Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:A good slice of luck. (Score 1) 35

by FireFury03 (#47910109) Attached to: European Space Agency Picks Site For First Comet Landing In November

Esa says it will be a one-shot opportunity. Events will be taking place so far away that real-time radio control will be impossible.

What amazes me is that the lander has no RCS - it's launched at the comet, and if it bounces off or something there is no second go. I kinda expected the lander to have some RCS so it could automatically correct for unexpected troubles.

Comment: Re:Helium? (Score 1) 296

by FireFury03 (#47869459) Attached to: WD Announces 8TB, 10TB Helium Hard Drives

And who the hell plans on running a data center hard drive indefinitely?

ISTR that the big datacentres, such as Google, run drives until they fail - the systems are redundent enough to cope with a failure with no problems and they have so many drives that it's more cost effective to have a resilliant system and just run the drives into the ground than it is to preemptively retire them (and still have to cope with unexpected premature failures).

Data Storage

WD Announces 8TB, 10TB Helium Hard Drives 296

Posted by Soulskill
from the ballooning-storage-capacity dept.
Lucas123 writes: Western Digital's HGST subsidiary today announced it's shipping its first 8TB and the world's first 10TB helium-filled hard drive. The 3.5-in, 10TB drive also marks HGST's first foray into the use of shingled magnetic recording technology, which Seagate began using last year. Unlike standard perpendicular magnetic recording (PMR), where data tracks rest side by side, SMR overlaps the tracks on a platter like shingles on a roof, thereby allowing a higher areal density. Seagate has said SMR technology will allow it to achieve 20TB drives by 2020. That company has yet to use helium, however. HGST said its use of hermetically-sealed helium drives reduces friction among moving drive components and keeps dust out. Both drives use a 7-platter configuration with a 7200 RPM spindle speed. The company said it plans to discontinue its production of air-only drives by 2017, replacing all data center models with helium drives.

Comment: Re:Sorry guys, but you are full of shit (Score 1) 527

by FireFury03 (#47862189) Attached to: AT&T Says 10Mbps Is Too Fast For "Broadband," 4Mbps Is Enough

The proportion of people who regularly watch hour long HD streaming video channels is probably pretty low.

Maybe that's because their ISP is providing inadequate service so they know better than to attempt it.

Or maybe its because they just aren't interested and therefore don't want to pay for a faster connection...

Comment: Re:Sorry guys, but you are full of shit (Score 1) 527

by FireFury03 (#47859811) Attached to: AT&T Says 10Mbps Is Too Fast For "Broadband," 4Mbps Is Enough

TFS mentions high quality video. You're not streaming high quality video with 10 or even 20Mbps.

Netflix recommends 5Mbps for HD streaming, so you are wrong.

HD on the internet is definitely not the same as HD broadcast TV. When it was first launched, the BBC HD DVB-S channel was doing H.264 at a little over 20Mbps. I think they've reduced that a bit on the HD channels now but certainly nowhere close to 5Mbps. A quick look at a 35 minute programme recorded on my MythTV system from BBC One HD shows 2.6GB, which is a little over 10Mbps - the BBC transponders use statistical multiplexing though, so if you're watching something with more fast action then you can probably expect a higher bit rate than that though. I think BSkyB do around 8Mbps for their HD transponders (and people complain about the quality of BSkyB's HD channels).

The fact that Netflix skimp on the bandwidth a bit shouldn't really be news anyway...

That said, 4Mbps *is* enough for a lot of people - a very high proportion of people use their internet connection for a bit of web surfing and email. The proportion of people who regularly watch hour long HD streaming video channels is probably pretty low. Remember that Slashdot users aren't exactly the "typical" home internet user. (I say this having moved from a 6Mbps ADSL connection to a 40Mbps VDSL connection - for the vast majority of uses the 6Mbps connection was absolutely fine and the only real reason I upgraded was because switching ISP actually worked out cheaper than sticking with the old 6Mbps connection)

Comment: Re:Grandparents... (Score 1) 66

by FireFury03 (#47845137) Attached to: Two Explorers Descend Into An Active Volcano, and Live to Tell About It

Actually, the link does not apply since the unfortunate victim in that case jumped off an 80ft cliff into a quarry. I am not aware of any account where the original challenge, a bucket of cold water to the head, actually caused the participant to expire and go to meet his maker.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/...

