Except in places where the infrastructure is already near capacity (California and some parts of the northwest spring to mind), the infrastructure is already in place, and all anybody really needs is the correct outlet.
Infrastructure for these things is no problem, except in places where the electrical infrastructure is already poor.
You seem to be confused about what swapping is for, and what "frugal memory management" is.
Is it frugal to swap data out of RAM onto the hard disk when there is more than enough RAM available to leave the data in memory and allow new programs to access RAM?
Because that is exactly what you are suggesting.
Swapping data from RAM to hard disk is a last-ditch fail-safe that prevents the computer from crashing when it runs out of RAM. If the computer is not about to run out of RAM, why should it swap anything to disk? Who cares if you only have 10% free, when that 10% is 400-800mb? Most programs don't use more than 10mb of RAM, most big programs don't use more than 100mb of RAM, and most resource hogs don't use more than 500mb of RAM.
Please, tell me why it is a good idea to swap even 10mb of data to the hard disk to keep 2 gigs of RAM free "just in case". I'd really like to hear your reasoning behind calling that "frugal memory management".
Unused RAM is RAM that is not being used. By anything. You open up task manager and see 500mb of RAM used out of 3gb, well, 2.5gb is not being used. That is unused RAM
Where the hell did you come up with this disk cache BS? The opposite happens - the OS pulls data out of RAM and caches it onto disk when the data has been loaded but is not expected to be used for a while, or other programs need the RAM. This is called a PageFile in windows, and a Swap partition in Linux.
I don't think you have much programming background at all, or you'd know that directly pointing to addresses hasn't been done in a long, long time. Some languages, like C and others still allow it, but 99.99% of the time it is a very bad idea. It's the kind of shit you do with assembly language programing. For a couple decades now the OS has handled RAM management and address allocation, for precisely the reason you state: There is no way for an application to know the addressing needs of another application.
The only thing that is -somewhat- like your imaginary "disk caching" is Vista's ReadyBoost, which moves frequently used data to a FLASH drive in order to improve responsiveness.
Now, what you might be talking about, in a confused illiterate monkey sort of way, is the process by which the OS moves data out of physical RAM and onto disk cache (the swap or pagefile). An aggressive scheme tries to keep as much RAM free and available for quick use by another application, re-loading cached data into RAM when necessary. This was vital when RAM was small and expensive, as there wasn't much to go around it had to be rationed sparingly. The computer was less responsive than it could have been, but it also prevented memory errors popping up.
RAM is now cheap and big, so OS's are moving to take advantage of that, basically by being less agressive about what gets moved to the swap and what stays in RAM - you have 8gb of RAM, why waste time moving stuff from RAM to Swap and back again when you have 6gb free? You could have a full DVD loaded into RAM and should not suffer any issues with other programs. In no way, shape, or form does this mean the OS takes commonly used data and loads it into RAM. All that is happening, is when an application requests address space (all applications must request address space), the OS does not move them onto the disk cache unless it is absolutely necessary, thereby speeding all programs up.
I'll break it down for you, so you can understand multiple negations.
First, start with all positives: Is Responsive
Next, the first negation: Is Unresponsive - opposite of above.
Third, the double negation: Isn't Unresponsive - opposite of above, means the same as the pre-negation statement.
Last, the triple negation: Isn't Not Unresponsive - Opposite of above, means the same as the negated statement.
It means it is unresponsive. Or isn't responsive. Or is not responsive. They are all the same.
Whether or not that's what he meant, how the hell should I know? It's English for heaven's sake! There is an exception for every rule! (even that one)
As with everything in English, not using double+ negatives is not a rule, it's a suggestion for clarity. So is the placement of complex modifiers or the "rules" for pronouns, or never using a big word when a diminutive word will do.;)
You responded to a statement saying that the bug was determined to be in the chipset driver, not the OS, with a statement that says it MIGHT be in the chipset driver OR the OS.
Brilliant.
