Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Yes, Because Optical Media Is Durable (Score 1) 359

Except that optical media isn't that durable or reliable. Every DVD or CD I've ever burned has become unreadable after a few years. The inks just don't hold the data for long.

HTL BD-R uses an inorganic phase-change alloy sputtered onto the disc surface. I have media files going back 4 years or so backed up to a bunch of Blu-rays at work, and they've mostly held up pretty well. I recently scanned all of them to see how they were holding up, and out of 300+ discs, 5 had some unreadable areas. They would've been recoverable because I augmented the images before burning with dvdisaster, but it was faster to just mark their contents as not backed up and let them get burned to a newer disc.

LTH BD-R, OTOH, uses the same organic dyes as CD-R and DVD-R, and is just as susceptible to bit rot (though in all honesty, I have plenty of DVD-Rs and CD-Rs kicking around that are still readable.)

Most BD-Rs on the market are HTL. They tend not to be marked as such, but LTH media are. Verbatim seems to be the most prominent of the LTH BD-R brands, though I think I've heard that Taiyo Yuden also produces LTH BD-R. dvdisaster identifies my backup set as a mix of Ritek, Philips, and CMC Magnetics media; they carried a variety of other brands on them (some well-known, some not so much).

If you're not set up for Blu-ray, M-Disc has applied its inorganic recording layer (they describe it as a "rock-like carbon compound") to DVD as well as Blu-ray. You need a drive that can burn them (not just any DVD burner will work), so if you're in the market for a compatible burner, you might as well get one that also handles Blu-ray. Wikipedia says the discs, once burned, are readable in any drive.

Comment Re: Archival grade (Score 1) 359

Leicester (spelling) = lester (phonetic)

That applies to all of the *cesters (there are more than a few...used to live not too far from Bicester, for instance), so at least they're consistent.

You want weird? Try to puzzle through how they say Derby should be pronounced "darby." I don't see an A anywhere in there.

Comment Re:The anti-science sure is odd. (Score 1) 677

Neither will a solar minimum have any measurable cooling effect, nor will a solar maximum will have a measureable warming effect.
The difference is just to low and any 'random' weather effect is 10-100 times stronger, e.g the exceptional cols summer in germany. Untill a few days ago it was like'10 - 15 degrees Celsius below 'average' or 'expected' temperature. That is a factor of like 400 bigger than the solar variation.

Comment Re:Why is teen pregnancy bad exactly? (Score 1) 299

When we were a species of hunter gatherers, the sole role of girls was to stay home, get married, have babies.
Extremely unlikely.
Much more likely they gathered together with the mothers and followed the hunting men, carrying what ever they needed to make camp where the men killed the prey.

Comment Re:The anti-science sure is odd. (Score 1) 677

Wrong on all accords.
Right now it is much warmer than during those times.
The viking graves are not under permafrost, otherwise we would not dig them out or know about them.
We are farming right now in Greenland, more than mankind ever did.
You are just an idiot.

Ah, and regarding wine: we are growing wine again in the UK since the late 1980s, get out from under your rock, idiot!

Comment Re:The anti-science sure is odd. (Score 1) 677

Solar minimums we have every few decades. Actually we are in one, so there is no 'heading to it' right now.
The difference in energy output of the sun, between a maximum and a minimum is a shocking 1%.
So if you live in the states, and all other things are equal, and you have hot day with 100F ... during a solar minimum that would be 99F (simplifying a bit as most americans here won't see the error anyway).
Regarding 'ice age' ... the idea that we are 'due' to an ice age in near future is a myth from the 1970s ... the last one started to end 20,000 years ago and only roughly 12,000 years ago it ended, depending how you count.
The next one is due at the _earliest_ in 50,000 years, if at all. Could easily be over 100,000 yeras till the next one.
And: solar cycles have absolutely nothing to do with ice ages, glacier or inter glacier periods ....
Current CO2 levels indicate there won't be any glacial period in the next millions of years, idiot!

Slashdot Top Deals

Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.

Working...