The link I posted does mention some idiot woman who decided to chuck a bucket of water over herself while sitting on a horse. The expected thing happened - the horse bolted and the woman was killed.

Comment: Re:People who did High School Chemistry know this. (Score 1) 182

by FireFury03 (#47823885) Attached to: Taking the Ice Bucket Challenge With Liquid Nitrogen

Exactly what I came here to post. We had the demonstration of what happens when you immerse something in liquid nitrogen vs what happens when you pour it over the top. Even if you didn't get to play with liquid nitrogen in school, there are lots of videos of this.

Although I was under the impression that the Leidenfrost effect only worked well on bare skin, so I'm surprised he didn't get frost burns to his scalp and clothed parts.

Comment: Re:Intentionally bad design, still appalling (Score 2) 131

by FireFury03 (#47823861) Attached to: Facebook Blamed For Driving Up Cellphone Bills, But It's Not Alone

Too many companies continue to take their product, fiddle / fuck with it for the sake of change (keeping UI designers in a job I suspect) and then antagonise their users. Google maps is a prime example, the new google maps is AWFUL compared to the existing one, lacking several key features. Please, stop fiddling and changing things.

In this case, I believe that it was a deliberate change forced on their users because it will directly benefit Facebook.

It's one of the (great many) reasons why using web apps for business frequently sounds nuts to me.

How often over the years have we heard stuff like "we can't switch from Office to OpenOffice because of the costs involved in retraining everyone to use a different UI"? Well with a "cloud app" you have *exactly* this problem, coupled with the fact that you usually get no notice that it's going to happen - you just log in one day and everything's moved around.

Comment: Re:math err? Re:Beyond what humans can do (Score 1) 708

by FireFury03 (#47770049) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

Oh yeah, I'll also point out that the original poster's numbers stuck out like a sore thumb before I even looked up the figures: Petrol is lighter than water, so its immediately obvious that 4.75 tons is going to be over 4750 litres (at current forecourt prices, about £6000) and I know I don't buy anywhere close to that amount of petrol each year. Doncha just love the metric system for making such things so obvious. :)

Comment: Re:math err? Re:Beyond what humans can do (Score 1) 708

by FireFury03 (#47769999) Attached to: Climate Damage 'Irreversible' According Leaked Climate Report

The numerator above seems off: what is 6445 ?

4.75 tons of petrol is 6445 litres. Since petrol is 85% carbon, we can divide the 6445 litres by 0.85 and we get 7582 litres of petrol containing 4.75 tons of carbon.

For the weight of a big tub of petroleum containing 4.75t carbon, I think you'd have:
4.75 tons of carbon / .85 = 5.938 tons of petroleum.

Your answer is wrong: 4750 Kg of carbon / 0.85 = 5588 Kg of petrol. It looks like you divided by 0.80 instead of 0.85?

5588 Kg of petrol / 0.737 = 7582 litres of petrol.

Comment: Re:Sigh (Score 1) 341

by FireFury03 (#47766611) Attached to: Comcast Tells Government That Its Data Caps Aren't Actually "Data Caps"

Secondly why would anybody pay for broadband internet, and only use it like ISDN or DSL?

Ok, I have a home connection that does 40Mbps down and 20Mbps up. It is capped to 100GB/month during the day (no cap at night, and this is when I run off-site backups and such). I never come close to exceeding that cap - the speed is useful for downloading the odd film, watching streaming HDTV, uploading photos, etc. for short periods. If I need to download a new Linux distro or something, I can do it in 10 minutes - doing this stuff over ISDN would be either very painful (requiring planning a download a long time in advance of actually needing it) or just plain impossible impossible. ADSL, again, would be rather a pain for the occasional large download.

On the other hand, if I were running bittorrent 24/7 I would be able to blow through 15TB of bandwidth in a month, were it not for the cap. But I'm not interested in doing this, so I don't understand why those people who are interested in shifting 2-3 orders of magnitude more data than me should expect me to pay more in order to subsidise the build-out cost of the ISP upgrading their network to support them.

The bittorrent crowd would characterise my 100GB monthly cap as terrible because, at full speed, I could blow through it in 5 hours. The thing that they completely fail to understand is that I never have any interest in blowing through it - I like a fast connection because it lets me do things quickly, not because I can download lots.

We are not a loved organization, but we are a respected one. -- John Fisher

Working...