Comment Re: Why? (Score 1) 120
You probably already saw it, but Comcast is trying to weasel around it by calling them overages instead of caps.
Say you have an 8TB drive with 6 platters - the option could be to pair up the platters and write alternate bytes to each, doubling sustained read and write
That would require the head to be right over both tracks at the right moment. I'm not sure the heads are physically aligned that precisely. Or are you suggesting to separate the head assemblies for the top 3 and bottom 3 platters and do RAID 0 in a box?
Would it be trivial to design a drive that can be switched into a double-speed half-capacity mode?
High RPM drives tend to have smaller capacity if I remember correctly, and any drive can be short stroked to save on seek time.
The way Slashdot hid a -1 comment made it appear as if
If you're replying to a post with a low score, especially Anonymous Coward, it may be a good idea to take a page from e-mail standard practice and state the nickname of the poster to whom you're replying. To fully avoid confusion, it might help to add multiple levels of quoting to provide enough context to interpret your post correctly even in isolation.
For me it goes like this:
Electric company - thug
Water company - thug
Gas company - ok
Cable company - thug
Wireless company - thug
Phone company - thug (stopped using 8 years ago because they wouldn't repair their lines)
Trash company - ok
So there are 7 private companies I deal with for important services. FIVE of them are monopolistic thugs that do things like sending bills without reading the meters and fail to keep their infrastructure in reasonable repair (try having to boil water for two weeks because the water company didn't repair their treatment facility after a storm damaged it years ago and see what your opinion on this is).
These state sanctioned monopolies are the children of Satan. Or maybe Eris. They get into the regulators knickers and generally then do anything they please.
Comcast is now bidding to own the interwebs. Tell whoever you can that this would be a disaster for America.
OK, so we build a ship that can take us anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. Then what? What's the point without a destination?
Right now, our technical ability allows us to detect planets that may be capable of harboring life. Why don't we go ahead and do what we can do rather than sulking over the fact that we can't do more? Once the day comes when we can actually go there, we'll do that. Until then, let's do what we can, which is detection.
It takes very little effort to realize that the most useful and needed excuse to shut down cell phones by the police will be to prevent citizens from recording their behavior in the absence of police body cams.
Indeed, and yet I'm dozens of posts into this discussion before you were the first person I saw even notice.
This could in theory be used to prevent something like a phone triggering a bomb, though if there is a genuine threat of something like that happening, I would think that restricting or turning off transmission over the network was a much more reliable method than assuming that someone willing to blow up a bomb was also obliging enough not to mod their phone to ignore the kill switch.
Meanwhile, it has now been demonstrated beyond any doubt that video recording of police officers at work reduces both complaints of excessive force against officers and instances of violence toward officers, both of which are surely good things. It has also been demonstrated on numerous occasions that officers who did cross the line may then attempt to destroy evidence such as photographs or recordings on electronic devices held by passers by. Obviously if all it takes is accessing some centralised police system with insufficient safeguards and oversight to remotely destroy that evidence, as opposed to potentially physically confronting someone who is just an innocent third party and making their situation worse, there is less deterrent to the minority of officers who do abuse their position.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, it has worked for years, and that's why you like it. You (we?) are now that "old generation" that I was referring to, and I'm not about to become a grumpy old admin.
Some things are basic to design. The design philosophy of Unix/Linux has nothing to do with technology, and everything to do with human beings. Technology changes, human being stay the same. I'm a developer now, and that same design philosophy is how people create good programs. It's the same human element at work.
Simple designs are really quite lauded across all of design. It's not just software. Complexity is what you get when you don't have any other choice. It's not really an old fashioned value at all. Einstein said "Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler".
Worked just fine. I also worked for vendor J, who used one big binary: rpd handles just about every routing protocol you can imagine. Is J bad and is R good? According to the market, J is doing very well, while R has been acquired and assimilated by a another company.
Well, that might be OK. From an admin perspective, what's the difference since routing is really routing. One binary is easy to deal with. If they architected the software in a sane way and devided the big binary into sane objects, it might even be easy to code as well. It makes sense because networking is networking. I just don't see the same thing being true for system services. Starting up services is ENTIRELY different from mounting a share. Why would you group those two functions together?
But really though you're judging the goodness/badness from the wrong angle. Which company is successful has zero to do with which is a better design. Success has as much to do with marketing, price, luck, branding, and golf outings as it does with the design. Deisgn is just a small part of success.
The question should be, which did YOU find easier to deal with, and which one do the software developers find easier to code and add new features to.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
