SanDisk Releases 512GB SD Card

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SanDisk Releases 512GB SD Card

Posted by Soulskill on Friday September 12, 2014 @09:25AM from the go-big-or-go-home dept.

Lucas123 writes: SanDisk has announced the world's highest capacity SD card, a 512GB model that represents a 1,000-fold increase over the company's first 512MB card that it shipped a decade ago. The SanDisk Extreme PRO SDXC UHS-I memory card has a max read/write rate of 95MB/s and 90MB/s, respectively. The card is rated to function in temperatures from -13 to 185 degrees Fahrenheit. The 512GB model retails for $800. The card also comes in 128GB and 256GB capacities.

210 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 09:27 · Score: -1

Learn the maths, eejit.
1. Re:1024-fold by beelsebob · 2014-09-12 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  No, that would be MibiBytes and GibiBytes. A GB is 1000 times larger than a MB.
2. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 09:32 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Only if you use the newfangled redefinitions. A traditional GB is identical to a GiB.
3. Re:1024-fold by EmagGeek · 2014-09-12 09:34 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  The OP is correct. Memory is always expressed in GiB. There is no such thing as Base-10 memory.
4. Re:1024-fold by houstonbofh · 2014-09-12 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  There are 10 kinds of people in this world; Those that know binary and those that don't.
  
  And the marketing idiots that came up with that crap are firmly in the "don't" group!
5. Re:1024-fold by rubycodez · 2014-09-12 09:45 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  You are wrong. Memory is not always expressed in GiB, and there are certainly architectures with base 10 memory (you only show you are young making a silly assertion such as that)
6. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  Base 3 for the win! :-D
7. Re:1024-fold by xfade551 · 2014-09-12 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  In case you haven't noticed, manufacturers of transistor based memory (flash, SRAM, DRAM, EEPROM, etc.) still use the 2^10 definitions. To this day, I still can't believe the marketers convince IEEE to make up the silly sounding names for the 2^10 definitions. If I had a say in the definitions, I would have tagged on subscripts of 2 and 10 to the end of the units to indicate the difference.
  
  By the way, under both sets of definitions, 1024 bytes = 1 KB = 1 KiB. It's only for MB and higher that it diverges.
8. Re:1024-fold by beelsebob · 2014-09-12 10:04 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  No, a "traditional" GB is the one that was defined way before computer scientists got their hands on it –1000. The 1024 "definition" is actually simply a bug. Engineers working on early machines had a choice – take a bug that pretty much no one would notice on an early machine (because files over 1kB were very rare, much less ones over 1MB), or take a massive perf hit. It takes a long time to compute the size of 20 files when a division by 1000 takes 300 odd cycles on a 10kHz machine. It doesn't take such a long time when a right shift 10 takes 1 cycle.
  Bottom line, early engineers decided a known bug was better than the enormous perf hit of getting it correct. That doesn't mean that what they did is now correct. It means it remains a bug in some OSes.
9. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  Well, this is in the context of removable memory on the market today. Your shot.
10. Re:1024-fold by NatasRevol · 2014-09-12 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  You only show you are old that anyone would be talking about systems using base 10 memory.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
11. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:11 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilobyte says:
  
  1 kB = 1000bytes = 10^3 bytes is the definition recommended by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC).[6] This definition is used in networking contexts and most storage media, particularly hard drives, Flash-based storage,[7] and DVDs, and is also consistent with the other uses of the SI prefix in computing, such as CPU clock speeds or measures of performance. The Mac OS X 10.6 file manager is a notable example of this usage in software. Since Snow Leopard, file sizes are reported in decimal units.[8]
  and
  
  1 KB (or KiB) = 1024bytes = 2^10 bytes is the definition used by most vendors of memory devices and software when referring to amounts of computer memory, such as Microsoft Windows and Linux.[9][unreliable source?] In the unambiguous IEC standard the unit for this amount of information is one kibibyte (KiB).
  Note the difference: kB vs KB.
12. Re:1024-fold by TechyImmigrant · 2014-09-12 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  >newfangled
  correct
  There, fixed that for you.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
13. Re:1024-fold by TechyImmigrant · 2014-09-12 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  You only show you are old that anyone would be talking about systems using base 10 memory.
  Like disk storage today
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
14. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:19 · Score: 0
  
  there are certainly architectures with base 10 memory
  Citation needed. I have never come across such architecture.
15. Re:1024-fold by Just+Some+Guy · 2014-09-12 10:19 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  No, that would be MibiBytes and GibiBytes.
  Those are not real worlds and I'll be damned if I'll ever utter them with anyone over the age of 3 in the room.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
16. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:25 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It takes a long time to compute the size of 20 files when a division by 1000 takes 300 odd cycles on a 10kHz machine.
  Sorry, man. Division by 1000 isn't even remotely a 300-cycle operation. If you're dividing by 1000 a lot, you're going to multiply by the reciprocal of 1000 instead of doing division. For 16-bit arithmetic, we're talking 6 single-bits shifts and 1 addition, worst case.
17. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  Silly me, and here I thought it was because data is stored in POWERS OF 2 and memory is addressable in POWERS OF 2. I don't know about you, but I would rather say 1GB than 1.073741824GB.
18. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:29 · Score: 0
  
  This isn't "memory." This is disk.
19. Re:1024-fold by Bengie · 2014-09-12 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Disk storage is not base 10, it uses a base 10 number of base 2 blocks. Show me a single drive that optimally aligns data to a base 10 address.
20. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  No, this is *storage*.
21. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  Some Burroughs comercial machine had base 10 memory addressing, notably the B2500 and B3500. From Wikipedia: "Memory was addressed down to the 4-bit digit in big-endian style, using 5-digit decimal addresses."
22. Re:1024-fold by Kjella · 2014-09-12 11:09 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  It takes a long time to compute the size of 20 files when a division by 1000 takes 300 odd cycles on a 10kHz machine. It doesn't take such a long time when a right shift 10 takes 1 cycle.
  This must be the most clueless post about the 1000/1024 divide so far. It never had anything to do with the computer's performance, it's that when you build a digital computer a lot of things will be sizes of two because what you can address with n bytes will be 2^n. Physical memory, memory pages, caches, buffers, floppy and hard drive sectors all the "microunits" in the computer are powers of two. Hint: No actual hard drive gives you 1MB = 1000000 bytes because it's not divisible with 512, in reality they give you 1954*512 = 1000448 so they don't underdeliver. Actually make that divisible by 4096 for modern HDD drives with 4K (no, not 1000) sectors.
  There is a single reason why computer scientists usurped the prefix kilo and that is because they needed to describe "one thousand and twenty four bytes" - or multiples of that - very, very often. They needed a shorter name, they never needed the unit "1000 bytes" and so "one kilobyte" became their shorthand for 1024 bytes. And unless you're really good at doing math in your head, tell me how much is seven kilobytes exactly? (And if you answer 7000 I'll slap you). We still say 512GB of RAM. Nobody wants to say 549.755813888 GB of RAM, because multiply that with a billion and you have how many bytes that is. It's not some nice, round number.
  Either way you're going to run into some f*cked up conversions if you mix GiB and GB, which I'll use now for clarity. If you have 512GiB of RAM (hey, servers do) and load 512GB from disk, how much of your RAM have you used up? Now while you're calculating that, this other person who uses a GiB system says so that was like ~477 GiB so like ~35 GiB free? Or you have to say you have 549.8 (rounded) GB RAM and use exactly 512 GB. Of course in reality file sizes are probably a rather random size so you'll have two long floating point numbers. At least with base 2 you just have one, because you have exactly 512 GiB RAM.
  And when you do have base 2 numbers then multiplication/division gives other nice base 2 numbers like 10 MiB / 2 KiB = 5 KiB. 10.485760 MB / 2.048 KB = how much? It's a lot uglier if you numbers are 2^n values, which again they will be a lot of the time. At least far more often than base 10 as long as you're working with the computer itself and not business data or whatever. If you for example want to make something fit in L3 cache to optimize and algorithm, the numbers will be in base 2. You can't "bugfix" your way out of that.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
23. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  No, a "traditional" GB is the one that was defined way before computer scientists got their hands on it –1000.
  
