start to chafe your fingertip if you use it for hours and hours and hours on end.
Nah, not really. IBM/Lenovo usually shipped them with at least two different types of trackpoint caps... the original cats tongue and a domed, wider, more rubbery one with little raised grippy dots on it. And there are about 3 more aftermarket styles to choose from as well (commonly found on eBay).
I prefer the cats tongue ones myself, but they wear down a lot quicker than the others. But new out of the box, they seem the most responsive. Once old, the "grippy-dot" ones become the best - and the cats tongue ones start to slide under your fingertip, which may be the cause of the "chafing" you are noting. I thoroughly hate the concave aftermarket ones and find them near unusable. Some of the convex aftermarket ones (that are different than the two original options) are ok - but not as good as the two original designs. At least in my opinion.
I'm a proud owner of one of the IBM ThinkPad TrackPoint keyboards (which btw, also came with a neat carrying case (leather or pleather or something), and multiple IBM M13 Trackpoint keyboards in black and beige (which are IBM Model M keybeasts... err, keyboards... with trackpoints).
For those looking, the IBM Thinkpad TrackPoint keyboard reviewed in the article comes in two "styles" I remember. Mine is a Model SK-8845 (the BETTER model). The difference between the two are one (mine) is not Thinkpad branded (simply IBM branded), the other is Thinkpad branded. The SK-8845 model comes with a USB hub and two USB ports, uses only one USB connection to your computer, and has dual height adjust legs (2 legs on each side - a short set, and a taller set), and a cut-out compartment to tuck the cable into when travelling with it (no tie-wraps or rubber bands needed). There's also a slight difference in key layout. The insert/home/del/end/pgup/pgdn key row and the escape key on the model I have is actually normal.
AND the other major difference (which I hate) about the model I have, is that it also comes with a touchpad, and two additional (Right/Left) mouse buttons below the touchpad. With the IBM/Lenovo drivers, one can select "use both" or "use Trackpoint" or "use touchpad" - without, both are enabled. Followed by one other big difference... there is no mic control/microphone in the model I have.
Regardless, if you are looking for one, I'd recommend the model I have.
It's quite simple, really: they multiply the MSRP times (1 plus the drag coefficient of the box) with the population of the US, give or take a few million times some number they yank out of their behinds (don't ask me how, you don't want to know).
LoL! Someone else already provided the link to Goatse.cx sadly.
...you realise the world is bigger than the USA right? Most countries, like the one I'm in, software costs 30-100+% more than it does there, even if we legally download the software from the same location as you do.
Oh, I do realize that... and in others, it costs less than it does here. Certain other countries have even been offered that cheaper incentive pricing to help combat piracy - and/or free to very cheap "get legit" pricing for those running pirated software. So yes... I considered MANY other countries, while you are simply using your own as an example.
Sorry, I was making the assumption that the Business Software Alliance wasn't looking at "home" or "student" versions of software, and using the MS pricing as I remembered it the last time I looked (Vista).
And yes, I still think that even an average of $300 is FAR too low. I suspect if you run the average up where I suspect it is, the number of copies of "stolen" software, while still probably too high, would be in the low 10s of millions - a number that I find believable on a global scale. Maybe I'm wrong, if so, fine. It's not worth arguing about.
No... no sense in arguing... but my premise was on Microsoft claiming the lions share of being affected by such "theft" - and for things like Windows and office on home computers. I didnt spell it out very well in my first post... sorry.
unless they can come up with another (erroneous) theory claiming that videotaping such an electrical effect and watching the video later causes the same effect as experiencing it.
What the fuck. How can you expect to be taken seriously about science at all when calling a theory "erroneous" that DOESN'T EXIST YET.
I just came up with the theory a little earlier (to save them the work) so they can use it to explain their previous erroneous theory.;-)
I am very curious how they come up with these figures though. At an average of $100 a piece of software, that's 510 million pirated copies a year. At $200 avg, it's 255 million copies... and so on. Wow... didnt realize it was such a serious issue..
