Reasoning: It's manufacturer refurb, so it's guaranteed to be defect-free. The specs are good. It has flexible input (vga, DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort), it's the size I wanted, and it's a swivel stand so you can turn it vertical if you want. (I like that for writing code.)
My other one is a Princeton. I don't think this model is made anymore. But it's been working good for over 5 years, no sign of any problem.
I'm happy with 1920 x 1200 at 24". The dot pitch is adequate (for me), and used monitors can be found on the market.
Rather sadly, for years now the "mainstream" monitor has been 1920 x 1080 (i.e., 1080p), which means the size in pixels of your average monitor actually went down for a few years, in contrast to the upward trend of the entire time before and since. I believe that was primarily due to the video content industry which wanted to focus everything in the world on 1080p, which rather hindered progress.
Having said that, a 21" monitor at 1080p has a "good enough" dot pitch at about a 24" distance, which is approximately across-the-desk distance if you have a decent desk.
I was getting along for quite a while with my 1920 x 1200 monitor alongside my 1680 x 1050, 17" Macbook Pro. But the Macbook is showing its age and I recently ordered another 24" 1920 x 1200. (Which is technically WUXGA.) 2 of them adjacent, pretty close to the same size, for 3980 x 1200. Not a dream setup, by any means, but it's a decent amount of screen "real estate".
Remember, you have more microbe cells in your body than human cells.
I've seen that repeated many times, but I have never seen any actual figures or evidence to support it.
I doubt that very much. In order for it to be true, the average "microbe" would have to be incredibly smaller than the average human cell. Otherwise there would be no room for them all. After all, the colon is internal, and the surface of your skin does not actually add up to very much volume.
Memory is often viewed through rose-tinted spectacles. Do you remember that SNL sketch, with the line "We're the phone company and we don't care"?
Yes, I certainly do. But what my memory is "viewed through" is University economics courses back when landlines were still the norm.
I studied the economics of our "natural monopoly" phone system vs. other countries where they had "competition" in the landline phone business. And in comparison, ours kicked ass. (Nobody is claiming it was perfect. But relatively speaking, it was very damned good.)
Then, later, in business law, one of our case studies was the breakup of Ma Bell. The whys and wherefores, and the eventual results.
So, yeah. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, but I do know a bit about it. More than most.
Today, we have crony-capitalism, which isn't any better than fully regulated. The FCC rolled over when incumbents made it impossible for CLECs to compete. If the FCC had had some backbone then, there might be a competitive landscape now.
I would say that "isn't any better" is a gross understatement. We went from a situation in which our telecommunication services were world-class and (relative to others at the time), very cheap. Now, due to lack of real competition in what passes for the "market", were trailing the pack when it comes to the Western world. Higher prices for far less service and capability.
So I think if you really take a look at it, yes, we were far better off then. FCC should have made ISPs Title II Common Carriers from the very beginning.
How old are you? Are you old enough to remember the concept of "long distance"? Of paying $0.10/min - $0.25/min for the privilege of calling your friends and family across the country?
Yep. I sure do.
At the time, did YOU bother to check what the rates were in other countries where there was "competition" in the landline phone markets? It cost 3 times as much, and sometimes you couldn't even call your neighbor because they were using a competing service that wasn't electrically compatible.
When our telecommunications WERE "nationalized" (i.e., when Ma Bell was a regulated "natural monopoly"), we got very good service as a whole, with reasonable rates. When it was all land lines, that is.
That was anything but a "fascist wet dream". Today's pretense of a market is, though. Obviously I prefer an open, competitive market but that's not what we have.
To date, "Connect Americs" - type government programs managed to bring broadband Internet service to quite a few (though nowhere near a million) rural households... for an average of nearly $100,000 per household.
Your tax $ at work.
The intent may be good, but as usual, the government has fumble-fingered the whole operation, and made it cost somewhere around 20 times what it should have.
The cost to provide you internet is directly proportional to the density of the population where you live.
I have made the same argument many times before. BUT...
The fact is that even in the denser cities, U.S. customers pay far more on average for less service than in most "Western" countries.
