Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment I shoot events as a sideline and have done since (Score 1) 354

the late '90s in digital.

I have a library of about 180k photos. You retain originals in case someone goes back to a contact sheet and wants a reprint or an enlargement a decade later or something. At a typical event I will shoot between 100 and 1,000 images. Sometimes, depending on conditions, I will shoot RAW.

My current gear is 24mp SLR and generated files are on the order of 12-15MB each for JPG images. I can easily lay down 12GB a shoot or 50GB in a week.

I keep an online 12TB RAID-1 library and then have 3 backup sets on LTO, rotated, with one set always offsite.

I know a person that does video editing and production as a sideline for corporate clients, mostly working on online ad videos and 30-second spots. They keep archives as well, because it's not uncommon for a client to come back several times over a period of several years to want minor tweaks to something that's already run (for versioning or feature changes, slightly different voice track, color edits, text overlay edits, etc.). They have even larger data needs.

Point being: even many individuals and small businesses *do* have legitimate, productive needs, and your condescending view is just a tad narrow.

Comment Re:It's not aliens (Score 1) 201

What's to say they will not have actually learned anything or grown beyond their imperialist phase by the time they are so advanced?

That's not really the argument, is it? By the time they're that advanced, we have nothing they need. If we have anything they want, it's either food or culture. Maybe sentients are a delicacy, so that's a potential threat, but otherwise we'd be more valuable as we are — producing art, literature and so on. Then they can point at the monkeys and laugh.

Comment Re:It's not aliens (Score 4, Interesting) 201

Aliens that are advanced enough to signal us with that kind of power aren't going to find us advanced enough to be worth talking to if they can even understand our primitive methods of communication at all.

Sometimes we make noises that will attract animals so that we can study them.

Comment Re:Next Phase (Score 1) 541

The speed is less important than energy delivered at site of impact. [...] Fan rotors move slower, but are more massive, and have more total energy behind them. You dont need something to be sharp or fast moving to cut you in half; it just needs to exert enough energy over a small area to cause mechanical shear of your body.

Okay, let's try to stay on topic.

Getting a loop of wire from a wench wrapped around a leg and slowly slooped up will chop it off just as surely as if the wire was moving fast but at less torque.

Unless the wire catches on a bone, and the wire is thin enough to snap there. But let's fucking stay on topic. We don't need ridiculous examples designed to distract people because they contain an injury to discuss the topic at hand, you sensationalist nutter.

In fact, there are multiple factors involved in determining how much force it's going to require to break the silly string, and in how much force is being delivered. One of the factors is the force applied, one of the factors is the time in which the force is applied and how that affects the material in question, one of the factors is the quantity of material the force is being spread out across. And in spite of being a lot smaller and less massive, the tip of a quadcopter blade is going to impart a lot more energy to a much smaller section of silly string than a metal fan blade is, because the fan blade is squared off (being stamped from a piece of metal) while the tip of a rotor is very sharp, and the rotor is moving much much faster and F=MA. There's a lot more A in the quadcopter system. But wait, there's more; you only have to consider the effect of its mass until the string breaks. If the string breaks at a level of force which can be achieved with the current acceleration at lower than the actual mass, then the additional mass of the rotor is irrelevant here.

There are lots of other factors, but these are the ones that we've been talking about in this discussion already.

To be a proper experiment, it needs to be a high speed metal bladed fan, with big heavy blades. I can probably find one if I look hard enough.

Only the speed is likely to be relevant, and it will still have a dramatically lower tip velocity than a quadcopter doing anything but hovering.

Comment Re:"topic of discussion for many across the world" (Score 1) 108

Since when is CNN left?

So you mean the external renaming to 'Clinton News Network' was only because the letters matched?

So you mean the external renaming to 'Clinton News Network' was only because the letters matched?

Clinton is not a liberal. She is a neocon. Trump is not a conservative. He is just a sleazebag.

I never said she was a liberal, historically liberals believe in personal liberty... she does not. She's very much a illiberal progressive.

What? You just contradicted yourself there completely, smart guy. Care to rephrase your sentence until it makes sense? Here, this might help. Don't go alone, take one of these. Maybe then you'll have some idea what the words you're using mean.

Comment Re:RAID is not backup (Score 1) 354

Nonsense. One order of magnitude more, at most. On-line storage costs are on the order of $100 per TB per year.

I was going based on my experience with AWS, which is about $30 per TB per month for spinning storage, or $360 per TB per year. An 8 TB hard drive should typically last you about five years, and costs about $250, or about $6.25 per terabyte per year. That isn't quite two orders of magnitude, but it is pretty close. Of course if you're willing to wait several hours to start getting your data back, you can use glacier storage, and that's cheaper, but there are tradeoffs. :-)

Upload time sucks, but only for the initial upload, which I did two years ago. After that, incremental additions are pretty negligible.

Must be nice. I backed up over 12 GB Sunday night, and that was only one week worth of incremental backups for my personal laptop. Over my DSL connection (soon to be retired), that would have taken two days. It would take several hours even over my new cable modem service. It took five minutes to back up locally. That time difference makes the difference between me being willing to back up regularly and never backing up.

Obviously, YMMV, but I would imagine that somebody with multiple terabytes of personal data is probably either a photographer or videographer, and therefore has the same sorts of nightmare backups that I do. But I'm just guessing here. For all I know, it could be a porn collection. :-)

Comment Re:RAID is not backup (Score 1) 354

Online backup is cheap. Most start at ~$60 a year for unlimited backup.

I'm having a hard time believing that $5 per month is even possible for anything approaching truly unlimited storage. Just storing 2 TB on Amazon glacier storage would cost three times that much. I assume they count on most of their users treating unlimited as tens of gigabytes. If everybody were storing 2 TB, I'd expect those numbers to go way, way up.

But even if you assume that $5 is your total cost from the cloud provider, that still isn't your total cost. After all, time has value, plus your internet connection costs money. Backing up 2 TB over a typical home Internet connection can take anywhere from many days up to years, which means if your storage needs are that large, you're going to want a faster Internet connection or you'll lose your mind. Tack on another $30 a month for that.

In addition, storing your backup in the same location as your main copy is not smart, even if it is in a bunker or fire proof safe.

Hence my suggestion of periodically cloning your RAID and keeping the clone at work.

Slashdot Top Deals

NOWPRINT. NOWPRINT. Clemclone, back to the shadows again. - The Firesign Theater