Simple. Here's how:
This post is copyright (c) Elijah W Ryel, LLC.
It is available for the price of $51B.
By downloading this post you agree to pay the full licensing price.
Presto! Now copyright infringement of properties owned by Elijah W Ryel, LLC exceeds that of the worldwide software industry by a couple of orders of magnitude.
Only a financial genius of my caliber is capable of keeping a company afloat despite such massive theft. This is just between you and me, but yesterday Bernie Madoff offered to acquire my company for $500B in recognition of just how incredibly resilient and successful this company has become. I plan on holding out for $1T because that's what any financial genius would do.
After reading the title only, I was wondering why the Boy Scouts of America were suddenly an authority on software theft.
Somehow I think they Boy Scouts of America (or virtually anyone else for that matter) would have managed to come up with a more realistic figure than the Bull Shit Alliance pulled from their holes.
What's your source on that? I've never heard of any such videos.
Surely you have heard of Google and YouTube... search for "ball lightning video" and you will find bunches. I suspect with some digging, you will find some that were shown on various science/weather shows on TV as well.
The article authors seem to have overlooked the video evidence - unless they can come up with another (erroneous) theory claiming that videotaping such an electrical effect and watching the video later causes the same effect as experiencing it.
I think your average price for a piece of software is FAR too low.
Windows: $299+ (retail, not upgrade)
Photoshop: $600+ (retail, not upgrade)
MSOffice: $300+ depending on professional/small business/enterprise
AutoCAD: $3000+
Oracle: $$$$$$$ Based on their site review ("how much does it look like your company can afford")
Hmmm... Windows 7 Ultimate Full Retail is only $285, Home Premium Full Retail is $185, and only $99 for Home Premium OEM (which anyone can install same as any other copy) (newegg.com)
Your MS Office prices are also equally as skewed, as it starts at $119 for MS Office (Home and Student) and $235 for Business. All full retail copies.
You missed the:
"At $200 avg, it's 255 million copies... and so on."
At an average of $300 it's 170 million copies - and so on.
Especially because per Microsoft's figures (if 2009's are anything like last years) a very large portion (over 60% I think) of the piracy is for Windows and Office. You can find those claims here on slashdot and elsewhere... what you would need to do is look at the BSA figures for 2008, and compare them to Microsoft's figures for 2008 to come up with the percentage.
Well I completely shave, as does my wife, so I guess I'm a little weird then. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever been with a woman that hasn't been completely shaved. Also I'm sure it's fairly common amongst other gay guys, too.
So, you're admitting you're gay? Am I correct in concluding that you're the pitcher and your "wife" is the catcher =P?
Besides the fact (and more importantly) that he did not put the word "other" in his sentence, who cares?
when I stuck my tongue out when it rained, I didn't taste any salt at all,
If I was choosing my nick again I would be the RTFT-TROLL (yes; that loud)
Here it is; the article title again, but this time a bit marked up for those of you so bloody stupid you can't see it.
First when I joined this site, it was read the summary, then it's read the article... now it's read the title too? Screw this, I'm leaving this site. I was more than content to just pick a word or three (changing a few) to base my wild speculation on (such as "Gates Salt(ing) Clouds")
When I joined this site, all you could read was "First Post!", posts about some petrified chick with grits, and rants by open-source cavemen.
Software industry has lowest per unit cost/fixed cost ratio in the world...
Even if you count the 90-day tech support contract that comes with a legit copy of a program?
Which support is that? All OEM copies of Windows are (tech) supported by the hardware manufacturer - not Microsoft. Same with OEM Office provided by hardware manufacturers if memory serves. If it comes pre-installed, Microsoft doesnt support it.