That isn't just due to lower densities, because as I say it's true across the U.S. What it is due to is simple lack of real competition, or failing that, adequate regulation.
Regarding your situation, I think you misunderstood my reply. I was talking about the pixel density on a 30" panel, it sounded like you think it is too high, as in, too many pixels. I think it is too few.
I see. No, it certainly isn't "too high". More would be nicer. IF it could be scaled properly so that pictures and text aren't too big or too tiny.
You are correct, Windows doesn't know how big your monitor is physically, and that is wrong, but it is that way due to legacy support and the fact that for a long time, monitors were all about the same size, give or take an inch.
It isn't just Windows. It is also OS X and Linux. They let you set your screen "resolution" (by which they mean size in pixels of course), but the scaling isn't adjustable for dot pitch. The closest it gets is Apple's "retina" work-around, which is better than no difference at all but it's all-or-nothing.
In OS X (I haven't checked recent versions of Windows) you can set the "default" font size for many of the included apps, but not all 3rd party apps allow you to do that. And with a higher density dot pitch, unless you are talking about "retina" display, default picture sizes and icons are too small.
At the typical viewing distances of computer monitors, your current screen is not an ideal resolution, 4k probably is. For a 32" monitor, I would prefer 8k, but that is a ways off.
A higher dot pitch would be desirable. But again "4k" and so on are sizes, not resolutions. It is easy to get them mixed up because for some bizarre reason the industry has been referring to size in pixels as resolution, when it just isn't. 4k isn't a resolution, it is a size in pixels.
My whole point here, which you probably already understand, is: a higher resolution is more generally desirable. Sure. But my current dot pitch IS "fine". I didn't say it was ideal, but the important thing is that it is plenty good enough. My main point again is that at my current dot pitch (which is "good enough"), that LG monitor would be 47" diagonal. BUT, if you scaled it up to my current physical size (41" total), the text and picture size in many applications would be too small for comfort.
So that monitor would NOT be very suitable for me, for my work. It would have to be physically larger than it is. Being able to fit more windows on the screen is nice, but not so much if they're too small.
I look forward to the day when OSes allow for better scaling. Apple's "retina" adjustments to the OS are a clunky work-around. You jump from 1x to 2x. Which is better than nothing but finer-grained control is desirable.
Having watched it in person, from 10 feet away, I have to disagree...
Okay. I admit that I haven't. But I'd have to see them right next to each other, showing the same picture or video, before I made up my mind.
Really? Then you probably think 30 inches at 256x1440 is too small, which is what all the 30" panels are. The problem is, that is horribly wrong...
Don't tell me what's "horribly wrong" with my work setup. How arrogant! I've been doing this shit for a living for many years.
Currently I have 2 x 24" monitors at 1920 x 1200. That's 3840 x 1200. And the diagonal measure (screen only) is approx. 41".
As I explained elsewhere: the dot pitch on these monitors, sitting across my desk, is just fine for work. I use this screen SPACE for my work, which is often text (I have only 4 windows open right now but I'm not working... one of them is full-screen on one monitor).
A smaller dot pitch would be just fine, to smooth out the text, and video, and so on. As I explained. But the SIZE of my windows and text still needs to be the same, for work. But Windows and OS X don't allow you to scale that properly. Regardless of the resolution, I still use all of that 41" diagonal for my work. And could use even more.
So let's not get the two things confused. I'm not saying the resolution is "too high". I'm saying the physical size is too small. If they made it bigger, and kept the same dot pitch, that would be fine with me. But that would mean a lot more pixels than 3440 x 1440.
The thing is, the higher DPI of these monitors is not a bad thing, and where it shines is in making the content on your screen sharper with fewer jaggies...
While I explained the difference between size in pixels and resolution, I managed to muddy the waters myself a bit in my comments.
The problem is that yes, while better resolution will make for fewer jaggies and so on, most modern OSes do not allow you to scale your windows (including text size, and so on) properly.
And as I say: even if they did, it would use up some of that useful SIZE. So to get the same work done you still need a bigger monitor.
