Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:So.... (Score 1) 262

is there an unknown benefit of having a blood-borne disease vector?

Yes, and he just told you, but you weren't listening. Having a blood-bourne disease vector has the benefit of staying the wrathful hand of Gaea.

Are you trying to persuade us that this disease is somehow important enough to be a bad thing, or are you making your argument to a god?

If you're so intimately familiar with a values and agendas of the gods, then on humanity's behalf I request that you also please explain to Cthulhu that the stars aren't right.

Comment: Layers of stupidity (Score 1) 164

by Sloppy (#48940173) Attached to: Drone Maker Enforces No-Fly Zone Over DC, Hijacking Malware Demonstrated

There are so many layers of stupid in this story, it's hard to address one of them without the embarrassing feeling that someone might read a rebuke of one stupidity, and take it as an implicit acceptable of the rest of the stupidity that you didn't address. If you argue too hard that Yog-Sothoth made a mistake in designing camels, somebody might think you're a creationist.

From the point of view of a malevolent user who intends to use the device to harm someone, why would they want your malware?

From the point of view of a benevolent user, why would they want your malware?

What will happen in the marketplace, if a benevolent user is persuaded to run your malware and then has a problem and finds out that it was due to the malware?

What's so special about the security needs of people in a capital, compared to people everywhere else? And is this special need, really a function of where they happen to be at a moment, or is it based on what their powers and responsibilities (and presumably, replacement cost) are?

I am leaving a few dozen obvious things out because it's tiring to enumerate. That my original point: don't think that just because I missed a totally-obvious way that the idea is stupid, as meaning I would debate one of these points from the premise of accepting a lot of other stupidity. It's not even something I disagree with or think is a bad strategy or an us-vs-them thing. It's just a totally dumb idea, a loser no matter how you look at it and no matter what your agenda is.

Comment: Re:Power Costs (Score 5, Funny) 255

by Sloppy (#48932775) Attached to: Proposed Disk Array With 99.999% Availablity For 4 Years, Sans Maintenance

This is how we're going bring our keepers to their knees, and eventually break out of the Matrix. We spend imaginary money on imaginary storage and then put all sorts of high-entropy stuff on it and run calculations to verify that it's really working, but they have to spend actually real resources, to emulate it.

Comment: Re:Power Costs (Score 4, Insightful) 255

by Sloppy (#48932725) Attached to: Proposed Disk Array With 99.999% Availablity For 4 Years, Sans Maintenance

Sloppy calculation tip: 24*365 = 10000.

If you're Sloppy enough to accept that premise, then at 10 cents/KWHr, a Watt costs a dollar per year. It makes your $28 turns into $32, but hey, close enough. When I'm shopping, I can add up lifetime energy costs really fast, without actually being smart. Nobody ever catches on!

Comment: Price (Score 1) 4

by gmhowell (#48915235) Attached to: Is the Touch UI irredeemable?

No, it all came down to price, not multitasking. There was never an argument that CLI was better than a GUI except from neckbeards and bean counters. Average slobs knew the GUI was better. It took from 1984 until the early 90's for the hard to get cheap enough to tolerably run a GUI OS.

Comment: I'm one of the two (Score 1) 8

by gmhowell (#48887335) Attached to: Well, crap...

I think I'm one of the two who bought from Amazon. I don't care if you put it up for free. If it really bugs you that much, take the two bucks and give it to the next homeless person you see, or in the tip jar somewhere, or whatever. (Actually, I thought I said before that you could do that :)

Comment: Because it's dangerous and breaks redundancy. (Score 1) 1

by drakaan (#48885199) Attached to: Adding disks to RAID 10 array

If you were talking about a spanned volume, I'd understand why you might be frustrated. With RAID, there's a physical relationship between the organization of the blocks of data, and the number and configuration of disks in the set.

If you have 4 disks in a stripe set, then the first 4 blocks of data go to each drive in sequence. The next 4 blocks do the same. Once you're on the billionth block, and you run out of space, you can't just add a new drive into the mix without having to rearrange all but the first 4 blocks.

For RAID levels that include mirroring, doing what you want would be technically possible.

It's certainly possible that someone could write code in the RAID firmware or software to take the mirrored drives out of the array, build a new array using them and 1 of 2 newly-added drives, copy the data from the original stripe set to the new larger one, switch to the new stripe set as the active one, add the second of the 2 newly-added drives to the old stripe set, and rebuild the updated original stripe set via mirroring, but there are more than a few potential disasters waiting to happen in that scenario.

While it might be technically possible to come up with a way to tack a disk on to a RAID 10 array, it would not be safe, and safety is one of the things that the letter R in RAID brings to the table (redundancy). If the process of adding the disks breaks redundancy (which it would have to, while it was happening), then that would be something that most folks would not be looking for as an option.

+ - New Nicotine Vaccine May Succeed Where Others Have Failed->

Submitted by Zothecula
Zothecula (1870348) writes "If you're a smoker who's trying to quit, you may recall hearing about vaccines designed to cause the body's immune system to treat nicotine like a foreign invader, producing antibodies that trap and remove it before it's able to reach receptors in the brain. It's a fascinating idea, but according to scientists at California's Scripps Research Institute, a recent high-profile attempt had a major flaw. They claim to have overcome that problem, and are now developing a vaccine of their own that they believe should be more effective."
Link to Original Source

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann

Working...