While that may be different (and likely is) for other software vendors, I am sure (based on other statements by Microsoft) that a large chunk of the figure cited pertains to Windows and Office installs. Regardless, in those arenas, the costs are probably similar. You buy a retail copy, you pay more and Microsoft supports it. You buy a computer with Windows, then the hardware manufacturer supports it, but Microsoft takes in less because they charge the hardware OEM less.
The IT world says "security issues in Windows requiring IT or Tech work exceeds "Theft" figure many times over".
...nope, I am not complaining... I work in the tech field... as much as I would love to hate Microsoft, I have to hate the fact that I love them. I for one am thrilled that.NET and other "technologies are so easy to exploit. I'm also happy I have karma to burn;-)
I am very curious how they come up with these figures though. At an average of $100 a piece of software, that's 510 million pirated copies a year. At $200 avg, it's 255 million copies... and so on. Wow... didnt realize it was such a serious issue...
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's approach involves selling software and client retention. That's not even something I could call evil in the same terms that google seems to be claiming.
Indeed. Just because Microsoft's past behaviour was universally considered unethical (when it wasn't ruled illegal) does mean we should be using terms like evil.
You want free? You lose functionality. That seems perfectly reasonable.
Well, that's certainly a better-phrased bullet point than the one that reads "License agreements, upgrade treadmills and vendor lock-in offer a Genuine Advantage to our customers".
You are correct. Fortunately though, for those fond of the term "evil", Microsoft's current and recent behavior fits the same categories that earned them that title years back. Ya know... EU cases and all, failing to release any accurate/real docs for their new open document format, and on and on...
Sadly, it may be implied. Microsoft used to use similar language on their online services to spell out that they could and would sell what information collected from you to their "business partners" - namely anyone who wanted to buy the information to use for advertising.
Whether such a meaning IS implied in Google's ToS, I dont know. But if it is, it would be in the section I have bolded below.
7.1 Obligations. Each party will: (a) protect the other party’s Confidential Information with the same standard of care it uses to protect its own Confidential Information; and (b) not disclose the Confidential Information, except to affiliates, employees and agents who need to know it and who have agreed in writing to keep it confidential. Each party (and any affiliates, employees and agents to whom it has disclosed Confidential Information) may use Confidential Information only to exercise rights and fulfill obligations under this Agreement, while using reasonable care to protect it. Each party is responsible for any actions of its affiliates, employees and agents in violation of this Section. ...
8.1 Intellectual Property Rights. Except as expressly set forth herein, this Agreement does not grant either party any rights, implied or otherwise, to the other’s content or any of the other’s intellectual property. As between the parties, Customer owns all Intellectual Property Rights in Customer Data, and Google owns all Intellectual Property Rights in the Services.
Where are you getting this information of yours?
Now... I tend to agree with you because Google adds this part: "and who have agreed in writing to keep it confidential"
Copying the footage to a backup drive (due to fragmentation when the files were originally written) took almost a day.
I'm curious as to how you isolated the problem to fragmentation.
Throughput, fragmentation analysis, read/seek overhead. A variety of other methods, which would indicate that the process was being slowed considerably due to fragmentation. Defragging a few and then trying to copy them resulted in much shorter transfer times. Having a file with many fragments does indeed slow things down...
There are analysis tools for this stuff too you know...
If memory serves, Google stopped directly selling HTC's phone that was designed to work on T-Mobile, and is letting the carriers themselves sell it directly. Google is not a hardware manufacturer.
Of course, I am getting old... so maybe it's my senility setting in and my recollection is incorrect. :-)
No OS is immune to fragmentation.
True - it is the file system, not the OS that determines it. HPFS, while not immune to fragmentation, will often run for years with under 5% fragmentation (my main server is on 3 years, 11 months). But it too has it's limitations - such as a 2GB for file size limit and a small (nowadays) partition size limit of 64GB. Hence, I use JFS (ext3 isnt as stable as I would like for WSeB yet). Thus, HPFS is not suited for this stuff. And while ext3 is better than NTFS for such, would you recommend it for a Windows machine as I suspect many have?