  Computer scientists? Did they just choose it at random? I thought it was because 2^10 = 1024, therefore 2^30 = 1073741824.
  That would suggest, to me, that it was a mathematical definition and not chosen by computer scientists.
  More than that, it would suggest to me that 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 was a redefinition of a known quantity by a third party.
24. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  Look at nearly any early computer. An IBM 1620 for example. Using base-2 came after realizing there was unused state left behind.
25. Re:1024-fold by msauve · 2014-09-12 11:33 · Score: 1
  
  The discussion is about capacity, and disk drives, SSDs, and yes even these memory cards ("1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes" - Sandisk) use the metric prefixes correctly. How you can claim that's a "base 10 number of base 2 blocks" is a mystery. Yes, they may address base 2 sized blocks (e.g. 512 or 4096), but the total capacity is specified in base 10. (and the block address is expressed on the interface with a base 2 number, not BCD.) But that's not the capacity, which is what's being discussed.
  
  It seems like disk manufacturers don't reveal specifics like they used to, but it wasn't uncommon to find organizations like 17 sectors/track and other non-base 2/10 layouts.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
26. Re:1024-fold by pz · 2014-09-12 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  No, a "traditional" GB is the one that was defined way before computer scientists got their hands on it –1000.
  Computer scientists? Did they just choose it at random? I thought it was because 2^10 = 1024, therefore 2^30 = 1073741824.
  That would suggest, to me, that it was a mathematical definition and not chosen by computer scientists.
  More than that, it would suggest to me that 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 was a redefinition of a known quantity by a third party.
  Ah, let's get one thing straight here. The notion of a byte did not appear before computer science. Anything that measures bytes is ultimately CS-derived, even if marketing folks like to confuse people.
  
  --
  
  Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
27. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 12:39 · Score: 0
  
  Disk storage is not base 10, it uses a base 10 number of base 2 blocks.
  Is that why my terabyte drive registers as 917G?
28. Re:1024-fold by dunng808 · 2014-09-12 13:59 · Score: 2
  
  Well, using common core math, maybe.
  
  --
  Gary Dunn
  Open Slate Project
29. Re:1024-fold by noidentity · 2014-09-12 14:25 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  And when you do have base 2 numbers then multiplication/division gives other nice base 2 numbers like 10 MiB / 2 KiB = 5 KiB.
  The units cancel, so you get 5K er... 5*1024 = 5120.
  My favorite solution to the issue is to treat GB, MB, and KB as special units whose meanings are 1024MB, 1024KB, and 1024B, respectively. That's what they've meant for decades, and I'm not going fiddle with giving them two incompatible meanings now. IMO if powers of two don't matter in a particular context, it's cleanest to use Gb, Mb, and kb, SI units referring to 1000Mb, 1000kb, and 1000b (bits), respectively. Bits are a fairly fundamental unit.
30. Re:1024-fold by beelsebob · 2014-09-12 14:41 · Score: 1
  
  That was pretty silly of you, given that data isn't stored in powers of two. When was the last time you saw a hard disk with an exact power of two capacity?
31. Re:1024-fold by beelsebob · 2014-09-12 14:44 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yes, because your OS incorrectly computes the number of GB. It computes the number of GiB, and then displays GB.
  Notably, if you stick that same terabyte drive in a mac, or many linux boxes, it'll register as 1TB.
32. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  RAM is always expressed in GiB. Everything else (storage and network speed, for example) is expressed in Base-10. This has been true for a very long time (although there was confusion in the early days when disks and blocks were small).
33. Re:1024-fold by petermgreen · 2014-09-12 15:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well "incorrectly" is a loaded term. Si prefixes are base-10 but the byte is not an SI unit. The IEC issued a standard saying that binary versions of the prefixes should be indicated with an extra i but only long after the use of those binary prefixes without the i was well established in the computer software industry.
  
  --
  note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
34. Re:1024-fold by AmiMoJo · 2014-09-12 16:22 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Kilobyte = 1024 is a standard too, by the way. It's the JEDEC standard for memory sizes.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
35. Re:1024-fold by disambiguated · 2014-09-12 17:18 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  RAM generally is, and address space always is.
36. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 17:39 · Score: 0
  
  Balanced ternary
37. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 18:08 · Score: 1
  
  Both wrong anyway - going from 512 to 512000 would only be 999-fold increase.
38. Re: 1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 21:48 · Score: 0
  
  Actually folding things don't change their size just their shape.
39. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 22:14 · Score: 0
  
  > Disk storage is not base 10, it uses a base 10 number of base 2 blocks. Show me a single drive that optimally aligns data to a base 10 address.
  When you include all the bits in a hard disk sector it isn't base 2 either. Stuff like pre-amble, servo track number, ecc, etc. Taken all together a full-blown sector on any given hard disk is some oddball number of bits, may not even be an even number, much less base 2.
40. Re:1024-fold by JRV31 · 2014-09-13 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  Just think, if we all had sixteen fingers we would use hex and this argument would be unneccessary. And it would be easier to type.
41. Re:1024-fold by AmiMoJo · 2014-09-13 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  No, the OS is correct, it just uses the JEDEC standard instead of the IEC one. JEDEC is preferred by many electronic/firmware engineers because all the manufacturers of memory (RAM, flash, EEPROM etc.) use it and almost all addressing schemes use powers of two.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
42. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  There are 10 types of people in the world...those who understand binary, and those who don't.
  To those who responded to this guy: ***whoosh***
43. Re:1024-fold by visualight · 2014-09-13 03:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I have an irrational desire to slap the people who thought inventing GiB was a good idea. I hope it's forgotten eventually. All the justifications for it were (and still are) bullshit -everyone knew what HD vendors were doing and no one who mattered was confused. That's still true , but now I have to explain to people that no, it's not a speech impediment...
  
  --
  Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
44. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  My preference for the abbreviates has been:
  1 KB = 1,024 bytes
  1 kB = 1,000 bytes
  1 Kb = 1,024 bits
  1 kb = 1,000 bits
  To be clear, capital refers to 1,024, lower refers to 1,000. Capital refers to bytes, lowercase refers to bits.
  The same pattern exists for Mega and Giga, so 1 Mb = 1,024 Kb. (For transmission speed, 1 Mbps = 1,024 Kbps.)
  That's different than the numbers used in your example.
45. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  Hard disks are however many bits fit in the area of those circular pieces of metal. Those numbers are often not even even, let alone an integral power of two.
46. Re:1024-fold by petteyg359 · 2014-09-13 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft has had plenty of time to fix that, either via an utterly simple string replacement, or a minutely less-simple calculation (size / (1024^n / 1000^n) where n is the power of thousands in size). I wonder how much of a kickback Microsoft took from the lawyers in the frivolous lawsuits against Western Digital and others.
47. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 04:48 · Score: 0
  
  That was pretty silly of you, given that data isn't stored in powers of two. When was the last time you saw a hard disk with an exact power of two capacity?
  pretty much every day. look at flash drives for an easy to see example.
  some overhead is lost in formatting the drive, so if you count bytes you have to include that
48. Re: 1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  1998, Maxtor 120MB IDE drives were the last drive that I bought, that were not 120000000 bytes, they were 125,829,120 bytes.
49. Re: 1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  1000Mb is 125MiB... B is for byte, b is for bit.
50. Re: 1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong, 1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128.... 8 fold increase.
  A 999 fold increase from 512 would take ~126 pages of numbers to represent.
  It bugs me when fold is used to represent multiplication, when it means folded, or doubled.
51. Re: 1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  SCSI drives continued to have the actual stated capacity (or typically, slightly more) for a long time when ATA drives where already labelled based on the base-10 fraud.
52. Re:1024-fold by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 08:25 · Score: 0
  
  Base-10 units are not in any way more correct than base-2 units. They are merely more consistent with the way scientific units are generally used (but less practical, since base-2 units correspond to how data is actually addressed and alligned).
  I do not oppose people using base-10 units. I do, however, oppose people redefining well-defened units. The idiotic extra i (KiB, MiB, etc.) should have been inserted in the new (base-10) units, not in the existing units. This creates unnessary ambiguity.
53. Re:1024-fold by visualight · 2014-09-13 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  Why is this flamebait? I refuse to speak these words as well. A GB is 1024MB. The other thing is some asshat 20 years late to the party solving a problem that almost no one thought was a real problem. Fuck'em.
  
