Comment Re:Excellent question (Score 1) 321
Thank you. A thoughtful, concise Anonymous post... You've just restored some of my faith in the AC.
Thank you. A thoughtful, concise Anonymous post... You've just restored some of my faith in the AC.
So if someone doesn't have your level of expertise on a single isolated topic you automatically dismiss this person as unworthy of your company?
The Anonymous Cowards? Yes.
Please continue the technical discussion. Sorry for the noise.
Actually, that was a reply to THIS post, not the original question posted by timothy...
I really hope this discussion provides good answers, with practical solutions for Windows, IOS, and Linux... I think that this is the sort of thing that everyone could really use!
Are there cloud storage providers that can do this for the above example of an approx. 2 TB data set, and provide complete security?
I still think questions about basic data integrity, checksums, parity, ECC on disks etc. should be completely unnecessary and most certainly already be second nature to the slashdot crowd, but I guess I'm just living in the past.
Thanks for immediately jumping down my throat, though
What's wrong with WordPerfect for DOS? I use WordPerfect 5.0 almost every day. It is incredibly efficient, even works through a telnet connection (minus the graphical preview), and just plain works! I'll bet I can properly layout pretty much any type of document in 5.0 faster than you can using any GUI-based word processor / typesetter program, be it a more recent GUI WordPerfect (which I also use as my GUI-based WP, BTW) with strong typesetting-style heritage or some piece of utter garbage like MS Word.
Just because it's old doesn't mean it isn't good!
Excellent question
No, it's not! This is supposed to be a nerd site for people with at least SOME kind of technical ability (or at least it USED to be...) You're telling me you don't even know how to store your files?!! Do us all a favor and please stop visiting slashdot. Thank you!
If your physical media is dying, you'll get hardware errors so restore from a(nother) backup and replace the media.
If your files are being corrupted, what kind of crappy filesystem are you using to store these precious memories?!!
It had to be strapped to giant nonresuable rockets to get into space
Actually, they retrieved the booster rockets after takeoff and rebuilt and reloaded them for re-use.
This guy should take some flying lessons, if this whole thing hasn't soured him on the idea of small planes.
Actually, in one of the linked videos he says he already had a free lesson offered from a friend but hadn't been able to go up a few weeks ago when originally planned and was waiting to reschedule, essentially...
These vehicles will seat two, three of four people...
I'm not quite sure how to parse that one and/or do the math. Three of four people!? Is that like some kind of musical chairs in the car at each stop and someone rides up on the roof with the solar panels? Sign me up! Sounds like fun as long as I'm the driver!
So you freely gave your pictures to someone who turned out to be a douche-bag? Wow... That's never happened before...
It's 2013, we must support mobile devices at the same time as the high-resolution desktops.
Then go back to what HTML is supposed to be, simplify the site and let the browser do what it was originally intended to do! Stop trying to second guess everything and force a layout that may or not fit the end device! This is getting as ridiculous as the early web days when everyone starting to return completely different page content for Netscape vs IE, etc. although that was caused mostly by braindead browser choices, etc. (Poor bastardized Mosaic... Ah, Mosaic, which I actually liked back in the days of my bedroom 286 network booting Windows 3 over a SLIP serial connection from the FreeBSD version 1 box downstairs with the $200/mo dedicated 33.6K dial-up connection), but I digress....
Thanks for the suggestions.
Perhaps a design goal could be to make the site use, for example, 1/2 the total bandwidth per page that is currently required for most areas. That might make for some excellent efficiency tuning and remove some of the bloat that has crept in over the years.... It may well not be achievable for a typical comments page but would be a worthy goal as an average to beat back the nasty, nasty cruft.
Can't we just go back to the 2000ish design? Really, please? The current design took me something like 6 months to get used to. I bet most slashdot readers don't care for any fancy looking shit, this isn't arstechnica or digg.
Seconded!
I couldn't agree more!
Wow, I hope this is actually more of an 'ALPHA' or some sort of trial balloon.... If this is supposed to be 'BETA', that implies there's been some sort of testing and supposedly some thought would have already gone into it yet I can't imagine who would actually think this is better. I preferred the simpler PREVIOUS layout years ago to the current one, but I got used to it even though it's far more bloated as I disliked the changes but it was at least the same basic style.
This new layout wastes even MORE space... Everywhere... I didn't think that would even be possible. Even with the silly photos turned off and whatnot, there's far LESS useful information on every part of every page! More scrolling, even more wasted space, exceptionally poorly laid out comments screen, ICK!.. ICK to it all! BLECH!... Horrible. Absolutely horrible... I simply don't know what else to say.
I didn't think they could possibly make it worse than it already is now, but whoa!! What were these guys thinking!?
Can I please go back to the previous layout from a few years ago? It worked great in any browser on any device. This "new" stuff is just plain bad. At least it still looks partially OK in lynx (unlike many sites, but that's certainly not saying much), but with a bunch more cruft at the top before you get to actually read anything useful. Argh!
Bring on the GAMMA version!
In fact, that's what HTML and browsers were supposed to do in the first place. HTML was never intended to be a layout language. The view was supposed to be configurable by the end user in a lot of ways. The web strayed from that, so now we get designers fucking over users, forcing them into a one size fits $foo design, where $foo is usually the set of users that are thought to be the most easily monetized.
100x THIS! I couldn't possibly have articulated it better myself...
It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