My text and video looks just fine to me with a 24" monitor at 1920 x 1200, across my desk. I use more than one for more space. The thing is, if I want a finer resolution, great, but I still want the same physical size, or more, not something that is physically smaller. As I say: in order to get the same work done, regardless of other factors, this monitor would have to be 47" diagonal, even if the resolution were higher than it is.
I should clarify: I use two monitors, not just one. And I do use all of that "real estate" in my work and then some. I could use more.
But if it isn't big enough to see, at sufficient distance to prevent eyestrain, then it's not good for work. Even though this monitor has more dots than my two monitors, it is physically smaller than my two monitors together. Text would be too small to see comfortably and so on, unless I just made the windows bigger, which defeats the whole purpose of the higher resolution.
I would submit that you think 1920x1200 is "plenty for work and pleasure" because you simply have no experience with "better".
I'm all for higher resolution. And I do think 4k is overkill for TV. But not for computer monitors.
But size and resolution are two different things. 3440 x 1440 is the picture size, not the resolution. Resolution is expressed in dpi. (Or dots per whatever, it doesn't have to be inches.)
34 inches at 3440 X 1440 is too small, physically, for real work except maybe graphics. If I wanted the same "effective resolution" at the same distance (across my deep desktop) as my 24" monitor at 1920 x 1200 (WUXGA), which is just fine, this new monitor would have to be about 47" diagonal. At only 34" diagonal, in order to get the same effective pixel size as my existing monitors, it would have to be about 18" from my face.
Sure, smaller pixels might make for smoother games or videos, and "smoother" fonts, but when it comes to actually working on your computer, you don't want the text to be too tiny or the buttons to be too small. 4k or bigger is fine with me, but for work, the physical size has to be in good proportion to the pixel size. Smaller pixels are not always a good thing.
But why should the support staff waste their time repetitively answering a question that is already answered in a customer forum?
That wasn't the point. OP is referring to companies who leave support largely up to the forums, while leaving users in the dark regarding whether the problem is being addressed by the company. The utility of user forums is well-known. But that is only a part of the support equation. When it is left up to the forums and those other parts of the support equation are left out or ignored, you end up with sloppy support at best.
Apple is kind of famous for this one, actually. Not that they don't support issues themselves, but they seldom if ever chime in to some of their user forums, and keep annoyingly silent on whether a fix for the problem will be upcoming.
I can think of one issue in particular that has been a complaint in Apple user forums through several updates now, and to the best of my knowledge Apple has been completely silent about when, or even if, they plan to solve the issue. Users in the forum have managed to solve the issue for some users, but others have been left hanging for many months.
However, they have gotten "good enough" for most use cases. Though I agree that it is in the "just barely" category. Limited rewrites are their one major problem at this time. If that can be improved, it would be a great advance for us all.
Only the last block of a file will have a "random" chance of usage.
Sure, BUT... blocks on SSDs can be as large or 16k and even larger. That's a lot of wasted space, especially if you have lots of small files.
The real underlying issue here, though, is the number of lifetime write-cycles. Newer SSD technology (MLC in particular) actually made the number smaller, not larger. When it really, really must get larger before SSDs will be mature. That's the central reason why all these workarounds are necessary in the first place. And that's what they are: work-arounds.
Maybe the awkwardly-named memristor or some similar technology will replace it soon. Or many somebody will come up with a way to give cells more write cycles or even "infinite", as magnetic disks basically are. (Yes, I know it is not really infinite, but AFAIK there is no practical limit to write cycles.)
No quicker than you are! You'd have half the planet dead just from your "fuck you I got mine" Libertardian policies.
This is such an ignorant statement (I mean that literally) that all I can do is laugh. Are you one of those Leftists who swallowed the "Libertarian equals Selfish Anarchist" BS?
Instead of spouting nonsense, why don't you find out what they're actually all about? Because this comment says quite clearly that you haven't a clue.
Good thing nobody is saying that then. This is not a productive conversation, I'm done.
You continue to argue with me over things I wasn't saying or even implying. So I'm glad you're done. I agree with you 100% that it has been an unproductive exchange.
Reread what you've said, it has all been negative.