  --
  Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
54. Re:1024-fold by jeepies · 2014-09-13 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  File systems are always organized with sector and cluster sizes that are a power of 2. It's true that modern hard drives use the power of 10 definition for a Gigabyte, but this is mostly for marketing reasons. You'll notice your operating system reports the drive space as a power of two regardless of whether it uses GB or GiB as the unit. Most current OSes use GB for 2^30 instead of 10^9.
55. Re:1024-fold by jeepies · 2014-09-13 18:55 · Score: 1
  
  Almost all modern operating systems report hard drive space in Kilobytes (2^10), Megabytes (2^20), Gigabytes (2^30), and Terabytes (2^40). This has been standard as long as I've been using computers, which is over 30 years. Gibibytes are what you get when a third party who has no stake in something tries to impose a definition on someone. Hard Drive manufacturers only use the redefinition of Gigabytes/Terabytes because they can claim their drives are bigger and they're relying on the confusion caused by the redefinition.
56. Re:1024-fold by rubycodez · 2014-09-14 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  No, they didn't "realize" anything, the decimal architecture was done on purpose to be user friendly; IBM made purely binary machines before, during and after the 1620 and related systems.
57. Re:1024-fold by TechyImmigrant · 2014-09-14 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Base-10 units are not in any way more correct than base-2 units. They are merely more consistent with the way scientific units are generally used (but less practical, since base-2 units correspond to how data is actually addressed and alligned).
  I do not oppose people using base-10 units. I do, however, oppose people redefining well-defened units. The idiotic extra i (KiB, MiB, etc.) should have been inserted in the new (base-10) units, not in the existing units. This creates unnessary ambiguity.
  I was referring to the internationally standardized system of units. Not the intrinsic merits of any particular base.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
58. Re:1024-fold by beelsebob · 2014-09-15 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  No, the JEDEC standard actually agrees with the IEC one - it states that for memory you can optionally use the SI prefixes with binary calculations, but that for storage you should use base 10 computations with the SI prefixes.
59. Re: 1024-fold by beelsebob · 2014-09-15 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Last I checked the prime factors of 125829120 were 2, 3 and 5, and it very much was not a power of two because of that ;).
Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by EmagGeek · 2014-09-12 09:30 · Score: 1, Troll

Why the hell are we talking about the Fahrenheit scale. And, while we're at it, memory of all kinds is always expressed in GiB, so a 512GB card is 1024 times as large as a 512MB card, not 1000 times.
It looks like a standard -25 to 85C extended commercial rating.
1. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  It is perfectly acceptable to round 1024 down to 1000 when making comparisons instead of discussing absolute quantities. And I'm glad they gave the temperatures in degrees F, it saved me from having to do the fucking conversions in my head.
2. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by sabri · 2014-09-12 09:36 · Score: 2
  
  Why the hell are we talking about the Fahrenheit scale.
  Because the marketing droids who came up with the press release are based in the U.S., the only country next to Birma to use this arbitrary roller-coaster as an official standard.
  
  --
  I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
3. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 09:37 · Score: 0
  
  Celsius? Feh! Really geeks use Newton scale or at least Kelvin.
4. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  Why the hell are we talking about the Fahrenheit scale
  Wow, it's almost like this is an American-centric site.
5. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by EmagGeek · 2014-09-12 09:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Yes, apparently it is too much to ask that people be correct these days.
  The summary clearly states that 512GB of memory is 1000 times more than 512MB of memory, which is patently false. If you're making comparisons, you don't make absolute statements like this. You use qualifying words like "about 1000 times" or "approximately 1000 times" to let the reader know you do not mean to be precise.
6. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by jedidiah · 2014-09-12 09:40 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  One arbitrary roller-coaster is as good as another.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
7. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-09-12 09:40 · Score: 0
  
  Celsius is arbitrary too. There is nothing inherently connecting temperature and water.
  Kelvin is the only scale based on something fundamental.
8. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  512GB card is 1024 times as large as a 512MB card
  If we're having a pedantry war, it's 1020 times larger, because sigfigs.
9. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by rubycodez · 2014-09-12 09:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Correctness not an issue; you merely have difficulty with common usage, common sense and ability to relate to normal humans, is all.
10. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by reanjr · 2014-09-12 09:48 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Choosing water's freezing and boiling points is ALSO fairly arbitrary.
11. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong.
  Kelvin picks arbitrary units just like any other scale. It picked degrees Celsius.
12. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  And I'm glad they gave the temperatures in degrees F, it saved me from having to do the fucking conversions in my head.
  That's always a great reason to stick with stupid old systems of course.
  Here's a lesson in celcius: 0 is ice, 100 is tea. There, you have an immediate frame of reference. Now you know, without even doing a conversion, that this card's capability to operate at -25 to 85 degrees C means it's pretty damn resilient. On the other hand there's nothing you can tell me to easily help me remember anything in F.
13. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by olsmeister · 2014-09-12 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Well 1,099,511,627,766 bytes / 1,073,741,824 bytes = 1024.
14. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 09:53 · Score: 0
  
  0 is very cold, 100 is you, 200 is boiling water
15. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  You actually think in Fahrenheit? Wow...
16. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 09:59 · Score: 0
  
  Wrong.
  Kelvin is the base SI unit. Celsius is defined by Kelvin, not the other way around.
17. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by khellendros1984 · 2014-09-12 10:12 · Score: 1
  
  ComputerWorld seems to be the source of the "1000-fold increase" quote. Then again, they also state that 512GB is "more than half a terabyte", so they're at least consistently inaccurate.
  
  As for the temperature, the Fahrenheit scale is used on SanDisk's product page for the new card. Presumably, that's because Sandisk is an American company, and that page is marketing to a non-scientific audience. In the U.S., that means Fahrenheit would be used.
  
  --
  It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
18. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by magarity · 2014-09-12 10:13 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Celsius is arbitrary too. There is nothing inherently connecting temperature and water.
  Kelvin is the only scale based on something fundamental.
  Fahrenheit is based on the coldest you can get brine before it freezes and the approximate human body temperature. Both of these make great sense for telling the weather as 0 is dangerously cold and 100 is dangerously hot.
  One might argue that a lot of people don't live in the temperate zone where 0 and 100 occur regularly but C's water boiling and freezing points are only good for people at sea level and no one's weather on Earth ever involves boiling water.
19. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by rossdee · 2014-09-12 10:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  "0 is very cold,"
  If we are talking Fahrenheit , 0 is nighttime in winter.
  "100 is you"
  You must be coming down with the flu or something. 98.4 is normal
  "200 is boiling water"
  On a mountain I spose. its 212 at sea level.
20. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Just+Some+Guy · 2014-09-12 10:23 · Score: 2
  
  Were you dropped on your head as a child? Quoth the wiki:
  
  In 1848 Lord Kelvin (William Thomson), wrote in his paper, On an Absolute Thermometric Scale, of the need for a scale whereby "infinite cold" (absolute zero) was the scale's null point, and which used the degree Celsius for its unit increment.
  
