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 Re:Oh please (Score 1) 53

Potentially exactly his "chance" death caused it to be preserved? If it had been eaten by a predator, we would not get a complete skeleton (more likely we'd maybe find a bone or a tooth somewhere, with scavengers carrying off what's left of the carcass).

There are many examples of preservation by accident, simply because the specimen in question did something extraordinary. Think of this one for example. He traveled, presumably alone, across the alps. Something you didn't do back then, there was nothing to prove or no reason to go for some kind of misguided "self-realization", back then people had real problems and didn't feel the urge to make their life harder to "feel it". So most people weren't stupid enough to climb onto glaciers. This guy did. And that's what preserved him while everyone else from his tribe has turned to dust long ago.

So yes, the random, odd sample may well be all we can still find.

Comment Re:Welcome to capitalism, bitches (Score 1) 296

The problem here is that studios don't care what you care about. They care about money. If a movie with an empowered woman sells a ticket and a movie with one being some asshole's bitch sells two, the asshole movie is going to be made.

This is not about me or what I want either. It is just how our world works.

Comment Re:Welcome to capitalism, bitches (Score 1) 296

Yeah, Alien was a really crappy movie. Not to mention the sequels.

I've actually seen Bridesmaids, one of the former movies Feig made, and it was good. Not quite hilarious, but it was a really good comedy. Because his style worked for it. It didn't for Ghostbusters. Yes, there are different styles of comedies.

Feig's style is more one of slapstick and episodic, short jokes that "stand" on their own. Think Mel Brooks. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this and I do enjoy that kind of comedy, but you have to take into account what people expect out of a movie. Especially when you do a remake.

Every time you do a remake, it will be held against its original. By definition. And people who know the original will go into your movie with certain expectations. If you remake Star Trek and fill it with fantasy elements, magic powers and swordfight (i.e. recreate it into a Star Wars type movie), people will complain. Not because the Star Wars concept is bad, but simply because that isn't what they are expecting when they hear the brand Star Trek. They expect a high tech world having similar social problems our world has and a story about solving these. And lensflares.

I hope this explains the main problem with the new Ghostbusters movie. Is it bad? No. It's not really a great movie either, but it isn't an outright bad movie. It isn't what you'd expect when you hear Ghostbusters, though.

You know how this would have worked? As a parody. Think Scary Movie style. There, everything goes, and as such this movie would have worked perfectly. Hell, even the cameos would have made sense in that way, especially Murray as the skeptic.

Comment Re:RAID is not backup (Score 1) 350

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) 350

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.

Comment Re:problems, lol (Score 1) 108

Or, you know. You could actually learn how to write good code at the most powerful level. That's a radical thought.

I did, and that's why I'm using Python. I'm capable of writing web services in C, but who the hell's got time for that craziness? Also consider Amdahl's Law: in most of stuff I write, the "running code to process data" bit is a teensy portion of wall clock time. Much more is spent in socket handshaking or waiting for database queries to finish. Out of a 50ms request lifecycle, perhaps 1ms is spent inside a box that I have complete control of. Even if I rewrote it in assembler (C is for high-level pansies) to be 1000x faster, the request would still take 49.001ms. An assload of work porting security-sensitive code into an untyped languages so that the end result can be 2% faster? Yeah, no. My boss would fire me with a quickness if I proposed that.

I'd be much more likely to rewrite performance-critical code in Go or Rust. They're as fast as C but without the death of a thousand cuts like gotofail waiting to ruin your careful planning. Life's too short to waste it hacking in languages that hate you and make you want to look incompetent.

Slashdot Top Deals

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.