Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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) 336

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) 336

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:If they're going to do this... (Score 3, Interesting) 153

Interesting (to me): One of the side-effects of my Universal Social Security proposal is excess demand--a labor shortage. The fix is re-defining full-time working hours as 26-32 hours per week, meaning everyone gets dropped to 4-day work weeks. This happens because it's a trillion dollars cheaper than current strategy.

In theory, with or without salary adjustment, dropping everyone's work time by 20% decreases their share of labor pay. That is to say: to make 1,000 things takes 4 people, or it takes 5 people each working 80% as much. As long as your entire economy changes at this ratio and wages don't change relative to each other (they can increase, decrease, or stay the same, but all by the same percentage), whatever salary you end up with is suddenly only capable of buying 80% as much.

In practice, I'm pretty sure we have a lot of part-time workers (I've looked this up before) and a lot of slack time. On one hand, part-time workers would experience no change, so neither their income nor the influence they have on price would change: the stuff they make wouldn't become any more expensive. On the other, many people would work the same amount and spend their work slack-time as leisure-in-earnest instead of non-productive office hours: instead of being restricted by the facade of office hours, you'd be outside work enjoying the time you're spending doing nothing useful.

That's actually a bigger problem. It means cutting hours without a salary cut raises the price of certain goods for part-time workers, but not for office workers; while cutting hours with a salary cut raises the price of certain goods for full-time workers, but not part-timers. The first case is regressive onto the poorer, and benefits the middle-classes; the second is harder on the middle-classes, and doesn't directly-benefit the poor. The second case is arguably better, since cutting working time in this way definitely cuts buying power in total, so someone has to get poorer, and you've restricted how much that happens and to who; but it has obvious undesirable issues.

On the other hand, the end result would probably be about break-even for the middle classes in total (when you include the Universal Social Security benefit), plus a 3-day weekend every week, so ... eh?

Comment Re:You youngsters and your cloud (Score 1) 336

I am concerned about the lubrication and circuit boards (electrolytic caps, mostly) associated with hard disks over long term storage. I have found a high failure rate on my own old hard drives - old MFM drives were kind of crappily engineered, however, so the fact that an ST-251 drive from 1990 doesn't work today shouldn't necessarily be indicative of the lifespan of say, a WD Black 1TB manufactured in 2010.

Comment Re:Less Power For You (Score 1) 145

Doing more with less is how technology works; and technology comes with discovery, not mandate.

Natural gas burned in power plants and transmitted as electricity produces much more light out of LED lamps than natural gas piped to gas lamps. They couldn't just up and switch to electricity and LED lamps 50 years before Edison and Westinghouse, even if the Government told them they had a week to figure out how to produce more ten times light with half as much gas.

(The chief effect of all this is less labor: you use 5% as much gas to run lights, that means 5% as many human labor-hours invested in running lights, and that proportion of society--not those particular people, but the constant inflow of people becoming working-age adults to replace the retiring seniors, at least at least--can now become doctors and engineers, since we don't need them mining for gas. Again: you can't just dictate there shall be more doctors and fewer farmers, and the halved farm workforce shall work to produce twice the food output at half the price; it won't work.)

Comment Re:That's bullshit (Score 0) 287

In my world, we rely on practical tests of functionality *with the actual users* rather than theoretical measures of effectiveness. It seems the CDC agrees with me on this one.

As to one of your other points:

"The bottom line is that a single act of intercourse between a young couple has on average a one in 20 chance of pregnancy – this assumes the opportunity presented itself on a random day, as these things tend do when you are young."

Source

So the answer is based on how often you fuck. The CDC numbers do not map precisely to data of this sort, however.

Last point: "measuring the effectiveness of encouraging people not to fuck" sounds like the craptastic questionnaire-based research I saw at (not to pick on them) the Lehigh psych department in the early 2000s. People lie, and they can't simulate the paths not taken effectively. There would literally be no way to know if someone decided to not have sexual intercourse based on an abstinence campaign.

Besides, my kind of abstinence campaign would be "Blowjobs for Everyone" or "Real lovers wank each other".

Comment That's bullshit (Score -1, Flamebait) 287

Actual effectiveness ratios for birth control:

US CDC document on actual effectiveness

Highlights:

Condoms are about as effective as the withdrawal method, sponges, or the rhythm method. 20% or so failure rates.
Spermicides are worse (!) (28%)
9% annual failure on the pill.

The only truly effective contraception methods are *just* the methods they won't allow young kids to get. I had to get a signoff from my wife at age 29 for a vasectomy. I was told they wouldn't do it if i were single or if I had been married with no children. Reason: ex post facto lawsuits by women aggrieved by the urologist denying them children within their marriage. Similarly, just try walking in and asking for your tubes tied at 16 or an IUD implant.

The bottom line is that the "conservatives" advocating abstinence training are actually right. The only actual way to reduce teen pregnancy is to encourage them to stop fucking so much. The birth control available to them _does not work_. They should all just screw bareback from what I can see.

Comment Re:No, but... (Score 0, Troll) 287

I'd moderate you down for posting something so stupid, but what the hell...I'll reply in stead. Conservatives already know that despite the myths that they don't. Religious conservatives on the other hand? That ranges from yes they agree that it does, to nope not at all, to varying religious reasons that they're against it.

But while we're trotting out the bullshit, how about we toss this one in the ring. It would be nice if liberals would admit that GMO crops could help the world, or Margaret Sanger was a devout racist who believed that birth control was the perfect way to fix the "negro problem." I'm sure someone will come out with but but but, yeah. Go read up on the "negro project" and then look at the history and background of both people. There wasn't an altruistic motive, they believe that negros were subhuman and the best way to fix it was to stop them from reproducing. Enjoy that eugenics ideology there guys.

Slashdot Top Deals

The tree of research must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of bean counters. -- Alan Kay

Working...