  Celsius degrees came before Kelvin units.
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
21. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  That would be GiB
  MB*1000=GB
  Hard drives/storage are normally measured in 1000s. Where as bandwidth and memory are based on 2^10
22. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Goaway · 2014-09-12 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  And, while we're at it, memory of all kinds is always expressed in GiB,
  I think you'll find that this is not actually the case.
23. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Ralph+Wiggam · 2014-09-12 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  All Imperial units are great for real world human-scale measurements. That's what they were designed for. Metric units are obviously much better for scientific use, but the units are mostly too big for day to day stuff.
24. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:32 · Score: 0
  
  The summary clearly states that 512GB of memory is 1000 times more than 512MB of memory, which is patently false.
  Actually, it's patently true.
  512GB = 512,000,000,000 bytes and 512MB = 512,000,000 bytes.
  What would be patently false is claiming that 512GiB is exactly 1000 times more than 512MiB.
25. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  I always thought Celsius came first, and that it was an "arbitrary scale" who has a handy definition that anyone can wrap their head around, the freezing point and boiling points of water at sea level. Then Kelvin comes in and says "we'll keep the same scale but the starting point, 0, is going to be defined as absolute zero. But then I could be completely off.
  Certainly makes more sense then the random digits of Fahrenheit which is based on the coldest temperature a 1724 German physicist could cool salt water and 100 degrees being defined as "the average human core body temperature" which is patently absurd as that changes from person to person and time to time.
26. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by tepples · 2014-09-12 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  As memory density of NAND flash increases, the controller needs more spare sectors to keep acceptable reliability. In my experience, the fraction of a packaged NAND flash device actually available for storing data has been close to the ratio of the decimal prefix's value to that of the corresponding binary prefix. Thus when NAND flash was measured in MB, about 5% of sectors were spares. Now in the GB era, about 7% of sectors are spares.
27. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by PRMan · 2014-09-12 10:47 · Score: 2
  
  100 units between freezing and boiling is really not that arbitrary.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
28. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by thegarbz · 2014-09-12 11:15 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Arbitrary means to pick something at random or at whim. In this case the choice of freezing / boiling points of water were NOT arbitrary, but rather consistent with the rest of the units of the SI system which are based around some interlinking thing.
  1L = 1000g of water.
  0degC is the freezing point of water.
  100degC is the boiling point of water.
  1 calorie is the energy needed to heat 1g of water by 1degC (though superseded by an SI unit this was the original metric measurement for energy)
  Even if you dismiss this, it's still less arbitrary than a measurement system that bases the arbitrary number of 96degC on the temperature of blood in the human body, and has a zero point where the history is not actually known; is it brine mixed with ammonium chloride with a bit of error added in, was it the coldest day of Fahrenheit's home town? The only thing not arbitrary about the Fahrenheit scale is that it was later redefined ... based around the freezing point of water.
  A bit more Wikipedia trivia Celsius was originally called centigrade a completely not arbitrary name meaning 100 steps.
29. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 11:39 · Score: 0
  
  On the other hand there's nothing you can tell me to easily help me remember anything in F.
  Of course there is. 32 is ice, 212 is coffee. See? It's an analogous frame of reference, and it's easier to remember than the 273.15 degree offset between Celsius and the real SI base unit.
  
  A range of 0 to 100 sounds confusingly (and falsely) similar to 0-100%. In order to avoid confusion, I recommend that you use the less-ambiguous scale. If you believe that Celsius is somehow "cleaner", then remember that it also places arbitrary numbers at the physical states of an arbitrarily-chosen molecule. If you believe that the widespread use of that scale is a good argument for everyone to use it, I'd like to introduce you to my friend the argumentum ad populum.
30. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by msauve · 2014-09-12 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  "Why the hell are we talking about the Fahrenheit scale. And, while we're at it, memory of all kinds is always expressed in GiB, so a 512GB card is 1024 times as large as a 512MB card"
  
  I use Rankine, you insensitive clod.
  
  And, you're wrong. The Sandisk 512 GB card being discussed has a capacity of 512,000,000,000 bytes ("1GB=1,000,000,000 bytes" - Sandisk). Just like disk drives and SSDs are measured.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
31. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by msauve · 2014-09-12 12:08 · Score: 2
  
  In what way do you consider the choice of a measurement which is easily reproducible virtually anywhere worldwide "arbitrary?"
  
  Yes, things like altitude change the scale a bit. Can you can come up with a better solution (very accessible, reasonably accurate, reasonably reproducible) for transfer of a standard temperature scale worldwide with mid-1700's technology? Choosing the freezing and boiling points of water on that basis for something of scientific, industrial and commercial use seems anything but "arbitrary."
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
32. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by msauve · 2014-09-12 12:17 · Score: 0
  
  Try again, with early 1700's technology.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
33. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by rasmusbr · 2014-09-12 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  All Imperial units are great for real world human-scale measurements. That's what they were designed for. Metric units are obviously much better for scientific use, but the units are mostly too big for day to day stuff.
  The metric units were originally based on preexisting units units. If they hadn't been similar to the imperial units they would probably never have caught on.
  One meter ~= one yard. One liter ~= 2 pints. One kilogram ~= 2 pounds. A decimeter happens by chance to be about the width of a hand and a centimeter about the width of a finger.
34. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by BronsCon · 2014-09-12 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, no. Kb and KiB both represent 1,024 bytes. Therefore, 1MB, being 1,000KB, is 1,000*1,024B, or 1,024,000B, which means that 512MB is equal to 512*1,024,000, or 524,288,000B, not 512,000,000B.
  
  Confused yet?
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
35. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by BronsCon · 2014-09-12 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  GAH! TYPO! That first Kb should be KB.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
36. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by BronsCon · 2014-09-12 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  1024.0
  
  Now STFU ;)
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
37. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by KingMotley · 2014-09-12 13:05 · Score: 2
  
  Really not that much more absurd than setting the coldest temperature based on what a ??? physicist could cool water at a particular height in the atmosphere that changes all the time.
38. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by brunes69 · 2014-09-12 13:45 · Score: -1
  
  The main benefit of celcius is not that it is tied to water, it is that it is a linear scale. 30 degrees C is exactly twice as hot as 15 degrees C which is 15 times hotter than 1 degree C. Fahrenheit is not linear at all, it is logarithmic which makes it a huge PITA to work with in equations.
39. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by sabri · 2014-09-12 14:23 · Score: 2
  
  Celsius is arbitrary too.
  
  In metric, one millileter of water occupies one cubic centimeter, weighs one gram, and requires one calorie of energy to heat up by one degree celcius - which is exactly one percent of the difference between its freezing point and its boiling point.
  
  In the American system, the answer to "How much energy does it take to boil a room-temperature gallon of water?" is "Go fuck yourself", because the American arbitrary roller-coaster makes it impossible directly relate any of those quantities.
  
  --
  I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
40. Re: Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 15:08 · Score: 0
  
  ....kilocalorie..
  Hoffa gud dey
41. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by AmiMoJo · 2014-09-12 16:06 · Score: 2
  
  Both scales have their advantages and disadvantages. Thing is, most of the world has standardised on Celsius and is easy to convert to scientific units (kelvin).
  0C means ice, 100C means boiling. Two common and dangerous points. Most everyday activity falls within that range, and it's easy to tell what something that is 80C is going to be like because it is 80% of boiling water temperature. There really is no reason to stick with Fahrenheit other than tradition.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
42. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by MightyYar · 2014-09-12 16:23 · Score: 0
  
  0 degrees F is the triple point of seawater, which is a lot more common than pure water.
  100 degrees F is the human body temperature.
  Still having trouble?
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
43. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by MightyYar · 2014-09-12 16:30 · Score: 2
  
  I think you are mistaken. The equation converting F to C is linear. F = C * 1.8 + 32.0. Both units are completely arbitrary. F used the freezing point of brine while C used the freezing point of pure water as a zero reference. F used the human body temperature and C used the boiling point of pure water as the 100 reference. Arbitrary.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
44. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by MightyYar · 2014-09-12 16:33 · Score: 1
  
  A calorie is not SI. That would be the Joule.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
45. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Existential+Wombat · 2014-09-12 17:28 · Score: 0
  
  Both scales have their advantages and disadvantages. Thing is, most of the world has standardised on Celsius and is easy to convert to scientific units (kelvin).
  0C means ice, 100C means boiling. Two common and dangerous points. Most everyday activity falls within that range, and it's easy to tell what something that is 80C is going to be like because it is 80% of boiling water temperature. There really is no reason to stick with Fahrenheit other than tradition.
  Weather dude. It’s easier to relate on a scale from 0-100+F which you have been used to for the last 50 years, what the real temperature out there is, rather than 0-30. Well, at least it is for me, as an old fart with a physics drgree, YMMV.
46. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by rahvin112 · 2014-09-12 21:00 · Score: 1
  
