 | | Re: Dumb question, in all probability
|
|
(...) Because out of all the possible outcomes (which together must sum to 1.0000, by definition) those are the two outcomes that match your description (all one color)... none of the other outcomes (BBBBW, BBBWB, BBBWW, etc etc etc ... keep (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Dumb question, in all probability
|
|
(...) I was on the right track until this step. Why are the BBBBB and WWWWW results added together? (...) Thanks for playing, in any case. Dave! (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Dumb question, in all probability
|
|
(...) Assuming a perfect draw (50% chance of either color if there are 100 candies present with 50 each) and that the draw is without replacement.. let's work the white case first, that is, what is the probability of WWWWW ? (...) (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Dumb question, in all probability
|
|
Assuming that a pack of the new Black&White M&M's has exactly 50 of each color, what are the odds that the first five candies drawn from the package will be of the same color? (21 years ago, 24-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: Sci Fi Novels --> movies
|
|
(...) It's been on the table for about 20 years now, and supposedly things were getting underway about four years ago (20th Century Fox, director of Speed/Twister, etc.). I can't find any info post-2002, though, and most of the solid stuff dates (...) (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Sci Fi Novels --> movies
|
|
(...) Ooooh, good call. That would be sweet. Soren (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Sci Fi Novels --> movies
|
|
(...) Speaking of sci-fi novels begging for a film adaptation, I've always thought the Stainless Steel Rat series by Harry Harrison would make rip-roaring films. I vote for Jude Law to play Slippery Jim di Griz Allister (21 years ago, 6-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: open relay??
|
|
(...) The way pair sets up their servers, they don't go through any mail relays before sending out mail - and since that IP isn't LUGNET's (or pair's for that matter), it must be a server between LUGNET and your mail server. As far as the Bayesian (...) (21 years ago, 5-Mar-04, to lugnet.admin.nntp, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) Yes, there's going to be basically insane amounts of redundancy -- not just live mirroring, but staged images so that any corrupted data isn't instantly propagated to all the backups. (...) Oh, what, the above part wasn't geeky? :) (...) With (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) Yeah, we're going to examine all of the data and see which should be mounted with which special options. Some stuff will be mounted 'sync' to reduce the chance of data loss in the event of power failure or system crash, neither of which should (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) Don't forget to turn off atime updates ('noatime' option in FreeBSD fstab) on all filesystems that don't need it (everything but var usually). This will prevent all those reads from inadvertantly creating filesystems writes. Brickshelf too is (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) Look at (URL). Although I need to update that page. Right now, our install server is way underpowered, but it should be getting upgraded sometime this spring (just in time for BU Linux 4.0, hopefully). Because of this, it's only available on (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) Yeah, sorry, I wasn't saying I though that you should have gone the SCSI route (I thought my anecdotes would have showed that!) more that I thought it was interesting the move away from SCSI for custom built servers. A few years ago it would (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) I agree completely on the utility of tape. Speed, size, cost, and reliability are always a problem; tape systems seem to always be a generation behind what disk drives need (and with the relative demand curves, they are not going to catch up). (...) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) Not to mention the fact that current IDE drives are just as reliable as SCSI. SCSI is nice if you need maximum speed and can live with little storage space (SCSI above 74 GB is rare still, IDE goes to 250GB easily But the generated heat and (...) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) That summarizes it pretty well. SATA is something like five times cheaper per byte, and that's not even counting that we'd need a more expensive motherboard with a SCSI controller. Right now, disk isn't really the bottleneck for the load, so (...) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) Yes, no one there to change tapes or CDs. The data will be frequently synced to off-site locations -- not just Todd's place. (...) What, planning for a nuclear calamity are you? :) (But yeah, we'll have that.) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) Excellent point. Looks like there's three differentm steppings for this particular CPU model, and any of the first two can be mixed freely, but the third can't. I've messed with all this stuff before, but it doesn't hurt to be reminded of it, (...) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) Matthew could answer this better than I, but my opinion is that the money is put to better use in ECC memory, and gobs of it. We're starting of with 1GB of RAM, upgradeable to 8GB. Since the OS automatically allocates unused RAM toward (...) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
| |
| | Re: New LUGNET server hardware details
|
|
(...) Nope, I hate tape backup (too slow, too small, too expensive, too unreliable) and CDR's are too small and too labor intensive. Of course, the lack of a CDRW drive doesn't preclude physical media backups from being carried out elsewhere. (...) (...) (21 years ago, 29-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
