Author Topic: Episode #503  (Read 5408 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lucek

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: Episode #503
« Reply #30 on: March 02, 2015, 03:57:00 PM »
As regards a storage solution for all your stuff I cannot imagine an online backup will suffice.  Most consumer data packages from your ISP will not have much better than 10 Mb/s up bandwidth.  That is 1.25 MB/s.  If you want to move 4TB of data it seems to me it'll take you over 37 days to move it.  Not good.

You will be much better off with a NAS solution.  I use a Synology Diskstation 1515+ at work.  Combine that with Western Digital Red 4TB drives (biggest this NAS will take) and you'll net about 15TB of storage (you "lose"* one drive to RAID-5 and 1TB to the file allocation table).  I forget the final cost but all told it was around $1500 (including the drives which are bought separately from the NAS).

I know there was worry about hard drive longevity but the WD-Red drives are built with NAS in mind so while not the speediest performers they are built to last.  Additionally, since you have these in a RAID setup, when a drive dies you are ok.  Pop out the dead drive and pop in a new one (if two drives go at once you are screwed but that is unlikely).  Buy a sixth drive to sit on a shelf and be ready to go in case you worry about shipping time for a new drive.

These NAS stations come with all sorts of extra bells and whistles.  For instance it can be your own "cloud" storage device which you can access from anywhere including your cell phones.  Upload and download stuff to it just as you would with any other cloud storage service (the ability to do this will depend on your ISP...some don't give you the necessary control over your network to make it happen and setting it up is not easy if you are a new to this) .  They can also be added on to down the road if you need even more storage.

You can of course opt for even bigger NAS or more robust fault tolerance.  It is all a matter of cost and your pain threshold (how bad it would be to lose the stuff).  It also is a single point of failure.  If you are robbed or have a fire or a pissed off person goes at it with a bat you are SOL.  All of these things can be protected against to some extent but again more money and effort.  All things you need to balance when making a decision.  Few things will be bullet proof and those that are will cost accordingly.

FTR:  I do not work for or own stock in any of these companies.  The Synology Diskstation has plenty of competition and it is worth your time to compare other manufacturers.  I only mention that one because I have personal experience with it.  YMMV.

* I am fully aware of how data striping works and that you do not literally "lose" a drive to it.  Just noting you lose that much storage space out of the system to cover the overhead for the RAID.  The more drives you have the less "expensive" the RAID becomes (three drives lose 33%, four drives lose 25%, five drives lose 20% and so on).

First an interesting article just read. http://www.extremetech.com/computing/170748-how-long-do-hard-drives-actually-live-for

Apparently ~80 or drives last for 4 years or more. with 3 distinct phases.
Bad drives fail out quick over about the first year and a half, then there is a year and a half lul while just random failures happen, then drives start getting old at about 3 years and wear and tear starts culling them.

But some advice. A good chunk of hard drive failure is associated with use. A backup array that is powered down will on average last longer for the same investment then one constantly on. Oh and RAID is a good option. You just have to chose the RAID solution best for you. For example if you are looking at bigger drives and want greater fault tolerance RAID 6 is your man over 5.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2015, 03:59:19 PM by lucek »

Offline Zerowantuthri

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 120
Re: Episode #503
« Reply #31 on: March 02, 2015, 05:17:48 PM »
Apparently ~80 or drives last for 4 years or more. with 3 distinct phases.
Bad drives fail out quick over about the first year and a half, then there is a year and a half lul while just random failures happen, then drives start getting old at about 3 years and wear and tear starts culling them.

As noted I use WD Red drives which are optimized for NAS usage (e.g. 24/7 usage).  There is some debate about whether they really last long but they do come with a better warranty:

Quote
Are these features worth the extra premium? We have no doubts about that, as the extended warranty period (3 years vs. 2 for the Green drives) and 24x7 support, as well as the lower power consumption should pay for itself over the course of the lifetime of the drive. Irrespective of the warranty / RMA possibility, consumers would do well to keep data on any hard drive (including the WD Reds) backed up (if possible, in a different location).