  The Kilo and the Liter are great measurements. But the Meter is way to fucking big, it's almost like it was based on the French meter that was create by a guy who was an excellent military tactician and leader but suffered from small height and always felt the need to compensate. I don't know, almost like a Napoleon complex.
47. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 21:17 · Score: 0
  
  The meter fits perfectly with the km (1000), unlike the yard which doesn't really fit to a mile (1760?!).
48. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 23:45 · Score: 0
  
  We are living in desperate times, it's probably only 1000 times or even less bigger.
49. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by AmiMoJo · 2014-09-12 23:56 · Score: 2
  
  For most of the world it's easier to use Celsius, like they have for their entire lives. 10 is cold, 20 is nice, 30 is damn hot.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
50. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by GNious · 2014-09-13 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  Fahrenheit is based on the coldest you can get brine before it freezes and the approximate human body temperature.
  Well, the average temperature of inmates living in inhygenic conditions.
51. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by AmiMoJo · 2014-09-13 00:28 · Score: 1
  
  It's not arbitrary to use the freezing and boiling points of water. Water is used for other SI units (1L = 1000g of water) and both are not too difficult to create as a rough calibration point.
  Fahrenheit zero point being the freezing point of brine is a myth. No-one knows exactly where it comes from, but it certainly isn't that unless the original measurement error was huge.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
52. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 00:42 · Score: 0
  
  "Very cold"? WELL that's certainly accurate! "Very cold" is when we start to get snow, right? Or what?
53. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  It aint winter until your nosehair freezes (at about -20)
54. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 00:51 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sorry but that's just funny. Sea water? I thought the whole idea behind the oldtimey measurements you guys use was that they were supposedly more "practical"? What's practical about knowing the triple point of sea water? 0C is the freezing point of the water that's all around you on land. It's the exact point at which snow and ice happen. 0C is christmas!
55. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 00:57 · Score: 0
  
  I'll just link someone else's reply because I'm lazy.
56. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  Kelvin picks arbitrary units just like any other scale. It picked degrees Celsius.
  
  Were you dropped on your head as a child? Quoth the wiki [wikipedia.org]:
  
  In 1848 Lord Kelvin (William Thomson), wrote in his paper, On an Absolute Thermometric Scale, of the need for a scale whereby "infinite cold" (absolute zero) was the scale's null point, and which used the degree Celsius for its unit increment.
  
  You aren't adding any new information. The null point of the Kelvin scale is not arbitrary, but the unit size is. The unit size is the same as Celsius. That's arbitrary. The Rankine scale also uses absolute 0 as the null point but uses Fahrenheit for its unit size.
  The point is, you any unit size you pick will always be arbitrary. Don't be a dick if you're also going to be an idiot.
57. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 01:41 · Score: 0
  
  You grew up in the US. It's easy to relate to weather on 0-30 scales if you grow up with it. Nobody else in the world has any trouble doing it, and when Canadians come down to the US they have difficulty with understanding the weather in Fahrenheit.
  There really is no reason to stick with Fahrenheit other than tradition. You literally said the same thing when you said It’s easier to relate on a scale from 0-100+F which you have been used to for the last 50 years. Replace 0-100 with any arbitrary numbers and the same holds true. You like Fahrenheit for weather because you have 50 years of experience with it and no other reason.
58. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  10 is "put pants on instead of shorts", not cold. 0 isn't even that cold unless it's humid. Winter jackets don't even come out until -10.
59. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by MightyYar · 2014-09-13 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  Sea water is more abundant than fresh water. There is nothing exact about the point at which "fresh" water freezes. And pure water won't freeze until you give it a nucleation site. Try it in the freezer with deionized or distilled water sometime, it's actually really "cool". :p
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
60. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  That's incorrect. KB is 1000 bytes OR 1024 bytes depending on the context. In mass storage and in network throughput, KB is 1000 bytes. In RAM and often in software, KB is 1024bytes. KiB was created specifically to address this issue.
  Now, you can claim that the standards bodies were wrong to make their decision, and I wouldn't disagree with you. But as standards bodies, whatever they define is what the rest of the world deems as *correct*. As such, you're *wrong*.
61. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  100 units between freezing and boiling is really not that arbitrary.
  what! everyone knows water freezes at 32 and boils at 212. anything else is crazy talk.
62. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by MightyYar · 2014-09-13 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Where "huge" is 3 degrees... :)
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
63. Re: Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 07:30 · Score: 0
  
  The way I learned it, and not sure if it's correct, it's either kilocalorie or big-C Calorie.
64. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by EETech1 · 2014-09-13 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  -20 what?
65. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 16:47 · Score: 0
  
  Huh? Not only would you need to control for the isotope makeup of water in such a "definition" of a litre, and for its temperature and atmospheric pressure, but we can measure distances much, much better than weight. 1L is a cube 10cm on the side. It'd be stupid to define it in any other way nowadays. Water is used for NO SI units. Get it over with. Water is important for life, not for SI.
66. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 16:52 · Score: 0
  
  1L is only approximately 1000g of water - if you dismiss the 30ppm error, that is. It's not a fundamental constant of any sort, more of a nice coincidence that makes life easier if all you care for is 4 figures of precision.
67. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-14 13:50 · Score: 0
  
  "0 is very cold,"
  If we are talking Fahrenheit , 0 is nighttime in winter.
  Nighttime winter?!? -- not in Minnesota, many times in the winter, 0F is much warmer than the daytime high.
68. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by jabuzz · 2014-09-16 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  No originally a cube 1cm square at 4 degrees Celsius was one gram. That translates to 1 litre which being a 10cm cube comes in at 1kg.
  That it was all later redefined in terms of a standard prototype kilogram is not really relevant to the point about the consistency of the metric unit system.
69. Re:Fahrenheit? WTHolyF? by BronsCon · 2014-09-17 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not so wrong that you need to emphasize it like a jackass. In fact, in the context in which I was thinking, I was absolutely correct:
  
  Diskettes use yet another "megabyte" equal to 1024×1000 bytes.
  Footnote:
  
  Microsoft (2003-05-06). "Determining Actual Disk Size: Why 1.44 MB Should Be 1.40 MB". Article ID: 121839. Microsoft. Retrieved 2007-07-07. "The 1.44-megabyte (MB) value associated with the 3.5-inch disk format does not represent the actual size or free space of these disks. Although its size has been popularly called 1.44 MB, the correct size is actually 1.40 MB."
  It just so happens that I was *right* in the *wrong context*. Dick.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Go video go... by dlingman · 2014-09-12 09:31 · Score: 1

And now we have a decent sized amount of space for digital video. Huzzah!
1. Re:Go video go... by ColdWetDog · 2014-09-12 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly how long do you want You Tube videos to be anyway?
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:Go video go... by saloomy · 2014-09-12 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Long enough while filling in the detail on the new 4K TVs the industry is pushing.... obviously! Or do you watch YouTube on nothing but an old tuner-only tv? Large space is large space, and there will always be uses for it. ALWAYS. 640 *B will never be enough for anyone, ever.
3. Re:Go video go... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:14 · Score: 0
  
  I would prefer very much if they were 60fps, 4k, and not using the shittiest of all compression ratios. At least there are camera men still releasing raws...
4. Re:Go video go... by unixisc · 2014-09-13 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  This would be useful only if phones (Windows Phone 8, I'm looking at you!!!) allowed application data, if not the applications themselves, to be installed on the removable media. That way, not only can one make good use of the flash, but also, in case one wants to switch to a new phone, all the apps that one bought w/ the last phone can be smoothly migrated to the new one. Also, one wouldn't have to buy top end models just to get a jump in the capacity just b'cos the good enough phone came w/ just 8GiB of memory
  Also, by SD card, do they nowadays mean the original SD or the MicroSD form factor? The 2 are different enough for one to easily accommodate 4 times the capacity of the other.
5. Re:Go video go... by joemck · 2014-09-13 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  This would be useful only if phones (Windows Phone 8, I'm looking at you!!!) allowed application data, if not the applications themselves, to be installed on the removable media. That way, not only can one make good use of the flash, but also, in case one wants to switch to a new phone, all the apps that one bought w/ the last phone can be smoothly migrated to the new one.
  First, I don't know how any of this is handled in Windows Phone or if there are any hacks or workarounds. All my smartphones have been Android.
  Android (at least ICS) does allow this, though in a somewhat limited form, and it wastes^H^H^H^H^H^Huses more space than storing them on the phone. Another way if you have it rooted is the Link2SD app, which does some symlink trickery to put the app on the SD card exactly as it is on the phone. None of this allows easily transferring purchased apps to a new phone though. With the official way they're encrypted, and with the Link2SD way there's no easy way to transfer the links and the stub that says it's installed.
  However, moving purchased apps to a new device is already pretty easy. I associated a new device with my Google account, went to Play Store, My Apps, all. It listed all apps I had purchased for my old phone and gave me the option to install each of them on my new one.
  
