Slashdot Mirror
NAND Flash Density Surpasses HDDs', But Price Is Still a Sticking Point (computerworld.com)
Lucas123 writes: With the introduction of 3D or stacked NAND flash memory, non-volatile memory has for the first time surpassed that of hard disk drives in density. This year, Micron revealed it had demonstrated areal densities in its laboratories of up to 2.77 terabits per square inch (Tbpsi) for its 3D NAND. That compares with the densest HDDs of about 1.3Tbpsi. While NAND flash may have surpassed hard drives in density, it doesn't mean the medium has reached price parity with HDDs — nor will it anytime soon. One roadblock to price parity is the cost of revamping existing or building new 3D NAND fabrication plant, which far exceeds that of hard drive manufacturing facilities, according to market research firm Coughlin Associates. HDD makers are also preparing to launch even denser products using technologies such as heat assisted magnetic recording.
Have SSD's reached a point where they have a lifespan comparable to HDD's in the most extreme applications, though? For instance: Just had to replace the HDD in my DVR. It's dual tuner so it's buffering 30 minutes for each channel, perpetually. The HDD lasted for years; would a current-technology SSD last as long before it ran out of write cycles in the flash memory?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Since we're talking about a 3D stacking architecture, wouldn't bits per cubic inch be a more relevant density measure?
If you look at a list of new computers, you will notice that a surprisingly large amount of PCs are already shipping with 128 GB or 256 GB SSD. That's gonna hold everything that most people need. People with bit more specialized needs (hardcore gaming, media production, virtual machines, etc.) can probably soon acquire 1 TB SSD for a price like $200. Only massive data centers will remain as users of HDDs. Flash memory companies are putting huge investments in developing the technology further, while HAMR is still a prototype in skunkworks that is struggling to be usable for mass production.
The second point is a limited number of rewrite cycles. There, FTFY.
Oh, while we are at it, SSD tend to fail spectacularly: i.e. usually when they perish you cannot extract any information at all vs. spinning platters which usually fail gradually.
P.S. If you wanna counter my first argument, fill your SSD up to 99% and then try to work with it continuously for quite some time. That 1% will get overwritten multiple times and your whole SSD will be prone to a failure. Those tests you've seen online all deal with continuous overwriting of the whole SSD and that rarely happens in real life. In real life pretty much no one continuously wipes clean its SSD to fill it up again and again.
It's HAMR time.
If you only have a few hundred GB of data or less, then SSD is your best choice now. If you have many TB, it will still be several years before it is cost effective to store it all on SSD instead of HDD.
That's 4.294 Gb/mm^2 and 2.02 Gb/mm^2, respectively, for us SI folks.
Actually, the term "rape" as it used in that particular passage is perhaps more meaningfully translated as "lay hold on", or even "seizes". Although this might still imply rape in our culture, given the context of the culture and the language of the period, this passage suggests that the woman would have actually consented to the act.
Another word also translated as "rape" only a few sentences earlier than the passage that you reference actually uses an entirely different Hebrew term, and in that case the man is supposed to be executed. It is peculiar, perhaps, that the surrounding passages do not explicitly address the issue of actual unwanted sexual acts against unmarried young women who were not yet betrothed to anyone, but the implication remains that doing so was seen a capital offense, and the person was to be executed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patman
Why do you keep taking my statements so personally. I don't think you believe rape is ok. You just think the Bible doesn't say it is worthy of death. All I am doing is arguing against your interpretation of the passage.
Then why would you even bring up the subject of whether or not rape is OK, if you know that it's completely irrelevant to my point?
Quote:
I am not reading into the passage. "They are found out" means both of them. If I were to tell you a story about a girl who was raped, I wouldn't describe the act as "they were having sex," because you would know from my wording that "THEY" both were having sex; they both welcomed the act. Instead I would tell you he was having sex with her, or he was raping her.
He was having sex with her = they were having sex. Whether it was consensual or not is additional information. The passage has already implied that it was not consensual, so it's you against the Bible here.
Quote:
The "lets find other examples" argument is in no way full proof because language just doesn't work that way all the time. Words can take on different meanings, making different uses of them unrelated.
So I suppose that we should just take your opinion of the word as the final authority then? I don't think so. Scripture interprets scripture, and words have objective meanings. As I pointed out in the other thread, the meaning of the word "taphas" here is even less ambiguous than the meaning of the word "chazaq" in the earlier rape section.
Quote:
It can be very useful at times, but in this case it does not work. God doesn't have to reuse the same word from one example to another, and the lack of use means nothing.