You still obviously didn't get my original point. So I'm happy you're going away. You're wasting everybody's time.
Yeah, you kind of did. You are using the example of this incredibly rare and complicated self-driving car scenario as an example of what will go wrong,
Yes. One in a million, maybe? Well, the odds of getting hit by lightning are less than 1 in 6,000,000. Yet it happens, surprisingly often.
... while just glossing over the also incredibly rare and complicated current examples. In your scenario how is a human driver better, how is the law simpler. It's not.
I didn't "gloss over" anything. I repeat: my example was deliberately chosen to be one of those edge-cases, in order to illustrate a point. But THE POINT has passed entirely over your head, and instead you are concentrating on the example I used to illustrate it. Just to demonstrate:
For every situation like you proposed there will be 10,000 times as many cases where another car is stopped in the road and it's at night or there's fog or the driver is inattentive and the self-driving car will save lives.
So what? That has nothing to do with THE POINT I was making. Which you still don't get.
The real-world scenarios in which car computers were accused of causing accidents, and in which anti-lock brakes were accused of causing accidents WERE real, DID happen, DID result in lawsuits, and DID affect the markets for these devices for a long time. And the entire time, they were probably saving thousands of lives. Again: so what? That doesn't mean those other things didn't happen.
At NO time in this entire conversation did I say that was a valid reason for this technology to not be used, or not be developed. On the contrary, I think it's a great thing, and will do the world a lot of good.
But denying that there will be real problems along the way, and failing to use clear and recent history of an EXAMPLE of the kinds of problems that will almost certainly occur, is stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Just for the sake of accuracy. I'm not calling BS, I just said I doubt it. The scale seems off.
Give a USian a piece of Bacon without the additives and it's viewed as bad bacon. Nitrates only taste salty to people with very poor taste buds.
Since I'm a "USian", I have to disagree. My favorite bacon is smoked with no preservatives.
The one I bought is a Dell refurb. :)
Reasoning: It's manufacturer refurb, so it's guaranteed to be defect-free. The specs are good. It has flexible input (vga, DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort), it's the size I wanted, and it's a swivel stand so you can turn it vertical if you want. (I like that for writing code.)
My other one is a Princeton. I don't think this model is made anymore. But it's been working good for over 5 years, no sign of any problem.
No argument from this corner.
I'm happy with 1920 x 1200 at 24". The dot pitch is adequate (for me), and used monitors can be found on the market.
Rather sadly, for years now the "mainstream" monitor has been 1920 x 1080 (i.e., 1080p), which means the size in pixels of your average monitor actually went down for a few years, in contrast to the upward trend of the entire time before and since. I believe that was primarily due to the video content industry which wanted to focus everything in the world on 1080p, which rather hindered progress.
Having said that, a 21" monitor at 1080p has a "good enough" dot pitch at about a 24" distance, which is approximately across-the-desk distance if you have a decent desk.
I was getting along for quite a while with my 1920 x 1200 monitor alongside my 1680 x 1050, 17" Macbook Pro. But the Macbook is showing its age and I recently ordered another 24" 1920 x 1200. (Which is technically WUXGA.) 2 of them adjacent, pretty close to the same size, for 3980 x 1200. Not a dream setup, by any means, but it's a decent amount of screen "real estate".
Remember, you have more microbe cells in your body than human cells.
I've seen that repeated many times, but I have never seen any actual figures or evidence to support it.
I doubt that very much. In order for it to be true, the average "microbe" would have to be incredibly smaller than the average human cell. Otherwise there would be no room for them all. After all, the colon is internal, and the surface of your skin does not actually add up to very much volume.
The sad thing about the 'flavour' of bacon, is that most USians are refering to the taste of the preservative, but they don't know that.
No, they aren't. If your theory were correct, any mass-produced hot dog with the same preservatives would taste as good as bacon. But they don't.
The predominant flavors (other than the salty flavor of nitrates or nitrites) are smoke, and the bacon itself.
Memory is often viewed through rose-tinted spectacles. Do you remember that SNL sketch, with the line "We're the phone company and we don't care"?
