 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 08:54:51 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> It's news to me that DAT was ever intended as anything other than a
>>> studio format.
>>
>> That's why it sucks so hard as a backup medium - it was only intended
>> to be used for lossy data (ie, audio), and was adapted for use for
>> backup medium.
>
> Digital is digital. If you lose digital data, generally it utterly
> screws everything up.
You'd think so, but having seen them used in both lossy and lossless
situations, I'll take experience over conjecture. ;)
> I too spent many years using DAT (actually DDS-4) tapes for backup. We
> had occasional problems, but nothing major.
I never had good luck with DDS-2 tapes myself. You might recall that I
related a story a couple years ago where I got *blamed* for data loss
from DDS-2 DAT tapes even though I warned that the systems were telling
me that the backups were no good (ie, they failed verification every
night). Then the finance server crashed and was completely unrecoverable.
I don't trust DAT tapes for backup any further can I can *comfortably*
spit a rat.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:15:42 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 12/04/2011 10:28 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:17:28 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/04/2011 6:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> It's news to me that DAT was ever intended as anything other than a
>>>>>> studio format.
>>>> That's why it sucks so hard as a backup medium - it was only intended
>>>> to be used for lossy data (ie, audio), and was adapted for use for
>>>> backup medium.
>>>
>>> Are you sure about that, Jim?
>>> I seem to remember that in the mid 70s I used DAT tape to load
>>> programmes and data into a Burroughs mini computer.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure about that. "Digital Audio Tape" is what DAT stands
>> for.
>>
>>
> Well they were not called DAT but they were in the same casing and had
> similar lengths. They did have a small hole punched near to the ends of
> the tape and a light sensor to stop the tape running off the spindle.
Yeah, that's different than what I'm talking about - DDS-2 (for example)
didn't come out until the 90's IIRC.
>> You aren't thinking about standard cassettes? I used to use those on
>> Commodore PET and C64 computers, and they also had occasional issues
>> with data loss.
>>
>>
>
> Never had one of those.
I had a C64, but the PET was a business computer back in the 80's. We
had those at school.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/04/2011 5:07 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah, that's different than what I'm talking about - DDS-2 (for example)
> didn't come out until the 90's IIRC.
>
It was a long time ago but I'm sure those tapes were very similar to
DATs. I wouldn't put money on it though.
>>> >> You aren't thinking about standard cassettes? I used to use those on
>>> >> Commodore PET and C64 computers, and they also had occasional issues
>>> >> with data loss.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>> >
>> > Never had one of those.
> I had a C64, but the PET was a business computer back in the 80's. We
> had those at school.
>
My first computer was an Amstrad PC1512, that's not counting
programmable calculators.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:53:03 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> My first computer was an Amstrad PC1512, that's not counting
> programmable calculators.
That goes back a bit before my time. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/04/2011 9:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:53:03 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> My first computer was an Amstrad PC1512, that's not counting
>> programmable calculators.
>
> That goes back a bit before my time. :)
>
1986?
The youngsters today don't know that they are living.
Four Yorkshiremen?
http://www.zappinternet.com/video/jetCpaHyaK/At-Last-the-1948-Show-The-Four-Yorkshiremen-Sketch
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:26:16 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 13/04/2011 9:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2011 18:53:03 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> My first computer was an Amstrad PC1512, that's not counting
>>> programmable calculators.
>>
>> That goes back a bit before my time. :)
>>
>>
> 1986?
Hmm, maybe not - I had been thinking it was more contemporary to the C64,
but my brain hiccuped. ;)
> The youngsters today don't know that they are living. Four Yorkshiremen?
>
> http://www.zappinternet.com/video/jetCpaHyaK/At-Last-the-1948-Show-The-
Four-Yorkshiremen-Sketch
Indeed, I've seen/heard many versions of it. BTW, thanks for the 'new to
me' Clue - I was right, we hadn't heard those before. :)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/04/2011 10:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>
>>> That goes back a bit before my time. :)
>>>
>>>
>> 1986?