Solution? None. Just add more drives. "Sequential" reads are now at 15M/sec if you balance the load over the raid1 array, it isn't too bad, but if it was an issue I'd take NTFS with its safe and secure online defragmentation API over Linux anytime.
That is always my perfect solution (adding more drives and RAID 1 it) - but it does not fit the "cheap" requirement of the original poster (or mine either for that matter).
And though NTFS may have tested, proven, reliable defrag tools... they can take forever in the scenario of the original post (lots of video files, lots of massive RAW video). As someone who works on such files (dunno if this applies to the original poster), I know I cannot devote a few days to defragging because the machine is always doing something (transcoding day and night, editing, etc) - and I really dont have that type of "downtime" to allocate to the machine.
Ahhh... in an ideal world... :-)
This is why defragmentation software exists.
Also, while I tend to disagree with drsmithy on many issues on varying topics, I absolutely agree with him on this issue.
Actually, you partially agreed with him and partially agreed with me. You agreed with me that NTFS will indeed fragment the files. You agreed with him that it doesnt matter. Just to clear that up. :-)
Unless one is working with an enterprise-level storage system that HAS to have fast data access
Wrong. Take it from someone with experience in this area. When you are working with massive raw video files, speed, access times and fragmentation are a big issue. I do this sorta thing all the time, and believe me, it (fragmentation and drive speed) makes a big issue when you are trying to retrieve, watch and/or edit a 1080P RAW video file.
In most other scenarios, yes, you and drsmithy (who I usually agree with as well) are indeed correct.
But the point is, for the specific scenario this topic is about, fragmentation and drive speed are indeed an issue. Offsetting fragmentation with drive speed, while not ideal, is very helpful. Offsetting drive speed with defragging would also work... but that can be a process that takes DAYS. I know. When I was working on the RAW footage for "Star Trek Phase 2 Kitumba" it took that long. Copying the footage to a backup drive (due to fragmentation when the files were originally written) took almost a day. On a high end dual core Opteron with 7200rpm drives. I suspect (ie: know) that using a slower drive would have made the process take even longer.
As you probably know, defragging takes so long in this scenario because a lot of large files need to be moved, re-moved and moved again in chunks to free up space to make them contiguous - or multiple defrag runs depending on how "intelligent" the defragger is (unless of course the drive has lots of free space). Considering the person who asked the question is looking for more drive space, I suspect it is because s/he does not have lots of free drive space.
So, yes, under the normal conditions most users encounter, drsmithy is indeed correct (as he usually is)... but under the specific conditions and usage requirements of the original poster, it's a totally different situation.
You see, even your experiences aside, the part you missed was this:
"and I also produce a lot of raw uncompressed video" - something I have loads of experience with. 1080P h264 video - wonderful!!! RAW 1080P video on the other hand can be a HUNDRED times the size. As an example, Kitumba takes up 3 TERABYTES of space in RAW format - instead of 30GB or so of space in high quality h.264 format.
So... I simply think you both simply missed that point in the original post.
Certain file systems, even with tons of free space, will fragment files that are in the low megabyte range.
[citation needed]
I suspect fragmentation gets even worse on the large files the OP is asking about.
Sadly, that is speculation on your part.
Windows NTFS (any version) and to a lesser extent, JFS... with many of the other options fitting between those two and HPFS (virtually no fragmentation).
Heck, on a new Windows install, with one file being written at a time by the installer, on a massive disk, some of them manage to get fragmented anyway.
I do video work (Star Trek Phase 2), and have watched fragmentation issues on both my Windows NTFS box and OS/2 JFS boxes (while finding nothing worth defragging on the OS/2 HPFS/HPFS386 partitions - which is simply "working as designed").