You know people don't always have the most current information regardless of how recent their post is, right? One post was by someone who FIXED the problem on their machine, the other a conversation with a MS rep who may or may not have had the best information as well.
To put it another way, you responed to "We found out why the chair is leaning, you can see where it is cracked and bowed here and here" with "Bob from the chair store thinks it's either the leg or the floor."
The only reason the EU is forcing browser choice rather than splitting up Microsoft is because MS is a US based company, and nothing the EU does will be able to significantly alter its structure.
What it can do, however, is place restrictions on what it can and cannot sell in the US. The EU provisions do exactly that.
I don't doubt that if the EU could split microsoft, they would.
I read this in Time magazine just last week (granted, it was the bathroom copy, so quite a bit delayed, but still).
It's a valid point with references. WTF?
I'm burning some karma just to be sure it stays visible.
cliffski wrote: actually a lot of stuff you assume goes to landfill gets stuck on a ship and exported to some third world country where it becomes 'someone else's problem'. the west are great and dumping our crap on poorer countries. We brits got caught doing it with 1,400 tonnes of toxic waste a few days ago:
Of course we are all better off just not knowing about this ro giving a fuck about how our actions affect other countries, so I'm sure its evil of greenpeace to even draw attention to it. bastards eh?
The right to a fair trial is well accepted as a basic human right. That a government denies you a basic human right does not take away from the fact that it is a basic human right. Even in despotisms, people don't get hauled off in the middle of the night while the average person things "Well, that's totally fair." It's UNfair, and everybody knows it, because everyone has a right to a fair trial. Whether they are able to recieve it is another matter entirely.
In the US Constitution it is recognized in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the constitution.
In the UK it is enumerated in the Human Rights Act.
It is interesting to note that, as I was reading through the UK human rights act, I realized it is far, far less robust than the Bill of Rights. It also seems to be a simple act of law, which in the US is generally pretty easilly overturned or supplanted, as opposed to an amendment to the constitution, which is very difficult to alter or supplant.
Bullshit. I suppose people 25 years ago couldn't learn anything because they had no access to the internet, eh? I suppose people 10 years ago couldn't do much of anything either because the internet was small and slow, eh?
The truth is, 90-99% of what people do on the internet is worthless. The average highschool student today has half the vocabulary of highschool kids 50 years ago, yet today kids have nearly unlimited access to information. The vocabulary should be huge and growing, but instead it is plummeting.
If anything, the internet has made people dumber on average, not smarter. So it's no wonder you can't figure out what to do if the internet is not available.
Get off your ass and do something worth while. Shut off the internet for a month and you'll realize you can get along just fine without it. Doing the same with your cell phone can be quite rewarding as well.
Real shotguns don't work the same way video game shotguns do.
Short barrel shotguns behave similarly, the short barrel allows the shot to spread sooner, but a long barrel, particularly one with a choke, could keep the spray relatively tight for 50 yards or so. More than enough range to devastate an office.
Sure a slug will put a hole in you that you probably won't recover from, but buckshot will rip you up, AND has the added bonus of potential collateral damage if you're nervous and your aim is off.
Bird shot is what you don't want to use in this environment, all that is really going to do is hurt like hell. Maybe give some people lead poisoning, but that's about it. Ol' Dick just got lucky when he nearly killed his hunting buddy with bird shot.
Have you ever actually used a bittorent client before?
There is no such thing as an overseeded torrent. There are underseeded torrents, and those are frustrating, but there is no such thing as an overseeded torrent. The general idea with upload ratio requirements is that it encourages you to never stop seeding a torrent. If 100 people are seeding and only 3 are downloading, those three get the file extremely fast, and your bandwidth isn't taxed. If you download enough content that you are on a private tracker, then you should have a number of torrents to share. If you aren't downloading all that much, then it will be easy to keep a 100%+ share ratio. If you ARE downloading a lot, you should still be in the 50% range, and eventually you will hit critical mass and the ammount you download won't be able to keep up with the amount you upload.
It's good for everybody. Plus, if a private tracker has a very high seed rate, chances are the required share ratio will be lowered. It creates a win-win situation.