Yes, I certainly do. But what my memory is "viewed through" is University economics courses back when landlines were still the norm.
I studied the economics of our "natural monopoly" phone system vs. other countries where they had "competition" in the landline phone business. And in comparison, ours kicked ass. (Nobody is claiming it was perfect. But relatively speaking, it was very damned good.)
Then, later, in business law, one of our case studies was the breakup of Ma Bell. The whys and wherefores, and the eventual results.
So, yeah. I do not claim to be an expert on the subject, but I do know a bit about it. More than most.
Today, we have crony-capitalism, which isn't any better than fully regulated. The FCC rolled over when incumbents made it impossible for CLECs to compete. If the FCC had had some backbone then, there might be a competitive landscape now.
I would say that "isn't any better" is a gross understatement. We went from a situation in which our telecommunication services were world-class and (relative to others at the time), very cheap. Now, due to lack of real competition in what passes for the "market", were trailing the pack when it comes to the Western world. Higher prices for far less service and capability.
So I think if you really take a look at it, yes, we were far better off then. FCC should have made ISPs Title II Common Carriers from the very beginning.
How old are you? Are you old enough to remember the concept of "long distance"? Of paying $0.10/min - $0.25/min for the privilege of calling your friends and family across the country?
Yep. I sure do.
At the time, did YOU bother to check what the rates were in other countries where there was "competition" in the landline phone markets? It cost 3 times as much, and sometimes you couldn't even call your neighbor because they were using a competing service that wasn't electrically compatible.
When our telecommunications WERE "nationalized" (i.e., when Ma Bell was a regulated "natural monopoly"), we got very good service as a whole, with reasonable rates. When it was all land lines, that is.
That was anything but a "fascist wet dream". Today's pretense of a market is, though. Obviously I prefer an open, competitive market but that's not what we have.
The FCC is soooo awesome for doing this!
To date, "Connect Americs" - type government programs managed to bring broadband Internet service to quite a few (though nowhere near a million) rural households... for an average of nearly $100,000 per household.
Your tax $ at work.
The intent may be good, but as usual, the government has fumble-fingered the whole operation, and made it cost somewhere around 20 times what it should have.
The cost to provide you internet is directly proportional to the density of the population where you live.
I have made the same argument many times before. BUT...
The fact is that even in the denser cities, U.S. customers pay far more on average for less service than in most "Western" countries.
That isn't just due to lower densities, because as I say it's true across the U.S. What it is due to is simple lack of real competition, or failing that, adequate regulation.
Regarding your situation, I think you misunderstood my reply. I was talking about the pixel density on a 30" panel, it sounded like you think it is too high, as in, too many pixels. I think it is too few.
I see. No, it certainly isn't "too high". More would be nicer. IF it could be scaled properly so that pictures and text aren't too big or too tiny.
You are correct, Windows doesn't know how big your monitor is physically, and that is wrong, but it is that way due to legacy support and the fact that for a long time, monitors were all about the same size, give or take an inch.
It isn't just Windows. It is also OS X and Linux. They let you set your screen "resolution" (by which they mean size in pixels of course), but the scaling isn't adjustable for dot pitch. The closest it gets is Apple's "retina" work-around, which is better than no difference at all but it's all-or-nothing.
In OS X (I haven't checked recent versions of Windows) you can set the "default" font size for many of the included apps, but not all 3rd party apps allow you to do that. And with a higher density dot pitch, unless you are talking about "retina" display, default picture sizes and icons are too small.
Maybe you missed the part where I mentioned that I use a 24" monitor, but I have more than one?
At the typical viewing distances of computer monitors, your current screen is not an ideal resolution, 4k probably is. For a 32" monitor, I would prefer 8k, but that is a ways off.
A higher dot pitch would be desirable. But again "4k" and so on are sizes, not resolutions. It is easy to get them mixed up because for some bizarre reason the industry has been referring to size in pixels as resolution, when it just isn't. 4k isn't a resolution, it is a size in pixels.