Do something like this. Put it in a case / box / cabinet of your own design since you don't need the rackmount capability.
http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-cheap-cloud-storage/
While that is gorgeous, if he's maxed out his boxes at ten 3TB drives each already, replacing his current setup doesnt gain him much (7TB) and costs an extra $3000 over the cost of two file servers and 20 3TB drives.
Supplementing his current setup that way would also be more expensive. It would be about $4800 to add two more machines as file servers and dump ten more drives in them each - saves roughly $3000 while only being 7TB less space.
Dont get me wrong... if I had the money, I'd go the route you suggest. Far nicer looking and far more elegant.
Check again: you're almost certainly comparing 1TB 7200RPM drives to 2TB 5900RPM drives. And Hitachi drives don't count, being the cheap pieces of garbage they are.
When it's going to be used by only a handful of people, nearly always in a sequential access pattern, on the other end of a 1GbE link, why would you want hotter, noisier, 7200rpm drives ?
Because sadly, that is probably speculative on your part. Certain file systems, even with tons of free space, will fragment files that are in the low megabyte range. I suspect fragmentation gets even worse on the large files the OP is asking about.
I don't particularly find Facebook's stance and practices on privacy anymore troubling that societies general attitude toward to the subject.
If by society, you mean governments, then yes, you are correct. But that doesnt mean that it's a good thing. What you posted is like saying "I dont find that murderer any worse than this murderer over here"
FTA:
Don't let the "regular" laptop keyboard look fool you, it's even better than the keyboard on my Toshiba, as well as my girlfriend's modern Lenovo laptop. The keys have a buttery softness to them, a firm response, and they're quiet.
Oh baby... wait, are we still talking about the keyboards here?
Interestingly, it is mostly (or entirely) a laptop keyboard. The IBM Thinkpad keyboards were simply a lot better than the Toshiba (or other) keyboards. Some notable exceptions in the non-Mac world were various of the older Dell keyboards - but I dont count those, since they were manufactured by IBM/Lenovo (or their manufacturing companies) for Dell (including, on many, the Trackpoint).
The model I have is definitely a laptop keyboard (Model SK-8845). The difference is, the IBM laptop keyboards had multiple screw-down points along the back and side edges. It was not uncommon to find an IBM laptop keyboard (like the ones in the Thinkpad 600 series) that used ELEVEN or MORE screws on top and bottom edges, and across the middle (instead of the customary 2 or 4 on the top edge) to hold the keyboard rigid to the laptop (or in this case to the keyboard casing), and was made of thicker metal, with curved-upward edges to help prevent flex.
The Thinkpad keyboards were never exactly "regular" laptop keyboards though - like the reviewer said. :-)
On an IBM^H^H^H^H Lenovo laptop, it's a TrackPoint. Much more convenient than the lame touchpads most computers have (with the possible exception of Apple) and can give you much finer control. And you don't need to move your hands from the typing position at all, so it's even more convenient than an external mouse for quick tasks.
The one downside is that it will start to chafe your fingertip if you use it for hours and hours and hours on end.
Nah, not really. IBM/Lenovo usually shipped them with at least two different types of trackpoint caps... the original cats tongue and a domed, wider, more rubbery one with little raised grippy dots on it. And there are about 3 more aftermarket styles to choose from as well (commonly found on eBay).
I prefer the cats tongue ones myself, but they wear down a lot quicker than the others. But new out of the box, they seem the most responsive. Once old, the "grippy-dot" ones become the best - and the cats tongue ones start to slide under your fingertip, which may be the cause of the "chafing" you are noting. I thoroughly hate the concave aftermarket ones and find them near unusable. Some of the convex aftermarket ones (that are different than the two original options) are ok - but not as good as the two original designs. At least in my opinion.
I'm a proud owner of one of the IBM ThinkPad TrackPoint keyboards (which btw, also came with a neat carrying case (leather or pleather or something), and multiple IBM M13 Trackpoint keyboards in black and beige (which are IBM Model M keybeasts... err, keyboards... with trackpoints).