  Also, by SD card, do they nowadays mean the original SD or the MicroSD form factor? The 2 are different enough for one to easily accommodate 4 times the capacity of the other.
  This is a full-size SD. Current largest MicroSD available is still 128 GB. The only difference between SD and MicroSD is physical size, which limits how much memory they can fit due to flash die sizes. The cards are the same interface as each other. MicroSD has an extra pin, but it's a second ground. Adapters exist to convert either way, but the one to put an SD in a MicroSD slot obviously sticks way out.
6. Re:Go video go... by tlhIngan · 2014-09-15 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  First, I don't know how any of this is handled in Windows Phone or if there are any hacks or workarounds. All my smartphones have been Android.
  Android (at least ICS) does allow this, though in a somewhat limited form, and it wastes^H^H^H^H^H^Huses more space than storing them on the phone. Another way if you have it rooted is the Link2SD app, which does some symlink trickery to put the app on the SD card exactly as it is on the phone. None of this allows easily transferring purchased apps to a new phone though. With the official way they're encrypted, and with the Link2SD way there's no easy way to transfer the links and the stub that says it's installed.
  However, moving purchased apps to a new device is already pretty easy. I associated a new device with my Google account, went to Play Store, My Apps, all. It listed all apps I had purchased for my old phone and gave me the option to install each of them on my new one.
  On iOS, it's a bit easier still, if you don't mind using iTunes. You just back up your phone, then when you get your new one, you restore from that backup.
  It does two things - one, it means you have a LOCAL BACKUP of everything (including apps - Apple or the developer may remove apps, but if you have a local copy, you can always reinstall it on any device on your account!). Because the problem with the Google and Microsoft methods are, when you update, some apps inevitably go missing from this transition as they're no longer available and you cannot install them because you forgot to backup the APK.
  Yeah, you can use iCloud. But that still suffers from the removed-app problem and the not-a-local-backup option.
  Android did have a half-hearted attempt at a backup system using adb but it didn't save everything that was accessible over MTP, so you needed to copy everything from MTP when you did your adb backup, and then when you restored, you needed to copy everything back.
Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 09:32 · Score: 0

Poorly written summary. You're basically saying that the 512GB card comes in lower capacities.
Better to say that the new line also has 128 and 256GB cards available.
I need this in comparable terms. by thewils · 2014-09-12 09:38 · Score: 1

Just how many Libraries of Congress are we talking about, here?

--
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
1. Re:I need this in comparable terms. by jedidiah · 2014-09-12 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  Dunno about LoC's but this is equal to about a single Archos 5.
  When these prices come down, I will finally have a reason to retire the old thing (my Archos 5).
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
2. Re:I need this in comparable terms. by idontgno · 2014-09-12 09:52 · Score: 2
  
  1/1075th of one LoC, given the numbers in this Wikipedia article and extrapolating from its information:
  
  Library data: The U.S. Library of Congress Web Capture team claims that "as of March 2014, the Library has collected about 525 terabytes of web archive data" and that it adds about 5 terabytes per month
  525 tb + 5 months of 5 tb / month = 550 tb.
  (Not counting September as completed, so only April through August.)
  Or, you'd need a stack of 1,075 of these SD cards to hold one LoC. (The actual calculation is 1074.21 or so, but you have to round up or truncate off 100 gb of data, and it's the Library of Congress... you can't just throw away 100 gb of data!)
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
3. Re:I need this in comparable terms. by whereiswaldo · 2014-09-12 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  I still think in terms of double-sided Commodore 64 5-1/4" floppies. At about 320KB per disk, that'd be 1,388,888 disks.
4. Re:I need this in comparable terms. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  I love my Archos 5 as well. I even soldered in a new battery after the first one would not keep a charge.
Overkill much... by Kjella · 2014-09-12 09:43 · Score: 1, Informative

So the highest MP camera I could find in a normal store is 40 Mpix (Pentax 645D) * 14 bit RAW = 70MB/picture. So good for 70,000+ photos. Or the Panasonic HC-X1000 4K/24 & UHD/60p camera just released, 150 Mbps = 7-8 hours continuous recording. But I suppose it's good for when you want to carry 10 BluRays in your phone. Whoops, wrong format not microSDXC. I guess there's a niche for this since they made it, but I kinda fail to see the target market, unless it's the "give me the biggest and best you got" crowd.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
1. Re:Overkill much... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  ... I kinda fail to see the target market, unless it's the "give me the biggest and best you got" crowd.
  Never underestimate the data throughput of a station wagon filled with 512GB SDXC cards speeding down the turnpike.
2. Re:Overkill much... by Daniel+Hoffmann · 2014-09-12 09:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  How is 640kb of ram working out for you?
3. Re:Overkill much... by Rockoon · 2014-09-12 10:01 · Score: 2
  
  Son, the pixels arent 14-bits each. They are 42 bits each, which is rounded to 48 bits each. 6 bytes per pixel.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
4. Re:Overkill much... by MildlyTangy · 2014-09-12 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Thankfully, you are in no way, shape or form the "target market". Your "640k" argument is irrelevant.
5. Re:Overkill much... by Kjella · 2014-09-12 10:12 · Score: 2
  
  Well I seem to be both right and wrong, it's 42 bits from the camera but it's losslessly compressed so an actual RAW file is still around 70 MB/photo (listed under cons) so the card does hold 70,000+ photos.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
6. Re:Overkill much... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  You are, in fact, wrong. The pixels are 14 bits each, and each pixel only stores one color (red, green or blue). They are laid out in a 2x2 pixel pattern so that each group of four pixels encodes an RGB color. There are two green pixels in each group so the green channel of the image has the most detail. The only camera that captures full RGB for each pixel is the Sigma Foveon, which has correspondingly fewer total pixels (basically the R, G and B sensors are stacked rather than laid out in a pattern).
7. Re:Overkill much... by Just+Some+Guy · 2014-09-12 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  I guess there's a niche for this since they made it, but I kinda fail to see the target market, unless it's the "give me the biggest and best you got" crowd.
  I can imagine plenty of uses for this in automated systems such as video system or other data gatherer. And even if it's to be used to record manually-triggered output, there's much to be said for the concept of "so much freaking storage that I can pay for this once and never have to think about it again over the lifetime of the equipment I'm using it with".
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
8. Re:Overkill much... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:33 · Score: 0
  
  How do you get 42 bits per pixel? 14 x 3 for RGB? That's not correct. Camera sensors are monochrome and use something called a Bayer filter to make color images. Basically, each pixel only contributes one color--not 3 like in standard imaging. About half are green with 25% each for red and blue.
  The exception is the Foveon sensor from Sigma which appear in their Merrill cameras, in which each pixel has its own R, G, and B channels. The image size is just 4704 × 3136 (about what a standard 16 MP camera makes) but the camera is advertised as having 46 MP because it's 4704 x 3136 x 3 = ~44 MP, with the extra 2 coming from that not all sensor pixels can be used. The Pentax K-5, for instance, advertises 16.3 MP but produces images of 4928×3264 = 16.08 MP, which is a bit lower than advertised because there's always some loss when constructing the actual image from the RAW sensor data.
9. Re:Overkill much... by timeOday · 2014-09-12 10:42 · Score: 2
  
  4K camcorders!
10. Re:Overkill much... by Ichijo · 2014-09-12 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Common 4K cameras would fill up this card in a little over one hour of recording time.
  
  Confirmed.
  
