Posts by BobS

Delete all you like, but it won't free up space

the system must scan remaining data ... ?

Why? If the reference count (to the file, block, or whatever you've deduped) is going from 1 to 0, you can delete the actual data, otherwise you need to keep it.

I'm similarly stumped by "reclamation is rarely run on a continuous basis on deduplication systems – instead, you either have to wait for the next scheduled process, or manually force it to start." What prevents reclamation happening as soon as the reference count hits zero?

Regarding the randomly selected early warning thresholds, wouldn't it be more useful to monitor usage vs reference count. e.g.

90% full with reference count > 100 is different from 90% full with all files having reference count of 1. In the later case, targets for deletion will be easier to identify.

Boots punts over-the-counter paternity test

"has no real medical purpose"?

I'm surprised the author allowed Josephine Quintavalle to get away with "Boots should not be involved in this type of genetic testing which has no real medical purpose,"

Has neither of them ever been asked about their family medical history?

If these have any diagnostic value, the child could suffer when the true father's history is ignored and the presumed father's history treated as relevant.

Won't somebody think of the children ? (TM)

UK.gov misses deadline on EU Phorm probe

BT continue to spin

On Saturday I cancelled my BT service, their Phorm trials irked me and the recent disclosures about their throttling of non port 80 traffic was the final straw. BT attempted to stall by various methods, disconnecting the call, telling us the MAC system wasn't working and they would call back in a day or two. They also tried reasoned argument. I was promised that Phorm would be on an opt-in basis only, controlled by cookies. How their salesman could give such an assurance, when the matter is debate between Phorm and BT is a mystery.

I thought the following quote was especially self serving: "... there is no evidence to suggest significant detriment to the individuals involved" i.e. we didn't hurt anyone, honest guv’. This statement speaks volumes about the monumentally presumptuous attitude BT are displaying to their customers. BT are essentially setting themselves as judge/jury; then acquitting themselves. I wonder how this defence would work for a postman at your local magistrates’ court: "No one was reading the letters, so I thought I would". Then again this could be a factually accurate; there is no evidence because they've hidden it.

Judge in tech trial says he 'doesn't know what a website is'

Alternatively ...

This reminded me of those lazy tabloid stories which go around every so often, where a judge is quoted as asking “Who is <insert name of well know celeb>”. E.g. Who is Paul Gascoigne? The reality is that the judge knows who Gazza is, but has noticed that no one has testified that they mean ‘THE’ Paul Gascoigne as opposed to a Paul Gascoigne. To simplify matters, he simple asks for clarification. I presume the naïve phrasing of the question is to avoid appearing to give evidence by implying an answer.

I’m never sure if the journalists concerned are ignorant of the truth, or simply pefer to fabricate a story at the expense of the judiciary.

Given that the least able member of your average jury has a reading age, level of education, etc. etc. far below any judge; it seems likely that Judge Peter Openshaw is asking the experts to slow down for the benefit of the jury. I suppose he could ask the experts to produce a Janet & John version for the 12 drooling incompetents on the jury, but it’s not conducive to them assimilating the facts.

Five minutes on Google produced the following:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications_media/general/openshaw_170507.htm

Tut, tut El Reg. I’ve grown accustomed to seeing you apply healthy scepticism to the stories you cover. Even if you don’t completely buy into the official version, would it hurt to present the alternatives?