Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:trillions of bits, why one head per platter? (Score 1) 166

by drinkypoo (#48475821) Attached to: Consortium Roadmap Shows 100TB Hard Drives Possible By 2025

Alignment isn't an issue - there's no alignment on a modern drive. Instead, at the factory, they write a set of servo tracks all over the platters which do the aligning for you - basically the head seeks to approximately the right position and starts reading, and the servo track tells it where it actually is, so feedback gets the head to the right track.

Sigh. Alignment is an issue, because each platter has its own alignment. That means that when you're reading/writing one platter, you're not aligned for the other platters. That's why you can't have multiple heads on one armature (which has multiple arms, all fixed together) and read/write multiple platters at once.

the bigger reason why two actuators didn't work is far simpler - think multiprocess programming. Both actuators could read or write data to the platters (of which there was one set) and if you screwed up the order of the accesses, you could easily write the wrong thing

You're being ridiculous. That's true no matter how many actuators you have — if you screw up, you write the wrong thing. Even if you only have one actuator, if you write the data to the wrong sectors, you're gonna have a bad time. But both actuators have the same job: write some data to someplace. The two don't have the job to write the same data. If the drive gets a command to write data to a sector to which it already has cached data waiting to write, then hopefully it just throws away the first command anyway. This is something we would hope any drive with queuing would do whether it has 1 actuator or a dozen.

think you do a read then a write of a sector - and the sector happens to be under the actuator doing the write

HDD sectors are either 512 bytes or 4kb. In the former case they are often smaller than filesystem blocks and there is no need to read them before writing. You just run right over them. In the latter case, they are typically the same size as filesystem blocks (we use bigger blocks on larger filesystems, and we use 4k blocks on multi-TB drives) and again, there is no need to read them before wrtiting. You only have to find them, which means waiting the seek and then for some fraction of the time it takes the spindle to go around once. Then you can write. This is true no matter how many armatures are reading/writing the same disk.

Comment: Re:Cholesterol (Score 1) 25

by drinkypoo (#48475797) Attached to: Interviews: The Hampton Creek Team Answers Your Questions

It would have been more interesting to have more of the responses from the scientists that work there rather than some droid in the marketing department.

I think that will have done them more damage here than good, by far. What's funny is that really nobody wants to hear a line of bullshit any more. Kawasaki just sent a clueless flack to be on Leno's Garage and show off their new bike and a good portion of the comments were about what a lame he was. That's at least half of what people will take away from the experience. Send someone who knows what they're talking about and can handle being on camera, or don't send anyone at all. Just send the bike and a brochure.

Comment: Re:Not humane? (Score 1) 25

by drinkypoo (#48475783) Attached to: Interviews: The Hampton Creek Team Answers Your Questions

I'm not sure that's actually true. What would have to happen is that the production of chickens and eggs would have to become more distributed, and you would need more human labor. There's lots of places where the chickens can get free food, but they do need to range for that, so you're going to have to spend a lot more time and effort managing your chickens.

On the other hand, integrating chickens into more agricultural scenarios has the potential to improve them in a variety of ways. Chickens can be mixed in with most plants once they reach a certain size that makes them less appealing than the pests that they attract, and the weeds growing up around them. The chickens help with both of these problems. If we move to a more integrated food production model in which we do sensible things like compost our shit and put it back into the fields once it's become soil again, we'll want to move away from tilth and towards guilds anyway. Robotics is advancing on fruit-picking, and in the mean time, we have a lot of labor lying around to handle the substantial increase in labor currently demanded by such a change. We only don't do this now to maximize profits. We could pay people enough to pick vegetables, but then some of the vegetables which currently produce the most profit would fall by the wayside, and we can't disturb the status quo now, can we?

Comment: Re:I’m sorry, what are the nutritional benef (Score 1) 25

by drinkypoo (#48475773) Attached to: Interviews: The Hampton Creek Team Answers Your Questions

Ehhh, sounds good, we can use margin of error as an excuse then. I suppose it's just by margin of error that this company is too stupid to be able to figure out that not all birds are mistreated. And by margin of error, I'll not bother to do business with them.

Actually, you're both displaying ignorance, although yours is the more spectacular; it's a fact that the bread far outweighs the mayo, so caring about the carbs in the mayo is a jerkoff waste of time. Even a low-carb slice of bread will run you around 5g net carbs (carbs less fiber, which is indigestible.) The truth is that anything less than 1.0g can be reported as 0g by our nutritional guidelines, and otherwise the numbers are rounded. Therefore, something with 0.9g carbs is reported as having 0g carbs, while something with 1.1g carbs is reported as having 1g carbs.

Comment: Re:This is clearly futile... (Score 1) 129

by drinkypoo (#48475749) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

As the person initiating the search, I decide what is relevant.

Only to the extent that the law allows.

The law already included a solution to the problem of misleading information in at least some EU countries; you can have the material taken down, because it is already illegal there. Hell, even some non-misleading material is illegal in some of those countries, those in which the truth is not an absolute defense against libel. A new law seeking to hide the illegal information is not the solution. It only really seeks to do two things: one, let people hide their misdeeds, and two, attempt to hide the extent of the failure of laws against stupid people saying stupid shit on the internet.