  --
  Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
11. Re:Overkill much... by dfghjk · 2014-09-12 11:42 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry, Dad, you don't know how digital cameras work. Pixels ARE 14 bits each in 14 bit RAW.
12. Re:Overkill much... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 11:50 · Score: 0
  
  With storage you can't have too much because you will eventually fill it. Today it's 4k, tomorrow it's 3D 4K, the next day it's 3D 4K 120fps and boom you're down to an hour or 2 recording time per card which for a lot of people won't be enough.
  Please hand in your slashdot membership card on the way out you luddite,
13. Re:Overkill much... by msauve · 2014-09-12 12:24 · Score: 1
  
  Too bad it's not removable media.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
14. Re:Overkill much... by DMJC · 2014-09-12 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  8k UHD video does exist... NHK in Japan was broadcasting the Olympics in 2012 at 8k resolution in Akihabara. There's always a need for more capacity.
15. Re:Overkill much... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 13:58 · Score: 0
  
  Only when the pixels are monochrome.
16. Re:Overkill much... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 15:01 · Score: 0
  
  The Pentax 645Z is coming in with 50 MP per image which would use up a 512GB SD card faster. The camera also supports dual SD cards so you could have a camera that holds 1TB of storage. The 645Z also does video. Both Hasselblad and Phase One use the same sensor, however they use Compact Flash cards and they do not "do" video.
17. Re:Overkill much... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 15:06 · Score: 0
  
  So how much porns will it hold?
18. Re:Overkill much... by brad3378 · 2014-09-12 16:11 · Score: 1
  
  On the other hand, it would make a cool mod for a Raspberry Pi
  
  --
19. Re:Overkill much... by Art3x · 2014-09-12 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  "But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
  --- JFK, 1962
20. Re:Overkill much... by Jeremy+Erwin · 2014-09-13 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Nope-- they would drop frames. The write speed is not sufficient for raw 4k video. It's good for about 1.5 hours of video, perhaps even more since 95MB/sec is the read speed, and not the (almost certainly) slightly slower write speed, and of course, it's unlikely that the camera will produce data at this exact speed.
  The blackmagic cameras are typically used with SSDs. even though some SanDisk extreme Pro SDCards support 280 MB/s reads. This 512 GB card is hogtied by its slow speed, even though 95 MB/s would ordinarily be regarded as pretty speedy.
21. Re:Overkill much... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 16:30 · Score: 0
  
  In a RAW file, a pixel is monochrome, captured through a single color filter. That's, like, why it's RAW and not something else, DUH.
22. Re:Overkill much... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 16:32 · Score: 0
  
  It can't be 42 bits from the camera, because a 42 bit A/D converter for camera pixels doesn't even make sense. In a camera, pixels are single photosensitive entities, that each use a particular color filter. Sampling them with a 14 or 16 bit A/D converter is practically possible, and that's about it.
Bandwidth Calculation Upgrade by mythosaz · 2014-09-12 09:54 · Score: 1

Time to upgrade the bandwidth calculations for a station wagon full of SD cards.
https://what-if.xkcd.com/31/
Temperature Range by MildlyTangy · 2014-09-12 10:02 · Score: 2, Informative

For everybody living out the the Bahamas, Palau, the USA, Belize and the Cayman Islands who struggle with the odd Imperial system, the temperature range of this SD card is between -25C and 85C.
1. Re:Temperature Range by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 01:03 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you and please excuse all those insular countries with odd measurements units...
Something tells me they have had this for a while by chaosdivine69 · 2014-09-12 10:03 · Score: -1, Troll

You just know these memory companies have had the ability to do this for quite some time. Probably since the spec was released to the public way back when.
have no proof of this of course except reflection and observation of past trends, but common sense tells me that greed and the mighty dollar are the primary barriers to having a terabyte or more on a little itty bitty card - today. Milk the consumer for whatever you can! Then incrementally bump the standards and crank the price. Rinse, repeat, PROFIT!!!! Just like Wi-Fi, CPU's (I'm looking at you Intel and AMD), hard drives, SSD's, graphics cards (nVidia and AMD again), etc. This is how it's done - period. I sure as hell can't afford to spend $800 on one of these cards nor would I be stupid enough to do so. I mean, for me, I'd rather go with multiple cards because they DO get corrupted and may even get lost. With 64 GB cards going for around $45 or less a while ago (I have no idea what they are now without looking) and I'd imagine 128's to be around $100 or so give or take, it just makes more economical and strategic sense to go buy several smaller capacity cards and swap them out when full. But what do I know...
Signed Captain Obvious
If only... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:06 · Score: 1

If only my iPad had an SD card slot.
Biggest SD Card? It is Like Nothing! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-09-12 10:07 · Score: 2

In Ukraine we have achieving technological dominance again for one time more!
Announcing for world first time, biggest ever microchip. Ability to the processing power of more data is an explosive growth phenomenon.
Now it is Ukraine again the leader!

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
1. Re:Biggest SD Card? It is Like Nothing! by qpqp · 2014-09-12 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  Announcing for world first time, biggest ever microchip, invented by Kim Jong-un, the supreme leader.
  FTFY. Don't mess up the facts, buddy.
Re:Something tells me they have had this for a whi by mythosaz · 2014-09-12 10:09 · Score: 1

This logic, reduced ad absurdium, basically says we've had the technology since the dawn of man.
The first IBM PC should have run at 4,77 Gigahertz, not megahertz, and should have been released in 1774 after the continental congress convened at the cost of 1 ha'penny.
Looks Slow by Goetterdaemmerung · 2014-09-12 10:10 · Score: 0

512GB with a max read/write speed of 90-95MB/s will take at least an hour and a half to transfer all of the data.
1. Re:Looks Slow by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  sounds like the same speed as 7200 drives
  snake oil perhaps?
2. Re:Looks Slow by tepples · 2014-09-12 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  So store a movie on the first 2 GB and watch it while the rest of the data copies off.
3. Re:Looks Slow by Jeremi · 2014-09-12 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  So store a movie on the first 2 GB and watch it while the rest of the data copies off.
  OP does point to a real issue though -- drive capacity is increasing faster than drive bandwidth. That means that as time goes on, it takes longer and longer for full-disk operations (e.g. drive backups) to complete.
  Since NAND access is (at least in principle) parallelizable, perhaps there is some new SD interface that can increase the transfer rate so that we can keep up for a while longer? I certainly don't much look forward to waiting 15 hours to make a copy of my 5TB SD card...
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
4. Re:Looks Slow by WuphonsReach · 2014-09-12 17:06 · Score: 1
  
  There have been SD cards demonstrated that transfer 200-250 MB/s. Not sure why the larger card has a slower transfer rate, but there you go.
  
  --
  Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
5. Re:Looks Slow by gnasher719 · 2014-09-13 05:31 · Score: 1
  
  However, I found some benchmarks about USB 3 flash drives, where lots of drives had impressive throughput, but most of them broke down spectacularly once you tried to read or write many small files. The exception being Sandisk Extreme drives, costing about twice as much as the cheapest drives.
Re:Something tells me they have had this for a whi by chaosdivine69 · 2014-09-12 10:14 · Score: 1

I think you're being overly simplistic and obtuse, borderline pain in the ass in fact. You ARE on a nerd website after all (and I'm sure this isn't your first day on /. either) so use your head and I'm sure even you yourself could deduce that for Sandisk to magically release 128, 256 AND 512 GB memory cards within a year tells you that they have had the ability to do this for quite some time. But I'm sure somehow you'll enlighten me to something completely opposite...look forward to you proving me right.
And yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:14 · Score: 1

And yet, people will still pay an extra $100 for 16GB more memory on their iPhone.
1. Re:And yet... by Wolfrider · 2014-09-16 14:55 · Score: 1
  
  ...and the smart(er) ones will only pay ~$50 more for the Android equivalent...
  
