RANT: Modern technology

[Shocker]

Re: RANT: Modern technology

I can't be bothered watching it. Which one is it???

[mariushm]

Re: RANT: Modern technology

I can't be bothered telling you.

[Shocker]

Re: RANT: Modern technology

I can't get better internet without moving house. If you don't care about that, fuck off.

You mentioned that we should recycle, BUT you also mentioned things that are only relevant to landfilling, and together there's no sense to be made of them. Go with one or the other.

You CANNOT honestly say someone is full of shit unless they're disagreeing with a UNIVERSAL (idiots aside) agreement.

I hate to mirror your attitude towards me but maybe you didn't read the article I posted.

EDIT: You even once said something that anyone who actually knows what is inside a hard drive knows is blatantly wrong.

[mariushm]

Re: RANT: Modern technology

You don't need fast internet to click on a link and see the title of the page or the video.

What I was saying and I keep saying all the time (I like being consistent) is that RoHS and other laws were not made just to ban lead solder, but their purpose were also to restrict the usage of hazardous chemicals and substances.

That hard drive used halon, which is deadly if used improperly and on top of that it's also quite toxic to environment. Besides this substance, there were laws banning brominated flame retardands used in plastics and insulation jackets before RoHS was made... like Tetrabromobisphenol A which was used in TV cases and on PCBs.

RoHS just went further banning other flame retardands, like Polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) and Polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) ... and toxic stuff like Mercury and Cadmium.

In all the posts you make, you seem to equate RoHS to "lead free solder" which seems to be your pet peeve. Everything you find faulty is already in your mind caused by tin whiskers or lead free solder, you've found your scape goat. It's simply annoying.

I continue to insist that in "the grand scheme of things", the impact of lead free solder is not as big as you make it to be, and it makes more good than harm in the long term.

Yes, changing to lead free may have decreased reliability of hardware, but the reliability decreased already in much bigger percent anyway due to other reasons (such as customers' demands for smaller hardware, cheaper hardware etc)


The edit you made doesn't make sense.

[Shocker]

Re: RANT: Modern technology

other laws

I'm talking about RoHS SPECIFICALLY.

Mercury

I'm sorry if this is news to you, but fluorescent lights use mercury vapour.

In all the posts you make, you seem to equate RoHS to "lead free solder" which seems to be your pet peeve. Everything you find faulty is already in your mind caused by tin whiskers or lead free solder, you've found your scape goat. It's simply annoying.

YOU JUST DON'T GET WHAT I'M SAYING SO GET LOST. If it's caused by English not being your first language, don't post here unless you need help yourself.

I continue to insist that in "the grand scheme of things", the impact of lead free solder is not as big as you make it to be, and it makes more good than harm in the long term.

RoHS inhibits recycling, because it prevents older parts from being re-used in new equipment.

Yes, changing to lead free may have decreased reliability of hardware, but the reliability decreased already in much bigger percent anyway due to other reasons (such as customers' demands for smaller hardware, cheaper hardware etc)

I never denied that, but the problem is that there's no way to avoid RoHS when buying hardware new, and this often extends to separate electronic components. I know this happens with quality too, but there is a difference between lack of demand (caused by stupid customers) and regulatory issues (caused by stupid politicians).

The edit you made doesn't make sense.

https://www.badcaps.net/node/16043

[mariushm]

Re: RANT: Modern technology

YOU JUST DON'T GET WHAT I'M SAYING SO GET LOST. If it's caused by English not being your first language, don't post here unless you need help yourself.

Funny how it seems I write better English than you, a native English speaker.

I was referring to the edit of your last post:

EDIT: You even once said something that anyone who actually knows what is inside a hard drive knows is blatantly wrong.

"You even once said" is gramatically incorrect.
"anyone who .. knows , knows is wrong" is just very poorly, hard to understand construction, phrasing.

And I stand by my comment in that thread (#10).. I believe what I wrote there is correct: Freezing drives should be the last recovery attempt and it can do more damage than good if done incorrectly.