If that was the case then one could make the same argument about the earlier rape passage as well. But that would be reading one's own bias into the text, just like you're doing.
.
Quote:
"Lay Hold" and "Force" are two different words. The first part of the passage uses force distinctly speaks to rape. The second is not rape, it is "lay hold", and it indicates he took her virginity but not forcefully.
This would be a radical departure from it's use elsewhere in scripture and elsewhere in the book of Deuteronomy as well.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold[taphas] on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Quote:
You don't have to use "force" to "lay hold" of something. It is like you take hold of wisdom, or take hold of honor..
Those are not people. I addressed this point in the other thread already. But I'll go ahead and quote it here, since you can't seem to be bothered to read the other thread.
Such an argument ignores the fundamental distinction between people and objects that makes such a usage absurd in the case of objects. Namely, inanimate objects have no will. This actually reinforces my interpretation, since, when used of people, it would imply a disregard of their autonomy, i. e. using people like objects.
Man may rape female child that has not been given to another man yet. He keeps her and pays her father if he is discovered. Read the hebrew, not the english. It is a girl child and it is rape.
Previous laws deal with adultery with a female who has been given to a man already.
You christian protestants refuse to see it, ofcourse; yours is a woman's religion and hopefully you will eventually be killed obeying and enticing other to obey your judges and your god (who supports women's rights in opposition to the words of the God of the book of Deuteronomy).
Also see the posts at the same level as this post, they dispel your arguments.
magic unicorn land you speak off?
http://www.ncix.com/detail/sam...
http://www.ncix.com/detail/kin...
http://www.ncix.com/detail/san...
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
https://www.micron.com/about/emerging-technologies/3d-xpoint-technology
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/architecture-and-technology/3d-xpoint-unveiled-video.html
It should be noted that while SLC flash is good for around 100,000 writes or so, TLC flash is only good for around 1,000. MLC is in in-between, about 30,000 writes. So the type of flash used in the drive very much matters.
Then there's the value economics, too.
Endurance testing have revealed modern SSDs to be remarkably reliable -- this guy wrote 7 PB to an 850 Pro. http://packet.company/blog/
But let's say the failure rate is N% higher than HDDs for a given application. But the drive itself is much faster and uses less power than a HDD. What number N is acceptable as an increased failure rate in exchange for the vastly improved performance?
In an array, the performance increase may allow the use of single parity over double parity due to the increase in rebuild times and reduced stress on the other members, resulting in better overall storage efficiency through reduced redundancy. Then there's power savings, too, if you're spinning and cooling a large number of HDDs.
My wild guess is that drives like the 850 Pro already have a dollar cost and failure rate low enough that the performance improvement is so great over HDDs that for most applications it's already superior to HDDs. The only places it may not be are weird corner cases requiring extreme storage densities at very low costs.
Data density is bytes/volume. This is giving bytes/area. Makes me question their ability to calculate these values at all.
This write up is misleading as it is comparing densities from the laboratory of one item to production densities of another item.
Please compare apples to apples. Hard drives are more dense and cheaper than solid state drives, in addition to being far cheaper: Still, and into the forseeable future.
The OP rather implies that a supplier offering both convetional HDDs and SSDs of the same capacity would offer their products at prices based upon "cost of manufacture + margin" - i.e. that the retail prices would be a reflection of production costs. Sadly for consumers, this is blatantly not the case. The evidence for this is *everywhere* - for example a BluRay Movie costs no more to make, ship and sell than a DVD [maybe less, the packaging is smaller, lighter and cheaper to ship] and yet BluRay discs cost significantly more. Another classic example is the motor trade, where 2 cars that are identical in every respect except the engine size are priced so that the one with the larger engine costs more. Going back to the storage industry, there may be at least a couple of legitimate reasons for the price differential : first, the vendor is still recouping research and development costs from SSD technologies, whilst HDDs may be investing much less in R&D and therefore cost less. Second, economies of scale mean that a vendor can spread overheads across greater sale volumes and thus one format costs less. Unfortunately, what is most likely to be happening is that vendors are "fixing" market prices and using the principle of "cool new thing" to charge a premium for the latest product, well beyond what legitimate development costs would suggest. In theory many countries have national agencies to stop markets conspiring to fix prices like this. There is legislation against this [it's essentially racketeering and/or market manipulation, after all]. Unfortunately, 99% of the time, large suppliers get away with it. It's only when something goes unexpectedly wrong [look at the LIBOR rate-rigging scandal in the UK] that regulators will act [because it puts them in a position where they have no choice but to act]. Unfortunately, for the rest of us, for most of the time, a price is set on the basis of "the maximum we can get away with", as determined by the vendor.