>
> Hmm, maybe not - I had been thinking it was more contemporary to the C64,
> but my brain hiccuped. ;)
You might be buying one of these then.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12997245
>
>> The youngsters today don't know that they are living. Four Yorkshiremen?
>>
>> http://www.zappinternet.com/video/jetCpaHyaK/At-Last-the-1948-Show-The-
> Four-Yorkshiremen-Sketch
>
> Indeed, I've seen/heard many versions of it. BTW, thanks for the 'new to
> me' Clue - I was right, we hadn't heard those before. :)
>
Clue? At last the 1948 show.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 13/04/2011 04:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 4/13/2011 0:55, Invisible wrote:
>> And this is why DRM will never work. As long as at least one device
>> exists
>> which ignores DRM, the system is trivially broken.
>
> In that sense of trivial, it's already trivially broken, because there
> are no secrets involved. To play encrypted media, you have to decrypt it
> on the customer's equipment, meaning the customer has in his hands
> everything he needs to know to bypass the DRM.
It would be harder to crack if you invented some new storage format and
then made all devices capable of playing it respect the DRM. (In
particular, this means not making it playable on a PC.) Trouble is, as I
say, as soon as one company manufactures a device that ignores the DRM,
everything is ruined forever.
On the other hand, if you can see it, you can copy it. At least until
they ban video recording equipment...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/14/2011 1:07 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 13/04/2011 04:55 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> On 4/13/2011 0:55, Invisible wrote:
>>> And this is why DRM will never work. As long as at least one device
>>> exists
>>> which ignores DRM, the system is trivially broken.
>>
>> In that sense of trivial, it's already trivially broken, because there
>> are no secrets involved. To play encrypted media, you have to decrypt it
>> on the customer's equipment, meaning the customer has in his hands
>> everything he needs to know to bypass the DRM.
>
> It would be harder to crack if you invented some new storage format and
> then made all devices capable of playing it respect the DRM. (In
> particular, this means not making it playable on a PC.) Trouble is, as I
> say, as soon as one company manufactures a device that ignores the DRM,
> everything is ruined forever.
>
Such systems have existed, I will give you two guesses why they never
took off. First, it locks you into using *only* devices that actually
support it, which is exactly what the DRM of DVDs attempted to do. Ones
that decode them for OSes/devices that can't natively do so still have
to use the DRM, they just don't have to use the "approved" method. Any
system that was unbreakable, would be useless though, since you would be
forced to use it only how the distributor allowed. And.. That isn't
going to go over too well. Second, it creates conditions where the data
becomes unreadable, once the technology is passed out of use. Half the
shit produced for computers over the last 30 years either requires the
original hardware to even read, or had DRM on it, which requires
"cracking" the DRM method used, to replicate it some place else, and
even when there wasn't any DRM, simply difference in file formats, or
media formats, have rendered everything from NASA records, to old games,
to office documents, unusable.
If you care about the content persisting at all, you **can't** DRM it.
If you don't give a shit that 50 years from now the only copy requires
some device, which understands the DRM, and can read the media, of which
only one is known to even exist, then.. lock the thing up as tight as
you want. Just don't whine to the few people that managed to copy it
anyway, that you are losing revenue, or some such, over something even
*you* can't reproduce any more.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/04/2011 8:22 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 13/04/2011 10:03 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> That goes back a bit before my time. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 1986?
>>
>> Hmm, maybe not - I had been thinking it was more contemporary to the C64,
>> but my brain hiccuped. ;)
>
You might be buying one of these then.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12997245
>>
>>> The youngsters today don't know that they are living. Four Yorkshiremen?
>>>
>>> http://www.zappinternet.com/video/jetCpaHyaK/At-Last-the-1948-Show-The-
>> Four-Yorkshiremen-Sketch
>>
>> Indeed, I've seen/heard many versions of it. BTW, thanks for the 'new to
>> me' Clue - I was right, we hadn't heard those before. :)
>>
>
>
Clue? At last the 1948 show.
>
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