Comment: Re:This is clearly futile... (Score 1) 129

by drinkypoo (#48475739) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

If you need to search for information about someone then by definition you are not fully aware of all the facts and cannot be in a position to make a fair judgement if you are presented only with partial, misleading information.

You are so right. That is precisely why I need to be provided with all of the search results, so that I can make up my own mind.

Comment: Re:Cholesterol (Score 1) 25

by drinkypoo (#48475731) Attached to: Interviews: The Hampton Creek Team Answers Your Questions

Finally, on a side note, I've never understood the argument that because some other animals do a thing it makes it morally acceptable.

No, you've got it twisted. I'll eat chickens because they would eat me. Unless I was starving, I wouldn't eat a llama, because they wouldn't. I'll eat octopi on the same basis even though they're intelligent, although I do prefer to eat stupid food.

Comment: Re:This is clearly futile... (Score 2) 129

by drinkypoo (#48474705) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

Incorrect. If the court was saying to remove the page in question, then that would be forgetting things which are true.

However, the court action is directed at the association created by Google between a particular person and a page.

There is no functional difference; if you can't remember what you forgot, then you forgot it. The data might be out there someplace, but if you can't find it, then you can't make use of it.

No, it's about requiring search engines to stop returning irrelevant items about a person when asked for relevant items,

As the person initiating the search, I decide what is relevant.

Without this law, search engines could report results which are false and do harm with impunity.

No, no they couldn't, because you'd click on the links and you'd see the actual result. Search engines can only report what is there; they might report on it incorrectly, but you can always check up on them.

Comment: Cholesterol (Score 4, Interesting) 25

by drinkypoo (#48474677) Attached to: Interviews: The Hampton Creek Team Answers Your Questions

so even if it is a little healthier, (eg no cholesterol in your mayo) that is a start.

So, is mayo without cholesterol actually healthier? Since we now know that eating cholesterol has little effect on your cholesterol levels, this seems a specious claim.

And why eggs? Theyâ(TM)re not very sustainable,

Eggs are not inherently sustainable or unsustainable. They could be raising these chickens on some kind of bugs, maybe you could find some that will eat algae. Instead they're raising them on unsustainable feed crops. That is a problem. Many of our means of food production should change substantially if we hope for them to be sustainable. That's not an indictment against eggs, though.

theyâ(TM)re not especially safe

Well, unless you cook them. Pasteurizing counts.

Iâ(TM)m sorry, what are the nutritional benefits of mayonnaises made with eggs?

The same as the nutritional benefits of eggs themselves. They're made of a readily digestible protein.

I care about food a lot (you can tell if you've seen pictures of me) and the eggs in mayo are the absolute last of my worries. It's the oil, which is usually some GMO crap (which means it's been absolutely hosed down with chemicals) and then the oil is processed with hexane, not all of which is successfully removed from the final product. That's a way bigger concern than the eggs could ever be for anyone who is not allergic to them, and who has not invented a moral quandary over whether they should eat eggs like every other omnivore on the planet, including birds. You can bet your ass that if we laid eggs, chickens would eat them.

Comment: Re:beyond the realm of plausibility (Score 1) 104

by drinkypoo (#48474589) Attached to: Australia Elaborates On a New Drift Model To Find MH370

So you're going to launch satellites which can find every airliner in the sky with IR over the entire world? Just in case one disappears again?

Since we started launching satellites whose intent was to find military jets in the sky with IR over the entire world in the 1970s, I should think that it is not too much to ask that by 2014 we should have advanced the technology and built out the hardware to the point where we could in fact do that.

And note that underwing engines are probably going to make IR detection particularly hard as it will block a direct view of the exhaust.

No doubt. Perhaps there is a superior means which could be used today, although IR is still pretty good for this sort of job and the planes are still big IR sources. Our sensing and data processing technology have both advanced dramatically since then.

Comment: Re:Send request to the site hosting the informatio (Score 1) 129

by drinkypoo (#48474451) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

Send the request to be forgotten to the site that actually hosts the information. That way it will disappear in all search engines.

The law does not allow that. It would be censorship.

That's OK, censorship is alive and well in many countries. For example, those in which truth is not an absolute defense in libel cases. It should not matter what your intent is if you are only using facts unless you are deliberately using them to defraud, e.g. by careful omission of relevant information.

Comment: Re:This is clearly futile... (Score 2) 129

by drinkypoo (#48474437) Attached to: Google Told To Expand Right To Be Forgotten

We can do nothing about people remembering things wrong. But we can do something about search engines creating false impressions.

This is not about that. This is about search engines creating accurate impressions. See, it was already illegal in many of these countries to say bad things about people, sometimes even when they were true. But now people in these countries have the right to ask people to forget about things about them which are true. In most cases they didn't need a new law in order to actually go after people spreading rumors about them on the internet, the original laws would suffice. What this does is actually protect them not from things they didn't do, but from things which they did.

The problem is, this information getting out is critical to society's advancement. Covering up people's actions makes them seem less commonplace without actually doing anything to curb the behavior. If the behavior is common and unacceptable for reasons of actual harm, then it must be uncovered so that something can be done about it. If the behavior is common and not harmful to others, then we benefit if it is uncovered and we learn more about it, so that we can learn (perhaps, someday) not to stigmatize it.

The right to be forgotten is not about making the world a better place. It is about permitting people to behave badly without consequences.

Let's organize this thing and take all the fun out of it.