For those looking, the IBM Thinkpad TrackPoint keyboard reviewed in the article comes in two "styles" I remember. Mine is a Model SK-8845 (the BETTER model). The difference between the two are one (mine) is not Thinkpad branded (simply IBM branded), the other is Thinkpad branded. The SK-8845 model comes with a USB hub and two USB ports, uses only one USB connection to your computer, and has dual height adjust legs (2 legs on each side - a short set, and a taller set), and a cut-out compartment to tuck the cable into when travelling with it (no tie-wraps or rubber bands needed). There's also a slight difference in key layout. The insert/home/del/end/pgup/pgdn key row and the escape key on the model I have is actually normal.
AND the other major difference (which I hate) about the model I have, is that it also comes with a touchpad, and two additional (Right/Left) mouse buttons below the touchpad. With the IBM/Lenovo drivers, one can select "use both" or "use Trackpoint" or "use touchpad" - without, both are enabled. Followed by one other big difference... there is no mic control/microphone in the model I have.
Regardless, if you are looking for one, I'd recommend the model I have.
Windows 7 Ultimate Fail Retail...
Fixed...
LoL! Thanks!!! I knew I screwed something up in my earlier post!!! :-)
It's quite simple, really: they multiply the MSRP times (1 plus the drag coefficient of the box) with the population of the US, give or take a few million times some number they yank out of their behinds (don't ask me how, you don't want to know).
LoL! Someone else already provided the link to Goatse.cx sadly.
...you realise the world is bigger than the USA right? Most countries, like the one I'm in, software costs 30-100+% more than it does there, even if we legally download the software from the same location as you do.
Oh, I do realize that... and in others, it costs less than it does here. Certain other countries have even been offered that cheaper incentive pricing to help combat piracy - and/or free to very cheap "get legit" pricing for those running pirated software. So yes... I considered MANY other countries, while you are simply using your own as an example.
Sorry, I was making the assumption that the Business Software Alliance wasn't looking at "home" or "student" versions of software, and using the MS pricing as I remembered it the last time I looked (Vista).
And yes, I still think that even an average of $300 is FAR too low. I suspect if you run the average up where I suspect it is, the number of copies of "stolen" software, while still probably too high, would be in the low 10s of millions - a number that I find believable on a global scale. Maybe I'm wrong, if so, fine. It's not worth arguing about.
No... no sense in arguing... but my premise was on Microsoft claiming the lions share of being affected by such "theft" - and for things like Windows and office on home computers. I didnt spell it out very well in my first post... sorry.
unless they can come up with another (erroneous) theory claiming that videotaping such an electrical effect and watching the video later causes the same effect as experiencing it.
What the fuck. How can you expect to be taken seriously about science at all when calling a theory "erroneous" that DOESN'T EXIST YET.
I just came up with the theory a little earlier (to save them the work) so they can use it to explain their previous erroneous theory. ;-)
I am very curious how they come up with these figures though. At an average of $100 a piece of software, that's 510 million pirated copies a year. At $200 avg, it's 255 million copies... and so on. Wow... didnt realize it was such a serious issue..
Simple. Here's how:
This post is copyright (c) Elijah W Ryel, LLC. It is available for the price of $51B. By downloading this post you agree to pay the full licensing price.
Presto! Now copyright infringement of properties owned by Elijah W Ryel, LLC exceeds that of the worldwide software industry by a couple of orders of magnitude. Only a financial genius of my caliber is capable of keeping a company afloat despite such massive theft. This is just between you and me, but yesterday Bernie Madoff offered to acquire my company for $500B in recognition of just how incredibly resilient and successful this company has become. I plan on holding out for $1T because that's what any financial genius would do.
Check is in the mail... :-)
After reading the title only, I was wondering why the Boy Scouts of America were suddenly an authority on software theft.
Somehow I think they Boy Scouts of America (or virtually anyone else for that matter) would have managed to come up with a more realistic figure than the Bull Shit Alliance pulled from their holes.
