For him to make anyone look bad, he'd have to:
- Stop intentionally, or carelessly, misrepresenting the facts nearly all the time
- Refer to actual points much more often, instead of the norm, which is to attack straw men and introduce red herrings
- Admit when he's wrong, which is very often
- Stop demonizing people for merely disagreeing
None of that seems likely.
Odd. You think that me saying the same things that I say very, very often -- weekly, at least, for many years -- is
You know that's self-refuting, right?
i hope the unemployment office can help you find a good deal on ointment for the butthurt you just exposed yourself to today pudge. you just made yourself look like a complete idiot in front of the whole world.
Shrug. Since I didn't read the comments in question, I am feeling no pain. But I suspect if I had, I also wouldn't.
you aren't even remotely close to being in her intellectual league, pudge
The fact that he resorts to lies in the first sentence of each comment implies otherwise.
the best thing you did this time is after demonstrating yourself to be a liar
You're lying. I did no such thing.
Without parity checking, you simply aren't addressing bit rot. Period. It could be Raid 9 Million(tm) and if all it's doing is copying the data, and not comparing it, bit rot will still proceed apace, silently eating your data. But let's say you're a good administrator that has enabled parity. Great! But there's still a problem: parity cannot restore data that has become corrupted due to bit rot -- it is a detection-only mechanism. So if you have two drives in a RAID-1 with parity configuration, as you also suggest... it will detect the file corruption, but as it cannot correct it, it will then promptly seize up and fall over dead. This is because for every N clusters written, a parity cluster is also written; This allows the array to detect if that data chunk was correctly committed; But if the data on any of the clusters within the chunk are altered later, the RAID array will only know that this chunk of data (known as a stripe in RAID), is invalid. It cannot correct it.
One quick note: a mirrored space running ReFS will do automatic checksumming and scrubbing. This isn't done for parity spaces, though I'm not sure why this is.
I can't bother to read past your first idiotic comment.
Wow, that is how you respond to seeing your argument torn to shreds? You pick one comment to snipe on and then declare yourself the victor.
I didn't pick one comment: I read only the first one, and then gave up when you lied about what I wrote. And you're doing it again, so again, I won't continue reading.
There is nothing arbitrary about selling insurance.
I didn't say there was. I said the restrictions are arbitrary. I was explicit.
I can't bother to read past your first idiotic comment.
This isn't about the free market.
False. It is removing arbitrary restrictions on business. This is about the free market.
If you dramatically increase the number of different health insurance plans that any given office is expected to be able to handle
Irrelevant. Not my problem. We are freeing the market. Adapt or die.
You are forcing them to
Anything you say next is false. I am forcing nothing. Neither is the government. If they are forced to do anything, it is by free market forces.
Who is it a good thing for
Everyone, except for those relying on government to protect their interests against the reasonable interests of others, and I have no sympathy for such people.
Could you go further off topic if you tried?
I didn't go off-topic at all.
There are no federal regulations preventing the sale of insurance from state A in state B
So? I wonder why you think you're making a point.
indeed what the conservatives are looking to do with their proposal is to usurp the state right to refuse plans
I do not recognize the "right" of any government to ban the sale of a legal product or service.
Furthermore that idea will increase the cost of delivering health care.
Even if that is true -- it's not -- it's irrelevant.
This is not a huge issue for me: while it is absolutely clear that laws restricting the sale of legal goods and services are stupid and harmful, it would have far less of an impact on freeing of the health market than much more sensible and broad legislation: to remove the business subsidies for health insurance, and replace it with an individual income tax credit, which will necessarily have the effect of driving down -- massively -- the cost of care and insurance.
...the worst of all worlds is a government that keeps burdensome or expensive regulations around just to make sure businesses that rely on those regulations don't suffer.
That is precisely the world you live in today.
In many areas, yes. I hope you don't think you're arguing against me in some way.
If we went for the classic conservative talking point of "sell insurance across state lines" we would see a large number of small offices closing as well
So what? Seriously. If a small business can't handle the free market, then it should go away. That's not a bad thing, it's a good thing, and the worst of all worlds is a government that keeps burdensome or expensive regulations around just to make sure businesses that rely on those regulations don't suffer.
This is just my $0.02, but if the trolls are anything like some of the rest of us, I have to assume it's because we're tired of the constant promotion of second-rate codecs that put ideology ahead of technical concerns.
Patent-free video codecs are the ultimate case of NIH syndrome. The major patent free video codecs (Theora, VP8, etc) are largely attempts to recreate/modify existing MPEG video codecs to get around the patents of the aforementioned original MPEG codec.The end results are codecs that aren't appreciably novel compared to the MPEG codec they're going up against, and at the same time it's not even clear (from a legal perspective) whether these codecs really are patent-free, or if they're infringing on the MPEG-LA's patents anyhow. Which is not an attempt to inject FUD into any of this, it's just that there haven't been sufficient legal challenges, and in the meantime it's questionable that these codecs can be so very similar to the MPEG codecs and somehow not fall under the associated patents.
