Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:4 years? (Score 1) 242

They only had availability data for 4 years of drive life. This is largely a math study. I'm not familiar with any implementations of their 2D parity system, although it is outside of my area of expertise. Their assumption that the service calls would always be more expensive seemed a little suspect to me. Rack space isn't free and when you have basically 100% redundancy or more in spare drives you're going to eat up a lot of space. Putting 54 spare drives in a rack that already has 11 parity disks and only 55 primary disks just doesn't seem efficient. Is all of that space really cheaper than a single service call during the life of the machine to replace 20 failed drives all at once (when the rack drops below say 6 spares of the original 26--saving you half of the space the spares would have taken up).

I have also seen enough buggy RAID controllers in my day to make me very wary of that 2D raid arrangement in the paper.

All in all this smells like a mathematicians solution to the problem, largely unbounded by real life concerns.

Comment: I would love to, but that server is a soup Nazi (Score 4, Informative) 242

So I tried to view the PDF, and it says "can't use the plugin, it causes problems on our server". So I figured I'd just download the file with wget instead. Nope, 403 forbidden.

Looks like fetch works though. If anybody else has trouble getting the file, try my local mirror.

Comment: Oi (Score 1) 226

by fyngyrz (#48929867) Attached to: Facebook Censoring Images of the Prophet Muhammad In Turkey

I was saying that it makes a lot of sense for Facebook not to allow pictures of Mohammad in Turkey. Just like they don't allow boobies in the USA.

It doesn't "make sense", it simply retards social progress by keeping neurotics from considering the darker corners of their own thought processes. I mean, seriously. "Boobies bad"? That's just... pitiful. I am perfectly ready to describe anyone who isn't pleased by the sight of a nice pair of boobies in any neutral, humorous, peaceful, appreciative or loving context as a broken human being. One for whom I have sympathy and pity, but in no way does this engender any urge to force the world into a form that serves to insulate them from the toxic processes of their own twisted psyches.

As for drawing Mohammad, your assertion that there is no purpose but offense is wrong out of the gate. Art is one reason, political commentary is another, historical illustration is another, simple choice is another, and yes, offense is one but that doesn't make it an invalid use.

Comment: Re:Can they do it with corporate code? (Score 1) 217

by Mr Z (#48929355) Attached to: Anonymous No More: Your Coding Style Can Give You Away

Did you read the part in the article where they're actually doing the matching based on the ASTs (abstract syntax trees), and so are able to identify authors even after the code goes through an obfuscator? Relevant quotes:

Their real innovation, though, was in developing what they call “abstract syntax trees” which are similar to parse tree for sentences, and are derived from language-specific syntax and keywords. These trees capture a syntactic feature set which, the authors wrote, “was created to capture properties of coding style that are completely independent from writing style.” The upshot is that even if variable names, comments or spacing are changed, say in an effort to obfuscate, but the functionality is unaltered, the syntactic feature set won’t change.

Accuracy rates weren’t statistically different when using an off-the-shelf C++ code obfuscators. Since these tools generally work by refactoring names and removing spaces and comments, the syntactic feature set wasn’t changed so author identification at similar rates was still possible.

Regarding the first quote: The author of the article probably didn't realize that ASTs aren't a new thing; it's just this application of ASTs that's new. ASTs are as old as the hills. I learned about them from the Dragon Book, and by the time that was written they were old hat.

Comment: Who says it serves no purpose? (Score 3, Insightful) 226

by fyngyrz (#48928309) Attached to: Facebook Censoring Images of the Prophet Muhammad In Turkey

What offends you may not offend me. And vice-versa. What serves no purpose for you, may serve a purpose for me. Be it intended offense, or otherwise, or both at once.

No one in the USA has the "right to not be offended." Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual, or as part of a particular group; it varies due to your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs, your upbringing, your education; what offends one person or group (of any size) may not offend another, nor a person of another grouping; and in the final analysis, it requires one person to attempt to read the mind of other persons they do not know in order to anticipate whether a specific action will cause offense in the mind of another.

And no, codifying an action in law is not in any way sufficient... it is well established that not even lawyers can know the law well enough to anticipate what is legal, and what is not -- any more than you can guess what is offensive to me, or not.

Sane law relies on the basic idea that we try not to risk or cause harm to the bodies, finances and reputations of others without them consenting and being aware of the risks. It does not rely on the idea that we "must not cause offense."

Law that bans something based upon the idea that some individual or group simply finds the behavior objectionable is the very worst kind of law, utterly devoid of consideration or others, while absolutely permeated in self-indulgence.

Comment: Re:Maybe if Adobe fixed their broken updater... (Score 5, Interesting) 195

by jandrese (#48928041) Attached to: Adobe's Latest Zero-Day Exploit Repurposed, Targeting Adult Websites
My favorite part is where the updater tells you that a new update is ready, but it won't install it automatically because Adobe needs another ad impression or something and you have to download and install it yourself. This is why I don't have Flash or Java installed anymore. I especially like when they try to sideload some crapware toolbar with their security update too. I can kind of understand this sort of behavior from a sketchy freeware app being hosted by J. Random Guy, but Oracle and Adobe are multimillion dollar corporations. Do they really care so little about their brand?

Comment: Re:First they came for... (Score 2) 226

by fyngyrz (#48927551) Attached to: Facebook Censoring Images of the Prophet Muhammad In Turkey

what have you "won" exactly?

You "win" Turkish citizens annoyed with their government -- a win in the only venue likely to be able to create change there.

so you're for not opening diplomatic relations with cuba? we should just never ever ever reconcile or talk with cuba?

Diplomatic relations are not on the same level as corporate sponsorship of repression. Yes, we should talk to other governments, definitely including cuba, and yes, we should allow our citizens access if they wish to go there, and vice-versa.

But no, I don't think it is a positive thing when corporations adopt behavioral restrictions that are antithetical to freedom in general. It's not that I expect them to change, it's just that I don't like it, and as I am free to object and explain here, I do so.

we don't talk to iran? what is iran's attitude going to be then?

This is a straw man. I am all for talking to, and mutual visitation of, Iran (Cuba, etc.) These things allow cultural values to spread -- because generally, the dialog is quite open. I am not for FB repressing speech. These are not the same issues.

you are a dogmatic rigid ideologue

It's always entertaining to watch someone slinging mud at their own straw man.

If you want to know what I think, ask me. Don't put words in my mouth.

Memories of you remind me of you. -- Karl Lehenbauer