I'm sorry if this is news to you, but fluorescent lights use mercury vapour.

Fluorescent lights are exempt from RoHS in the same manner as car batteries which still contain lead.

There are recycling methods in place for both items and the mercury is - just like the lead in batteries - is contained inside the device (the bulb), thereby end user is protected from them.

RoHS also has exceptions for things like mercury switches, motion sensors, lead solder in aviation or other military devices and so on.

The amount of bulbs that crack or break is a ridiculously small amount, most just die and can be easily sent to recycling. Therefore, mercury in fluorescent bulbs is not really a concern as much as flame retardands and lead in solder is.

RoHS inhibits recycling, because it prevents older parts from being re-used in new equipment.

Here's the RoHS law text: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...19:0023:EN:PDF

Quote me the part where it says it's not allowed to re-use older parts in new equipment, or any text which says it inhibits recycling. I believe you just pulled this out of your ass.

[Shocker]

Re: RANT: Modern technology

And I stand by my comment in that thread (#10).. I believe what I wrote there is correct: Freezing drives should be the last recovery attempt and it can do more damage than good if done incorrectly.

I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to what you said about optics. EDIT: Which is just two posts below the one you were thinking of.

The amount of bulbs that crack or break is a ridiculously small amount, most just die and can be easily sent to recycling. Therefore, mercury in fluorescent bulbs is not really a concern as much as[...]

You're grossly underestimating the clumsiness of people, I'm afraid. It's easy to break the lights if you're not careful.

As for the solder comparison, there is, yet again, a difference which may make the comparison unfair: Solder is solid after the equipment is assembled, while the mercury in fluorescent lamps is in the form of a vapour. And don't tell me you're assuming the solder ends up in landfill.

Quote me the part where it says it's not allowed to re-use older parts in new equipment, or any text which says it inhibits recycling.

It doesn't make it clear whether it refers to the reuse of fully assembled equipment, of subassemblies, or of individual parts. I'm not holding my breath, though.

And for the record, insults make me even LESS tempted to do the research.

[ben7]

Re: RANT: Modern technology

Yes I know modern technology is crap, but please, no flame wars

Got a damned asus gaming mobo from someone, and the 'nvidia' on-board graphics chip has burnt. It's silicon is dark/crumbled, and its shorting out the board. Why, oh WHY do they still use nvidia?

[Time2Retire]

Re: RANT: Modern technology

I prefer nVidia. Why do people use over-priced AMD Radeon?

[lti]

Re: RANT: Modern technology

I have had enough issues with nVidia drivers in the past that I don't want to try any of their new stuff.

[Shocker]

Re: RANT: Modern technology

https://www.badcaps.net/node/375624

They may even have some quality optics to read the platter surface using lasers or some stuff like that.

Go on, try pulling it NOW.

[mariushm]

Re: RANT: Modern technology

I guess I should stop writing at 1-2 AM in the morning, when I'm tired.

Yes, hard drives are magnetic, so it would be hard to read the surface using lasers.

But I do remember about a technology back in the days of 3-4 GB hard drives which used laser to detect the tracks and keep a recovery disk head ahead of the surface on bent or cracked or broken platters.
I don't think I'd be able to find the articles now so let's just drop it, let's just say what I said is incorrect.

I'm not ashamed or too proud to admit when I do a mistake, unlike other people who persist in their stupidity. And thank g*d for people like you who have time to go through someone's history to find dirt on them.

[Shocker]

Re: RANT: Modern technology

I guess that settles it then. Let's forget about this WHOLE thread and try something else.

[ben7]

Re: RANT: Modern technology

I'll start off!

I hate how people are on their phones, texting so much. It is even rude, like, texting during classes for example. Though, it's not just texting! Loads of people have these 'iphone' thingies, and they play games on them all the time. I go out into the common-room, and everybody is like sitting or standing, with their heads tilted down, looking at the phones.