At the same time the fact that these codecs are being pushed opposite the existing MPEG codecs only fractures the market and slows the adoption of new video technologies. We end up with Mozilla and Google flailing around with alternative codecs rather than buckling down and doing what's necessary to secure the rights to use the MPEG codecs in the first place, only finally doing the right thing after they've exhausted every other option. Web browsers should have fully supported H.264 years ago.
It's the codec equivalent of generic colas. Yeah, they're similar, but they're not the same and they're not what most of us are after. And in the meantime it quickly gets tiring of being told how we're doing it wrong by buying the more expensive product. There are certain things in life that are worth paying for, and a good/novel video codec is one of those things.
Which isn't to slag the patent free codec guys entirely. The video codecs have struggled, but the audio codecs have been outstanding. Opus is a roaring success, which I credit both to the development structure for the codec - involving many parties like the IETF early on while clearly shooting for novel/new audio codec - and the technical capabilities of the engineers who designed the codec.
That may be 4 years old, but still, that's damn impressive.
The issue is, you deal with the system you're with, not the situation you wish you had.
We can't change a transmission protocol or route data over arbitrary connections. This is a collection of everything from very old hardware to brand new, protocols from very old to brand new, in every country in the world, and you can't just arbitrarily rework them. It's the same in the air, too. And when new protocols are made, they're generally in addition to existing ones, not replacing them. I'm not aware of any with error correcting codes or the like (there could be, I just haven't worked with them), but some of them (not all) use checksums (though that's a whole 'nother story... the documentation on how one common type of checksum, that used in datalink messages, is a big fat lie, caused by a screwup in whoever implmented the code the first time that everyone else now has to imitate... but it works, so...).
In the long run, the goal is to move as much traffic as possible to the more automated, more reliable newer protocols. But this is something that's invariably going to happen at a snail's pace.
As I've never messed with them directly, I can't decribe to you the protocols used for physical data transmission at every point over the FARICE and DANICE links - just the message layer on top of them, which is plaintext except for the header marker characters. I've never worked at anything more than the endpoints. But I can tell you this, there's no way we could just go in and replace all of the hardware along the way (you should see the graph of all of the hardware that exists just between Iceland and Britain). It would be an expensive long-term international effort with major potential for disruption in its own right. And it would only help for that particular link anyway. What you really want is how all of air traffic control messages are transmitted - aircraft, atc, tower, etc - everywhere in the world to be switched over to a single, reliable mechanism and a standardized set of international routing hardware. Well, great, join the club, I'd love that too! But it's just not going to happen any time soon without a massive funding surge.
You work with the systems that you have, not the systems you wish you had. Yes, we're working to modernize everything, just like everyone else. For example, in the past year I've spent a good bit of time working on adding in capabilities to one system to help take a sort of "middleman" server that it talks to out of the loop to improve reliability and error logging. But these things don't happen fast. And how many programmers / hardware engineers do you think we have, really? We're no Microsoft here.
Oh, and I forgot to mention the voice communication systems problem. That one didn't affect me directly but I did get a memo about it.
It's just an unfortunate incident.
British Telecom has had an issue (which has happened a number of times) which led to a minor timing glitch in one of their systems. When this happens, the data reliability on the FARICE line to Iceland drops and you start getting corrupted flight messages. Shanwick was alerted to the problem and both sides consulted and decided that the best solution in the interrim would be something that had been done previously, disconnecting FARICE and thus forcing all connections through the backup line, DANICE, which appeared to be operating normally.
Unfortunately, the problem was even worse on DANICE. What appeared to be normal operation was only normal up to the data logger. Once it actually got to the flight tracking software, the messages were being refused, and corrupted messages being sent in the other direction. So while BT was working on getting their system fixed, flight control managers were being forced to basically manually dig up ATC messages and copy-paste them off to the air traffic controllers (as much was handled through voice as possible as well).
But it got even worse. A totally unrelated communications network, Datalink, decided to misbehave during all of this, which may or may not have been due to the Shanwick problems. On the Iceland side, the general solution is to force a switchover to the backup system. Which was done... except a critical component on the backup system immediately crashed. Repeated attempts to switch and ultimately switch back caused even more problems for the air traffic controllers.
Eventually the fixed FARICE line was brought back up, Datalink back online (with the switchover-crash problem postponed to be investigated during a low-traffic timeperiod)
It's terrible that there were so many delays, but these are extremely complicated systems with a challenging task, built up over decades with tons of computer components, protocols, lines, routers, radar systems, transmitters, and on and on, scattered all over the world. On a weekend. Everyone was scrambling and doing their damndest to fix it as soon as possible. It should also be noted that it was never a safety issue - even in the absolute worst case, air traffic control could go all the way back to the old paper-and-pencil method. What the systems give is, primarily, speed, and thus when there's big problems, there's delays.
And that was my weekend, how was yours?