Remember, no such thing as an overseeded torrent. If you download a lot, you WILL share a lot. If you keep sharing after you download, you will soon be sharing more than you download. People move on, quit sharing, lose their computers, etc.
Your share ratio math ignores a lot of things that reduce the amount of data on the network which occur all the time. It's actually pretty easy to exceed 100% share ratios for everybody on the network. If you can't see how it's because you've locked yourself in a tiny box and completely ignored outside factors which remove data and introduce data without affecting increasing the amount of data a person can download. Whenever someone adds a new download to the tracker, the potential share ratio for everyone in the network increases. Whenever a new member joins, the potential share ratio for everyone on the network increases. Eventually it balances out to 100%, but the network is ever changing so it never actually gets there.
If you want to carry a huge load and you don't mind driving day and night for a week, you need a Semi.
If you want to get to the end of the track as fast as possible, turn around and come back as fast as possible, what you need is a sub 7 second hot-rod.
Who in their right mind would buy a sub 7 second Semi? That's insane! It'd also cost millions of dollars, if you could even do it. Better to just fly.
I think my analogy went awry there somewhere. Anyway, slow, steady, big semi is the cheap HDD, great for long trips with a big load, while lighting fast hot-rod is the SSD. It can't haul as much, but man oh man is it fast! High-end HDDs are like the 15-second dodge van. Ya kinda go "Huh?".
Hold on a sec, have you looked at the benchmarks? At all?
The fastest hard discs on the market can only keep up on the sequential reads and writes. These are drives like the 300gb velociraptor, which is loud and costs nearly $300. Granted, it's still about 1/3 the cost of the X-25m G2, but there simply is not a faster consumer grade hard drive that you can buy if you wanted to, so capacity is not relevant if you only want to talk speed.
Random reads and writes, which is what normally happens when you are using a computer for anything but mass data transfer, the fastest hard drives on the market are significantly slower than the slowest SSD's on the market.
Seek times? Hello? That's the single biggest failing of HDDs, and it's the reason drive manufactureres put massive amounts of cache on the drive - to mitigate that. Even with that SSDs are in the single-digit NANOSECOND range, while HDDs are in the millisecond range.
For the stuff that HDDs are very, very good at (large amounts of sequential reads and writes) they are close to what an SSD can do. Most people very rarely do bulk transfers of data. A few people do large data reads on a regular basis, but the HDD is not even on the same level for every-day usage.
So, what you end up with is SSDs are quickly approaching high-end hard drives in price and capacity, and they are faster in every way. In the ways that are generally most noticeable - random reads and writes, they are currently 40-160x faster. That's a crapton, and they are only getting faster, cheaper, and bigger.
The DoD wipe criteria are based on magnetic drives. For SSD, I believe a delete + TRIM would be equivalent to a DoD wipe, and much faster.
Don't quote me on that though.
It's not that the data can't be completely removed, in fact once data is overwritten on an SSD as far as I know there is no way to recover what was previously there. Again, don't quote me on that, but if you are re-formating a drive, filling it up with a full pass of 0's should do the trick, because unlike magnetic media it isn't "mostly 0" or "mostly 1", it's either switched one way or the other. It's a completely different technology and the drawbacks that created the need for DoD multi-pass writes to elimate the ability to read back data should not be necessary.
Once the write gates have worn out and all you can do is read it, though, physical destruction is probably the only way to eliminate the data. Even then, it would be easier and less expensive than magnetic disc destruction (not that that's all that expensive).