[larrymoencurly]

Re: RANT: Modern technology

I'll start off!

I hate how people are on their phones, texting so much. It is even rude, like, texting during classes for example. Though, it's not just texting! Loads of people have these 'iphone' thingies, and they play games on them all the time. I go out into the common-room, and everybody is like sitting or standing, with their heads tilted down, looking at the phones.

Has anyone here built a jammer to enforce good manners?

[ben7]

Re: RANT: Modern technology

Has anyone here built a jammer to enforce good manners?

I was thinking of that! But they can use the internet too.... which some of us use for educative things.

[Shocker]

Flame-war retardant

A simple "guide" to whether you can say someone is wrong, or full of it (feel free to add stuff; I can't think of everything):

Hard facts:
Something you can prove beyond a doubt.
Can you say they're wrong: Sure, but keep an open mind. It's possible that they may just be talking about something unconventional. Or maybe something that's actually common, but never occured to you.
Can you say they're full of it: If they keep saying it after you've said they're wrong (it could have been an honest mistake), then go ahead. But be absolutely sure you've done your research correctly. I can't emphasise the "hard" part enough, by the way.
Example: That HDDs store data magnetically

Debate:
Something for which there is no universal agreement.
Can you say they're wrong: I don't think there really is right or wrong in a debate, except in the case given just below.
Can you say they're full of it: Only if they say something that violates the laws of physics or is in some other way scientifically impossible.
Example: Lead-free solder and reliability

Statistics:
I would have a hard time explaining the principle, but the important thing is that you get exactly the data given and NOTHING more.
Can you say they're wrong: You can speculate, but don't make a blanket statement.
Can you say they're full of it: No.
Example: HDD failure rates

Personal experience:
You're totally free to mention it, but you can't use it against people. I don't feel the need to mention an example.

Also:

• If it's on a forum (like this one), don't ask about the obvious (possible exception: new members).
• The fact that someone doesn't mention something does not mean they don't know about it. This is important.
• Have you checked if others agree with the person involved???
• If it plainly doesn't make sense, it might be sarcasm.
• If you're surprised by someone's statement about their experience, at least consider checking it out for yourself. If you don't believe it, feel free to say so but you can't say their experience is BS.
• Are you sure your statements are relevant???
• This "guide" is not by any means intended to be the final word.

PS. Sorry about the post-title pun. (For the record, some of the flame retardants mentioned lead to discolouration, which is another reason to hate them.)

It is my honest opinion that the differences in quality often don't really show until you push the hardware to its limits. It's there that a (relatively) small expense can make the difference between success and failure.

PPS. RAID 1 doesn't improve reliability. It just allows data to survive a HDD failure.

There are people who agree with me about HDD reliability. I've already posted this, but I'll do it again anyway:

We used a few seagate Enterprise drives in PCs at work. A year later, all but one are dead.

I still think this thread is pretty much dead otherwise.

And it stands that insults get you nowhere.

[smason]

Re: Flame-war retardant

PPS. RAID 1 doesn't improve reliability. It just allows data to survive a HDD failure.
.

Depends on how you define reliability.

Say I have a server that needs to be up and reliable.

I put in a single drive. Drive fails.
I need to replace the drive, re-install the O/S (or bare metal restore) then restore the data. Downtime, at least 1 hour maybe a few.

I put in 2 drives in RAID 1. Drive fails.
I replace the drive, array re-builds in the background. No downtime.
The only one who knows is the sysadmin who got the email about the failed drive, and maybe one power user who notices a slight decrease in performance during the re-build.

Now, ask the boss who said the server needed to be reliable, whether RAID 1 improved reliability.

[Shocker]

Re: RANT: Modern technology

I'm defining reliability in the strict sense of hardware failures. RAID 1 has two drives that can fail, but you need to lose both of them to lose your data. Double the drive failures, but half the data loss. So safer, but not more reliable.

EDIT: Is my flame-war retardant working???