What's your source on that? I've never heard of any such videos.
Surely you have heard of Google and YouTube... search for "ball lightning video" and you will find bunches. I suspect with some digging, you will find some that were shown on various science/weather shows on TV as well. The article authors seem to have overlooked the video evidence - unless they can come up with another (erroneous) theory claiming that videotaping such an electrical effect and watching the video later causes the same effect as experiencing it.
I think your average price for a piece of software is FAR too low.
Windows: $299+ (retail, not upgrade) Photoshop: $600+ (retail, not upgrade) MSOffice: $300+ depending on professional/small business/enterprise AutoCAD: $3000+ Oracle: $$$$$$$ Based on their site review ("how much does it look like your company can afford")
Hmmm... Windows 7 Ultimate Full Retail is only $285, Home Premium Full Retail is $185, and only $99 for Home Premium OEM (which anyone can install same as any other copy) (newegg.com)
Your MS Office prices are also equally as skewed, as it starts at $119 for MS Office (Home and Student) and $235 for Business. All full retail copies.
You missed the:
"At $200 avg, it's 255 million copies... and so on."
At an average of $300 it's 170 million copies - and so on.
Especially because per Microsoft's figures (if 2009's are anything like last years) a very large portion (over 60% I think) of the piracy is for Windows and Office. You can find those claims here on slashdot and elsewhere... what you would need to do is look at the BSA figures for 2008, and compare them to Microsoft's figures for 2008 to come up with the percentage.
Well I completely shave, as does my wife, so I guess I'm a little weird then. Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever been with a woman that hasn't been completely shaved. Also I'm sure it's fairly common amongst other gay guys, too.
So, you're admitting you're gay? Am I correct in concluding that you're the pitcher and your "wife" is the catcher =P?
Besides the fact (and more importantly) that he did not put the word "other" in his sentence, who cares?
Or perhaps you were hoping for his number?
when I stuck my tongue out when it rained, I didn't taste any salt at all,
If I was choosing my nick again I would be the RTFT-TROLL (yes; that loud)
Here it is; the article title again, but this time a bit marked up for those of you so bloody stupid you can't see it.
First when I joined this site, it was read the summary, then it's read the article... now it's read the title too? Screw this, I'm leaving this site. I was more than content to just pick a word or three (changing a few) to base my wild speculation on (such as "Gates Salt(ing) Clouds")
When I joined this site, all you could read was "First Post!", posts about some petrified chick with grits, and rants by open-source cavemen.
Ahhh.... the good ole days... :-)
Software industry has lowest per unit cost/fixed cost ratio in the world...
Even if you count the 90-day tech support contract that comes with a legit copy of a program?
Which support is that? All OEM copies of Windows are (tech) supported by the hardware manufacturer - not Microsoft. Same with OEM Office provided by hardware manufacturers if memory serves. If it comes pre-installed, Microsoft doesnt support it.
While that may be different (and likely is) for other software vendors, I am sure (based on other statements by Microsoft) that a large chunk of the figure cited pertains to Windows and Office installs. Regardless, in those arenas, the costs are probably similar. You buy a retail copy, you pay more and Microsoft supports it. You buy a computer with Windows, then the hardware manufacturer supports it, but Microsoft takes in less because they charge the hardware OEM less.
BSA Says Software Theft Exceeded $51B - Meanwhile...
The IT world says "security issues in Windows requiring IT or Tech work exceeds "Theft" figure many times over".
...nope, I am not complaining... I work in the tech field... as much as I would love to hate Microsoft, I have to hate the fact that I love them. I for one am thrilled that .NET and other "technologies are so easy to exploit. I'm also happy I have karma to burn ;-)
I am very curious how they come up with these figures though. At an average of $100 a piece of software, that's 510 million pirated copies a year. At $200 avg, it's 255 million copies... and so on. Wow... didnt realize it was such a serious issue...