My whole point here, which you probably already understand, is: a higher resolution is more generally desirable. Sure. But my current dot pitch IS "fine". I didn't say it was ideal, but the important thing is that it is plenty good enough. My main point again is that at my current dot pitch (which is "good enough"), that LG monitor would be 47" diagonal. BUT, if you scaled it up to my current physical size (41" total), the text and picture size in many applications would be too small for comfort.
So that monitor would NOT be very suitable for me, for my work. It would have to be physically larger than it is. Being able to fit more windows on the screen is nice, but not so much if they're too small.
I look forward to the day when OSes allow for better scaling. Apple's "retina" adjustments to the OS are a clunky work-around. You jump from 1x to 2x. Which is better than nothing but finer-grained control is desirable.
Having watched it in person, from 10 feet away, I have to disagree...
Okay. I admit that I haven't. But I'd have to see them right next to each other, showing the same picture or video, before I made up my mind.
Really? Then you probably think 30 inches at 256x1440 is too small, which is what all the 30" panels are. The problem is, that is horribly wrong...
Don't tell me what's "horribly wrong" with my work setup. How arrogant! I've been doing this shit for a living for many years.
Currently I have 2 x 24" monitors at 1920 x 1200. That's 3840 x 1200. And the diagonal measure (screen only) is approx. 41".
As I explained elsewhere: the dot pitch on these monitors, sitting across my desk, is just fine for work. I use this screen SPACE for my work, which is often text (I have only 4 windows open right now but I'm not working... one of them is full-screen on one monitor).
A smaller dot pitch would be just fine, to smooth out the text, and video, and so on. As I explained. But the SIZE of my windows and text still needs to be the same, for work. But Windows and OS X don't allow you to scale that properly. Regardless of the resolution, I still use all of that 41" diagonal for my work. And could use even more.
So let's not get the two things confused. I'm not saying the resolution is "too high". I'm saying the physical size is too small. If they made it bigger, and kept the same dot pitch, that would be fine with me. But that would mean a lot more pixels than 3440 x 1440.
The thing is, the higher DPI of these monitors is not a bad thing, and where it shines is in making the content on your screen sharper with fewer jaggies...
While I explained the difference between size in pixels and resolution, I managed to muddy the waters myself a bit in my comments.
The problem is that yes, while better resolution will make for fewer jaggies and so on, most modern OSes do not allow you to scale your windows (including text size, and so on) properly.
And as I say: even if they did, it would use up some of that useful SIZE. So to get the same work done you still need a bigger monitor.
My text and video looks just fine to me with a 24" monitor at 1920 x 1200, across my desk. I use more than one for more space. The thing is, if I want a finer resolution, great, but I still want the same physical size, or more, not something that is physically smaller. As I say: in order to get the same work done, regardless of other factors, this monitor would have to be 47" diagonal, even if the resolution were higher than it is.
I should clarify: I use two monitors, not just one. And I do use all of that "real estate" in my work and then some. I could use more.
But if it isn't big enough to see, at sufficient distance to prevent eyestrain, then it's not good for work. Even though this monitor has more dots than my two monitors, it is physically smaller than my two monitors together. Text would be too small to see comfortably and so on, unless I just made the windows bigger, which defeats the whole purpose of the higher resolution.
I would submit that you think 1920x1200 is "plenty for work and pleasure" because you simply have no experience with "better".
I'm all for higher resolution. And I do think 4k is overkill for TV. But not for computer monitors.
But size and resolution are two different things. 3440 x 1440 is the picture size, not the resolution. Resolution is expressed in dpi. (Or dots per whatever, it doesn't have to be inches.)
34 inches at 3440 X 1440 is too small, physically, for real work except maybe graphics. If I wanted the same "effective resolution" at the same distance (across my deep desktop) as my 24" monitor at 1920 x 1200 (WUXGA), which is just fine, this new monitor would have to be about 47" diagonal. At only 34" diagonal, in order to get the same effective pixel size as my existing monitors, it would have to be about 18" from my face.
Sure, smaller pixels might make for smoother games or videos, and "smoother" fonts, but when it comes to actually working on your computer, you don't want the text to be too tiny or the buttons to be too small. 4k or bigger is fine with me, but for work, the physical size has to be in good proportion to the pixel size. Smaller pixels are not always a good thing.