  --
  .
  == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
Re:Something tells me they have had this for a whi by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:25 · Score: 1

I don't believe so. Just look at the picture in this article. That's some extreme stacking going on. There's a degree of competition and collusion in all of the tech markets. But at the end of the day, you are still going to get a space age product that is improving and becoming cheaper over time.
32 GB get as low as $11-14. 64 GB is $20-30. 128 GB is more like $70-80. It's not a stretch to say that it is harder to fit more in a smaller area, the resulting product is more valuable, and some customers will gladly pay more $/GB for density. For everyone else, there's the 32-64 GB cards.
Spare sectors by tepples · 2014-09-12 10:31 · Score: 1

The underlying chip is 512 GiB. The controller reserves about 7% of that for spare sectors used for defect management and wear leveling, leaving 512 GB.
1. Re:Spare sectors by BronsCon · 2014-09-12 12:33 · Score: 0
  
  And you're confusing permanent storage with memory.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
2. Re:Spare sectors by beelsebob · 2014-09-12 14:43 · Score: 1
  
  Why are you talking about memory at all in an article about permanent storage?
3. Re:Spare sectors by BronsCon · 2014-09-12 19:42 · Score: 1
  
  Because that's what the AC tepples replied to was talking about?
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
4. Re:Spare sectors by tepples · 2014-09-13 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  Flash is a type of EEPROM. What does the letter M in EEPROM stand for? What does it stand for in CD-ROM, DVD-ROM, and BD-ROM?
5. Re:Spare sectors by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  In your case, it stands for Moron.
Choice of DHMO by tepples · 2014-09-12 10:33 · Score: 1

A kelvin is 1/273.16 of the temperature at oxidane's triple point. The choice of oxidane is arbitrary, just as the earlier choice of the same substance for Celsius was arbitrary.
1. Re:Choice of DHMO by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 01:35 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, the unit size for Celsius came before the choice of oxidane's triple point. Oxidane was chosen because it was convenient to use to define the temperature scale.
Which generation iPad? by tepples · 2014-09-12 10:44 · Score: 1

Is your iPad's dock connector 30-pin (iPad 1-3) or Lightning (4, Air, Mini)? If 30-pin, try this product. If Lightning, try this product.
Overkill much... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:46 · Score: 1

You are not seriously considering recording 4K with only 150mBit, right? That would be idiotic, after all.
Common 4K cameras would fill up this card in a little over one hour of recording time.
plus 5, troll) by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:55 · Score: -1

for membership. partner. And if JOIN THE GNAA!! can no longer be A fact: FrreBSD if desired, we O!f the founders of
Micro SD by WaffleMonster · 2014-09-12 11:19 · Score: 2

SanDisk if you are reading this please make a 512GB Micro SD... thanks!!
Generous Maths by thegarbz · 2014-09-12 11:36 · Score: 1

The largest files you can get from a camera are TIFF not RAW, and thus you'd be looking at 40Mpix * 16bit per pixel per channel (remember a final image is per channel, the RAW has a beyer matrix) * 3 channels = 240MB/picture. That's only 2200 photos on your super memory card now.
Why would you shoot in TIFF? Production ready from the camera. If you shoot at an event you can use the camera to process the image and then save an uncompressed file ready for print / transmission. Kind of important if you want to get the publication out quickly.
But lets pick an example closer to home. I went on holidays last year and snapped away 11000 RAW files. On the D800 that's around 60MB/file or closer to 45MB with NEF compression. At 459GB this would have done away with my need to cart two external harddisks and a laptop with me. I was actually considering buying little memory card copying unit that would have done away with the laptop, just slot in the card and it auto-copies to the harddisk, but they were ludicrously expensive.
I can totally see a use for this. I can actually see a use for 2 of these (my camera can write the same photo to two cards at once). 11000 files are a lot to lose in one go.
Just imagine by tomhath · 2014-09-12 12:24 · Score: 1

a 512GB model that represents a 1,000-fold increase over the company's first 512MB card...The card is rated to function in temperatures from -13 to 185 degrees Fahrenheit. The 512GB model retails for $800.

All that in a standard 1 1/4 x 1 inch package. Amazing.
Re:Something tells me they have had this for a whi by Jeremi · 2014-09-12 15:44 · Score: 1

Hmm. So you get easy access to amazing hardware that previous generations could only fantasize about, at bargain-basement prices, and still you manage to find a way to get upset about it, because somewhere out there, somebody might be making a profit by supplying you with products you want at a price you're willing to pay.
I'm finding it a bit difficult to feel much sympathy for your plight.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Too Bad... by BrendaEM · 2014-09-12 16:06 · Score: 1

Too bad Google crippled SD cards in Android so they can sell cloud services.
Too bad tablets and phones don't use SD cards.
To bad too many companies make SD cards that stick out.

--
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
1. Re:Too Bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 19:48 · Score: 1
  
  Crippled how? I can copy files to/from my (micro) SD card on Android 4.4.2, I can access it like any other filesystem, I can store music and books and videos and documents and anything else I want on it and access all of that from any Android app...
2. Re:Too Bad... by iampiti · 2014-09-13 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Your comment is slightly off-topic since this SD card is of the regular size and thus doesn't fit in smartphones...but otherwise I completely agree with you. Why is everyone so intent in robbing us the ability to manage storage in our smartphones? :(
So... by denzacar · 2014-09-12 22:38 · Score: 1

...in a decade or so 1 LoC will fit on a 1 portable memory device the size of a postage stamp?
I mean... only a decade or so ago 1 portable memory device the size of a postage stamp had about 1000 times smaller capacity.
Which means that we'll finally be able to use LoCs as a practical measure of size, distance, speed, weight...

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
This answers a question... by Shoten · 2014-09-13 00:12 · Score: 2

The new GoPro camera...which hasn't come out yet...is said to effectively capture video at double the rate that it currently does. So it can do 1080p at 120 frames/second.
But there's a problem with that...the existing GoPro, at half that speed, requires the very fastest of SD cards (UHS Speed Class 3) to be able to write the data fast enough. So I was wondering how the hell the camera would even be able to work at 120 fps 1080p resolution in the first place. This card, with its throughput, answers that, since it's triple the UHS Speed Class 3 specification.

--

For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Cash for Gold. by danknight48 · 2014-09-13 00:30 · Score: 0

At $800 a pop. Services like "Cash for SD" will soon become popular.

"Someone stole my £30 camera"
"Thats a shame"
"But it had a £600+ SD card in it"
"......giggle........"
Not really... by tanveer1979 · 2014-09-13 03:08 · Score: 1

There is a target market for everything.
For example, a high end graphics card can be called overkill, until you bring in gaming.
So who shoots 70000 pics? Well for one, us timelapse folks. often to get a 30fps, a 10 minute time lapse means 600 seconds = 18000 frames.
This is just a 10 minute sequence.
Then there are the sports guys. Often each shot is a 80 frame sequence, then pick out the best. Again, one day means 15-20000 pics. Many shoot RAW+JPEG, so that is going to increase the space.
Last but not the least, 4K video is approaching 100mbps.

--
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
JEDEC, IEC, SI by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 04:04 · Score: 0

Sure, that makes sense for the numbers. But JEDEC and IEC use the same numbers! JEDEC just uses SI's prefixes while changing the meaning.
I don't understand why JEDEC would be preferable to IEC, which has different prefixes to reflect the different numbers. Is it just because of habit and because the prefixes are shorter?
1. Re:JEDEC, IEC, SI by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  IEC prefixes add ambiguity. Before the redefinition, a kB always meant 1024 bytes. JEDEC prefixes conform to the way binary data units have been defined historically.
Overkill much... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-13 10:47 · Score: 0

Except the card can write at 90 not 150 Mbps so unless you are going to RAID a few of them it can't even do that. But I'd like to see a little SDCube RAID in action.
Re:Something tells me they have had this for a whi by LittleRedStar · 2014-09-13 11:09 · Score: 1

> it just makes more economical and strategic sense to go buy several smaller capacity cards and swap them out when full.
> But what do I know...
Not much it seems. Swapping a memory card while your in the middle of a timelapse sequence with the camera sitting up on a hill at night isn't very practical. This card isn't for joe hobbyist that snaps a few pictures.
I doubt they have had the ability to mass produce these in economical numbers until recently. Just because it can be made doesn't mean it can be made profitably if yields are small.
Really your whole idea about milking the consumer is kinda odd for someone on a tech site. Must be new to this world as this is how its gone for more than a decade.