SOURCE: http://www.anandtech.com/show/6157/western-digital-red-review-are-nasoptimized-hdds-worth-the-premium/2

As I mentioned before the right solution depends on the person.  There are costs associated with all this and higher levels of protection generally cost more.  The question for the individual is their tolerance for a complete failure and how much they are willing/able to spend.  If you have your doctoral thesis you've been working on for the past five years on there then you want to be a freak about securing that data.  If it is your grandma with some emails and a few pictures of her grandchildren you sent her then it is not a big deal.

RAID-6 allows for two simultaneous drive failures but comes with that extra overhead which eats into your storage space.  Is RAID-5 enough?  Maybe...it is unlikely two drives will fail at the same time as long as you get the one failed drive replaced reasonably quickly.  But unlikely does not mean never either.  Again, the right answer depends on each person's unique circumstances.

The real worry here is a single point of failure (fire, theft, etc.).  That is harder to deal with.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2015, 05:23:26 PM by Zerowantuthri »

Offline lucek

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: Episode #503
« Reply #32 on: March 02, 2015, 05:54:57 PM »
The real worry here is a single point of failure (fire, theft, etc.).  That is harder to deal with.

True. I've always heard 1 original. 1 onsite backup. 1 offsite backup (For sgu hopefully at least in another state so if Connecticut is taken out by a asteroid then the survives can listen to sage rational advice while building a post apocalyptic utopia.)

Offline Ambious

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2021
  • Up the Irons!
Re: Episode #503
« Reply #33 on: March 03, 2015, 07:21:47 AM »
The highest capacity of a commercially available microSD card is 128GB.

SanDisk just announced they have that beat.

SanDisk announces 200GB Ultra Premium Edition microSDXC card at MWC 2015

Yeah, I noticed:

Oh look, my previous analysis is already defunct:
SanDisk stuffs 200GB into a microSD card for your phone

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Quote
"Teach thy tongue to say “I do not know”, and thous shalt progress."
–Maimonides

Offline gehnofdni

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 50
Re: Episode #503
« Reply #34 on: March 03, 2015, 07:49:54 PM »
I know how ridiculous the burning excrement in space SOF item sounded (I assumed it was like our recent ancestors using it to store and radiate heat rather than literally burning it), but I still cannot wrap my head around a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon, whose practice is probably pulling in over $25K per day, spending his very valuable time converting his patients belly fat into biofuel for his Ford SUV (and what kind of Beverly Hills plastic surgeon drives a Ford SUV) rather than performing plastic surgeries.

Offline Tamar Wilner

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 4
Re: Episode #503
« Reply #35 on: March 03, 2015, 11:45:33 PM »
On the question of whether conservatives are more likely to take anti-science positions - there aren’t actually all that many science issues that have been documented to be politically polarized (I can think of global warming, evolution, nuclear power, fracking… not much else). These aren't very significant numbers for anyone who wants to argue that conservative anti-science positions outnumber the liberal ones, although of course as a nation we do spend a lot more time talking about GW+evolution than we do nuclear+fracking.

However, there is something to what Werecow says: "After all, the conservative mindset is one of resistance against change, whereas science is inherently progressive...." Yes, there are several studies demonstrating that the tendency to be protective of the status quo - which strongly correlates with conservative ideology - correlates with being skeptical of man-made climate change.

Also, as one of the TAM speakers pointed out (Donald Prothero, maybe?), the Republican party is the one taking major anti-science positions on the federal level. Democrats aren't.

I think it’s safe to say that ideology is not the only driver for these beliefs, but it’s a big one and important to understand. I don’t buy Mooney’s claim that “It’s a fun game to play, this correlating — but it lends itself more to partisan finger pointing than deeper explanations.” In fact, there’s good evidence that this polarization of scientific issues is often preventable, and science communication researchers are right to investigate and seek to establish best practices (which communication professionals can then test).