But why should the support staff waste their time repetitively answering a question that is already answered in a customer forum?
That wasn't the point. OP is referring to companies who leave support largely up to the forums, while leaving users in the dark regarding whether the problem is being addressed by the company. The utility of user forums is well-known. But that is only a part of the support equation. When it is left up to the forums and those other parts of the support equation are left out or ignored, you end up with sloppy support at best.
Apple is kind of famous for this one, actually. Not that they don't support issues themselves, but they seldom if ever chime in to some of their user forums, and keep annoyingly silent on whether a fix for the problem will be upcoming.
I can think of one issue in particular that has been a complaint in Apple user forums through several updates now, and to the best of my knowledge Apple has been completely silent about when, or even if, they plan to solve the issue. Users in the forum have managed to solve the issue for some users, but others have been left hanging for many months.
That *IS* the basic problem.
However, they have gotten "good enough" for most use cases. Though I agree that it is in the "just barely" category. Limited rewrites are their one major problem at this time. If that can be improved, it would be a great advance for us all.
Only the last block of a file will have a "random" chance of usage.
Sure, BUT... blocks on SSDs can be as large or 16k and even larger. That's a lot of wasted space, especially if you have lots of small files.
The real underlying issue here, though, is the number of lifetime write-cycles. Newer SSD technology (MLC in particular) actually made the number smaller, not larger. When it really, really must get larger before SSDs will be mature. That's the central reason why all these workarounds are necessary in the first place. And that's what they are: work-arounds.
Maybe the awkwardly-named memristor or some similar technology will replace it soon. Or many somebody will come up with a way to give cells more write cycles or even "infinite", as magnetic disks basically are. (Yes, I know it is not really infinite, but AFAIK there is no practical limit to write cycles.)
No quicker than you are! You'd have half the planet dead just from your "fuck you I got mine" Libertardian policies.
This is such an ignorant statement (I mean that literally) that all I can do is laugh. Are you one of those Leftists who swallowed the "Libertarian equals Selfish Anarchist" BS?
Instead of spouting nonsense, why don't you find out what they're actually all about? Because this comment says quite clearly that you haven't a clue.
Good thing nobody is saying that then. This is not a productive conversation, I'm done.
You continue to argue with me over things I wasn't saying or even implying. So I'm glad you're done. I agree with you 100% that it has been an unproductive exchange.
Reread what you've said, it has all been negative.
You still obviously didn't get my original point. So I'm happy you're going away. You're wasting everybody's time.
Yeah, you kind of did. You are using the example of this incredibly rare and complicated self-driving car scenario as an example of what will go wrong,
Yes. One in a million, maybe? Well, the odds of getting hit by lightning are less than 1 in 6,000,000. Yet it happens, surprisingly often.
... while just glossing over the also incredibly rare and complicated current examples. In your scenario how is a human driver better, how is the law simpler. It's not.
I didn't "gloss over" anything. I repeat: my example was deliberately chosen to be one of those edge-cases, in order to illustrate a point. But THE POINT has passed entirely over your head, and instead you are concentrating on the example I used to illustrate it. Just to demonstrate:
For every situation like you proposed there will be 10,000 times as many cases where another car is stopped in the road and it's at night or there's fog or the driver is inattentive and the self-driving car will save lives.
So what? That has nothing to do with THE POINT I was making. Which you still don't get.
The real-world scenarios in which car computers were accused of causing accidents, and in which anti-lock brakes were accused of causing accidents WERE real, DID happen, DID result in lawsuits, and DID affect the markets for these devices for a long time. And the entire time, they were probably saving thousands of lives. Again: so what? That doesn't mean those other things didn't happen.
At NO time in this entire conversation did I say that was a valid reason for this technology to not be used, or not be developed. On the contrary, I think it's a great thing, and will do the world a lot of good.
But denying that there will be real problems along the way, and failing to use clear and recent history of an EXAMPLE of the kinds of problems that will almost certainly occur, is stupid.