Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:History of Ukrain (Score 1) 789

by fnj (#47781873) Attached to: Russian Military Forces Have Now Invaded Ukraine

1994 Ukraine signed a treaty with Russia and the USA to disarm its nuclear arsenal in return for a treaty that guaranteed Russia and USA would come to their aid if they were ever invaded.

Sorry, didn't happen. Please do not make stuff up. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, signed by the US, Russia, the UK and Ukraine was (in return for Ukrainian nuclear disarmament) a "promise" by Russia, the US and the UK not to use force or threaten military or other coercive action against Ukraine. It did not commit any of them to any kind of response in the event the promise was violated or some third party attacked Ukraine. It is not a treaty. There is no enforcement provision. The most it demands is that the signatories "consult" if TSHTF.

Comment: Re:Probably lies again. Just give it a few days. (Score 1) 789

by fnj (#47776735) Attached to: Russian Military Forces Have Now Invaded Ukraine

Yeah, the ratio of populations is about 3:1, but the ratio of personnel under arms is twice that high, and the ratio of military effectiveness is about 100:1 or 1000:1. If Russia wanted to be in Kyiv they could get it done in a few days with practically no casualties because the Ukraine military would all light out for the hills the first day of battle.

The Ukraine military can't even make it look like they can effectively engage a few ragtag rebels.

Comment: Re:Obama's Propaganda (Score 1) 789

by fnj (#47776421) Attached to: Russian Military Forces Have Now Invaded Ukraine

Amusing as it may be to contemplate some kind of strange anachronistic WW3 playing out like WW2 with gigantic armies of conscripts slugging it out, it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN. Not that way. Nobody could afford to support that kind of effort, nor is the scenario stable. Prohibitive economics aside, long before the world could logistically even begin to mobilize, train and equip tens of millions of soldiers, someone would set off some nukes and civilization would become an historical oddity.

Comment: Re:central storage or n^x security guard costs / s (Score 1) 168

by fnj (#47771287) Attached to: New NRC Rule Supports Indefinite Storage of Nuclear Waste

you might almost be willing live next to it, but you don't want to ingest it for sure

I grew up playing in the back yard near a bed of Lilies of the Valley. Every part of those flowers is highly toxic. I don't remember ever being warned about eating them, but I must have got inculcated with the idea that it is super dumb to eat random things growing in nature. I never touched them, and neither did any of the neighborhood kids.

I mean touch as in ingest. We did pick bouquets of them and put them in glasses of water in the house.

Comment: Re:Can we get a tape drive to back this up? (Score 1) 314

by fnj (#47762505) Attached to: Seagate Ships First 8 Terabyte Hard Drive

"Always" is a fighting word :-)

I was there for the touted Exabyte revolution. 2 GB on a digital-8 cartridge sounds puny now but it was revolutionary then. Except for one thing. The reliability and lifetime of the drives was piss poor. OK, two things. The recorded data on tape was very marginal as well.

Comment: Re:Switched double speed half capacity, realistic? (Score 1) 314

by fnj (#47762447) Attached to: Seagate Ships First 8 Terabyte Hard Drive

Between PVR, data mining markets, virtual machines, backup data, servers, and etc. At 12TB I still don't have enough space.

12 TB, snort. I've got over 100 TB worth of 2 and 3 TB drives on-line or on-call a boot away. The most critical part is mirrored RAID-Z2 (4 drives' worth of redundancy per data item), and most of the rest is ad hoc replicated via rsync, some of it several times, so there is nowhere near 100 TB of data stored, but there is a lot.

I would definitely be happy with 64 of these 8 TB. At least for a while.

Advertising is the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket. -- George Orwell