Zerowantuthri - I think in discussing these matters it’s helpful to disaggregate science “denial” from disagreement that science should be used in policy decisions, or being against federal science funding. In fact, I would like to see the skeptic movement seriously question its use of the term “science denial.” The psychological literature shows that this is not an accurate descriptor of people’s motivations or beliefs. Those who doubt man-made climate change, for example, are not saying they don’t care what the science is - they would say that they think the case for AGW isn’t proven (among other arguments). You can certainly argue that they are not using best skeptical/scientific principles in how they weight the evidence, but the term “science denial” is both inaccurate and likely to cement the distrust between sides of the argument, further inhibiting meaningful discussion.

Online werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3227
  • mooh
Re: Episode #503
« Reply #36 on: March 04, 2015, 03:58:42 AM »
In fact, I would like to see the skeptic movement seriously question its use of the term “science denial.” The psychological literature shows that this is not an accurate descriptor of people’s motivations or beliefs. Those who doubt man-made climate change, for example, are not saying they don’t care what the science is - they would say that they think the case for AGW isn’t proven (among other arguments).
I think that's a distinction without a difference, really. You can't say "I care a lot about the science on this subject" and then ignore heaps of evidence because it is not in line with your beliefs. If 97% of researchers on a topic say the evidence points one way, you should at least have a damn good reason to go the other way.

"Skeptics" certainly isn't accurate. I would argue that their position is based on a denial that the evidence says what it says, and so the term is perfectly reasonable. Or maybe science ignorers would be more accurate. Or in some cases, science illiterates. But I doubt that those terms will cause any less hostility. What term would you propose we use?

Edit: Maybe science-misinformoids? Misconceptionists?
« Last Edit: March 04, 2015, 04:43:08 AM by werecow »
Mooohn!

Offline Zerowantuthri

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 120
Re: Episode #503
« Reply #37 on: March 04, 2015, 05:33:57 PM »
In fact, I would like to see the skeptic movement seriously question its use of the term “science denial.” The psychological literature shows that this is not an accurate descriptor of people’s motivations or beliefs.

As werecow mentioned I am not sure that is a useful distinction to make.

If I claim to be totally for science then do something to show I'm not understanding science at all I am not inclined to believe that person.  They may think they are all down with the science but that does not make it so.

It is like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.  They can call themselves whatever they like.  Maybe even believe that there "votes" are democratic.  Doesn't make it so.

Offline Tamar Wilner

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 4
Re: Episode #503
« Reply #38 on: March 05, 2015, 12:22:02 AM »
In fact, I would like to see the skeptic movement seriously question its use of the term “science denial.” The psychological literature shows that this is not an accurate descriptor of people’s motivations or beliefs. Those who doubt man-made climate change, for example, are not saying they don’t care what the science is - they would say that they think the case for AGW isn’t proven (among other arguments).
I think that's a distinction without a difference, really. You can't say "I care a lot about the science on this subject" and then ignore heaps of evidence because it is not in line with your beliefs. If 97% of researchers on a topic say the evidence points one way, you should at least have a damn good reason to go the other way.

It's important to recognize that scientific affinity doesn't bear on the question of one's stance on climate change, evolution, etc., because knowing that helps to us shape better science communication strategies.

NSF studies have consistently shown that a huge majority of Americans like and trust science. Very rarely do the people who take these anti-science positions think of themselves as anti-science.

Here's an example: this NPR caller challenged Paul Offit http://www.npr.org/2011/01/07/132740175/paul-offit-on-the-anti-vaccine-movement on what she saw as his position, that non-vaccinators are “yahoos who just don’t look at the scientific process at all.” Did she show a less than scientific mindset when she rejected Offit’s explanations as “pap,” arguing that “a two-year-old cannot accept this kind of chemical onslaught”? Yeah, I think she did. But she doesn’t see herself as rejecting science. She sees herself as an “an educated adult.”

OK, so why does this matter, I think you're saying.

It matters because if we can dismiss the simplistic idea that these people are simply "anti-science," we get into the much more interesting question of why they do form the beliefs they do. And then that helps us figure out how to be better science communicators. For example, the research literature suggests that by avoiding polarizing language that ties particular positions to particular political ideologies, people will think in a more evidence-based way.