You are influenced by your american christian upbringing and the pro-woman culture that it has existed in since the founding of said country.
>The second part is that if a man takes a woman, he has to stay married to her ... forever (no divorce permitted), and he has to take care of her.
Incorrect, the hebrew talks of a girl, the word in hebrew there meaning one from infancy till adolecence, and the rape of that girl.
It is not about a grown woman, it is a about a female child (female by implication as the hebrew glyphs themselves do not contain the feminine of the word, it is only by the part that says the child will become the man's woman that we know the gender)
You clearly have not studied the hebrew in this passage, so go pound sand you fucking piece of shit.
Man is "ba'al": master (of the woman) in Deuteronomy as-well, people like you would claim this is not so and he's really a "steward", which is incorrect as the title "ba'al" is also given to local valley dieties, as-well as to the God of the book of Deuteronomy himself in some cases.
Anyway, read the other post to learn the meaning of the word 'tapas' (as it is pronounced), it is speaking of a forceful taking: the same taking as would befall a city under siege: a rape.
And of a girl child.
If I were the ruler you would be killed in a painful manner for asking for people to follow something other.
Your claim has been made many times before, and thus has be answered before. Deuteronomy chapter 22, verses 28-29 are about the rape of a young girl. Preceding verses are about a man having sex with a woman all-ready given to a man. IE: one is about "pedophile rape" (the worst crime under your woman's culture) and the other is about adultery (which, for the woman, is no crime under your woman's culture, or CUNTTURE rather of your woman's CUNTTRY)
You are influenced by your american christian upbringing and the pro-woman culture that it has existed in since the founding of said country.
>The second part is that if a man takes a woman, he has to stay married to her ... forever (no divorce permitted), and he has to take care of her.
Incorrect, the hebrew talks of a girl, the word in hebrew there meaning one from infancy till adolecence, and the rape of that girl.
It is not about a grown woman, it is a about a female child (female by implication as the hebrew glyphs themselves do not contain the feminine of the word, it is only by the part that says the child will become the man's woman that we know the gender)
You clearly have not studied the hebrew in this passage, so go pound sand you fucking piece of shit.
Man is "ba'al": master (of the woman) in Deuteronomy as-well, people like you would claim this is not so and he's really a "steward", which is incorrect as the title "ba'al" is also given to local valley dieties, as-well as to the God of the book of Deuteronomy himself in some cases.
Anyway, read the other post to learn the meaning of the word 'tapas' (as it is pronounced), it is speaking of a forceful taking: the same taking as would befall a city under siege: a rape.
And of a girl child.
If I were the ruler you would be killed in a painful manner for asking for people to follow something other.
Your claim has been made many times before, and thus has be answered before. Deuteronomy chapter 22, verses 28-29 are about the rape of a young girl. Preceding verses are about a man having sex with a woman all-ready given to a man. IE: one is about "pedophile rape" (the worst crime under your woman's culture) and the other is about adultery (which, for the woman, is no crime under your woman's culture, or CUNTTURE rather of your woman's CUNTTRY)
If I were the ruler you would be killed in a painful manner for enticing people to follow something other.
Capatchata: gassings: ie: what should happen to those who support feminism, women's rights, and oppose and punish men taking young girls as brides.
Kill Feminists.
Marry young girls (more than one).
You have it backwards.
See above posts.
Tapas implys force often, like the taking of a city (rape of a city), and mastery over an item (like a sword or an instrument)
The preceding passages are about adultery.
Pro-women's rights, anti marry girl children people should be killed.
And since you are one such person, you should be amongst them.
Adultery as it is used in the OT most generally refers to sexual activity between unmarried people, whether they are married to anyone else or not.
Use flash as your HDD.
Don't be too sure. A point will come where NOR flash densities will surpass NAND, and at that point, data integrity will NOT be an issue, since NOR doesn't have the cell issues that NAND has
Canadian.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I'm waiting for XOR storage, it self-encrypts. Unfortunately, it can never be proven what the original data was...
Incorrect again. OT is not Islam.
Your definition only applies to females.
Men are only guilty if they have relations with a woman who is allready given to another man.
Well, when that point is several years in the past, be sure to let me know, and if I haven't heard of a solid-state drive failure for several years, I'll consider buying some when I next need mass storage.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"