As for what to call climate "skeptics"/"deniers" - I actually do prefer deniers, because they are denying that climate change is happening. That's fine. I just wouldn't call them science deniers.

I like the sentiment behind misconceptionists thought! Just need something a bit shorter/catchier. Miscons?

Offline matt_g

  • Doesn't Panic
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • my site
Re: Episode #503
« Reply #39 on: March 05, 2015, 03:32:53 AM »
For a fun experience, have listen to the original incarnation of The Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy - the BBC Radio play (1978), and then listen to the BBC radio Play of Foundation from 1973. It's hilarious the degree to which HHGTTG is a parody / homage to both Foundation as a source text, and the recorded version specifically.
"...and I'm all out of bubblegum."

Online werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3227
  • mooh
Re: Episode #503
« Reply #40 on: March 05, 2015, 04:12:31 AM »
It's important to recognize that scientific affinity doesn't bear on the question of one's stance on climate change, evolution, etc., because knowing that helps to us shape better science communication strategies.

NSF studies have consistently shown that a huge majority of Americans like and trust science. Very rarely do the people who take these anti-science positions think of themselves as anti-science.

Sure, but then probably neither does Neal Adams. In fact, when you listen to his SGU interview, he seems to think he's doing science, all the while casually throwing out one major field after another. I don't think how people see themselves is the best criterion to determine their stance on science from.

As for what to call climate "skeptics"/"deniers" - I actually do prefer deniers, because they are denying that climate change is happening. That's fine. I just wouldn't call them science deniers.
Well, I think that's usually what we mean when we talk about denialism; denial of a specific subset of scientific claims. People always pick and choose what they like to some degree. Creationists aren't typically science deniers either. They are just evolution, and in some cases geology, astronomy, cosmology and physics deniers. But even then, they're going to be selective about which parts of those fields they deny. And as you can see, that list starts to become wordy. If I had to sum up all the areas of science that Neal Adams denies the evidence for, I'd be here all day. At what point does one become a full-blown science denier?


Also, though they might whine about it, in my experience (I've mainly debated creationists and climate change contrarians), it really doesn't matter what you call them. I've often tried to steer clear of using the term "denier", but in the end, you're still the enemy of reason as they see it. Either way, you are the enemy or the dupe, and they have seen the light. You could call them "climate geniuses" or "mighty evolution destroyers for God" and I don't think it'd make a damn bit of difference.

Miscons?
Sounds a bit like neocons. Or miscreants. That might not have the effect you desired. }|:op
« Last Edit: March 05, 2015, 04:15:27 AM by werecow »
Mooohn!

Offline alfaniner

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Episode #503
« Reply #41 on: March 05, 2015, 11:16:03 AM »
re: Who's That Noisy?  (the ever-rising note)

I always wondered how they got the Tasmanian Devil to be constantly revving up.  Now I know.

Offline nzdreamer55

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 2
Re: Episode #503
« Reply #42 on: March 05, 2015, 03:53:27 PM »
Hello everyone.  Long time listener, 2nd time poster to the forums.  I was really interested in the segment of Phantom Acupuncture.  I am a veterinarian and we are getting inundated with this modality of treatment.  As the field becomes harder and harder to make a living within, veterinarians are reaching out for other ways to treat disease (make a buck).  I followed the link to Dr. Novella's blog post, but could not find the sourced reference.  I would love to read the study (even if I need to pay for it) but am not sure where to look.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks
-S
« Last Edit: March 05, 2015, 04:04:07 PM by nzdreamer55 »

Offline seaotter

  • Drunkenly yelling LITTLE WING!
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 27022
  • My homunculus is a grammar troll!
Re: Episode #503
« Reply #43 on: March 05, 2015, 04:18:10 PM »
Welcome!
"There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things." Lewis Carroll

Offline chook raffle

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Episode #503
« Reply #44 on: March 06, 2015, 05:59:07 AM »
'Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge' - Darwin

 

personate-rain
personate-rain