BTW, regarding the effectiveness of HDD recovery from random writes and the DoD wipe spec, hard drive data extraction that made the extreme measures of the DoD wipe spec necessary is very very difficult today because the drives are laid out differently than they used to be 10 years ago. In particular, standing the magnetic bits on end made the surface area for each bit an order of magnitude smaller. This is what caused the explosion of hard drive sizes (500gb drives were seen very shortly after this happened), it also required much finer equipment to read and write to the drives in the hard drive. The techniques for recovering data on drives that had been over-written relied on the fact that the small read/write mechanism inside the drives was not very precise. It did not write the perfect magnetic equivalent of a 1 or a 0, the best it could manage was a.98 or.99. Well, upon writing a "0" over a.99 (which read as a 1 to the imprecise hard drive)it became a.02 or maybe.03. Because of this the writes and re-writes were effectively trackable three or four writes deep, and with sharp equipment and a good algorithm you could reliably trace and recover the original data. Hence the multiple passes of 0's, then 1's, then random, then more 0's, etc. all designed to fool data recovery algorithms. Fast forward to modern drives, however, and the read/write heads are writing.999's and.001's instead of.99's and.01's. It is significantly more difficult to measure and recover the data these days
None of it applies to SSDs though, they are different in every way and the DoD spec is meaningless when applied to them. Seriously though, if you want to be truly secure, a delete + TRIM should be enough, but there are also already programs that will fill the disk with useless data, after which a delete + TRIM would be as secure as you can get.
Nobody has a funny accent when they type. Other than the accent and occasional odd phrasing (which would never come out in a transcription service - english to english is pretty frickin easy), most of these people speak excellent English, particularly since it is a second language for all of them.
Hell, my last college english class was taught by an Indian immigrant. She had a heavy accent, but her English was very precise and correct. The only annoying thing was she liked the word "rubric", and rolled her r's heavilly.
Also not that only ONE of those definitions actually implies a lack of skill. All Olympians are ametures, but only a fool would say they are not among the most skilled in the world at what they do (perhaps with the exception of the combat sports).
...given how long these things typically drag-out (4-5 years)...
They only last that long if you have the money or support to fight that long. Typically a long, drug out court case lasts a few months at the most. Most court cases last a week or two, with maybe a month or two of prep time before going to court.
It's the right to a speedy trial in the constitution, they try to move people through the courts as fast as they can so the world doesn't end when someone requests a speedy trial. It's only when you've got cash to spend and the issue is muddy enough that a decision can't be reached quickly that a trial goes on for years.
33.6kWh is the energy potential of gasoline. That it is impossible to perfectly convert 100% of the chemical energy into kinetic energy is meaningless. It is just as impossible for an electric motor to turn 100% of 33.6kWh of electrical energy into kinetic energy.
To compare the efficiency of an EV to the efficiency of a gas powered car, you compare the amount of kinetic energy it can squeeze out of 33.6kWh. For gasoline engines this is done in miles per gallon. The electrical equivalent of a gallon of gas is 33.6kWh. This will NEVER CHANGE. That's why we can use it to compare them! That's how conversions work. So an EV that gets 100 miles on 33.6kWh of electricity has exactly the same efficiency as a gas powered car that gets 100mpg.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, you know they are Electric cars right?
Except in places where the infrastructure is already near capacity (California and some parts of the northwest spring to mind), the infrastructure is already in place, and all anybody really needs is the correct outlet.
Infrastructure for these things is no problem, except in places where the electrical infrastructure is already poor.
You seem to be confused about what swapping is for, and what "frugal memory management" is.
Is it frugal to swap data out of RAM onto the hard disk when there is more than enough RAM available to leave the data in memory and allow new programs to access RAM?
Because that is exactly what you are suggesting.
Swapping data from RAM to hard disk is a last-ditch fail-safe that prevents the computer from crashing when it runs out of RAM. If the computer is not about to run out of RAM, why should it swap anything to disk? Who cares if you only have 10% free, when that 10% is 400-800mb? Most programs don't use more than 10mb of RAM, most big programs don't use more than 100mb of RAM, and most resource hogs don't use more than 500mb of RAM.
Please, tell me why it is a good idea to swap even 10mb of data to the hard disk to keep 2 gigs of RAM free "just in case". I'd really like to hear your reasoning behind calling that "frugal memory management".
WTF?
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
Unused RAM is RAM that is not being used. By anything. You open up task manager and see 500mb of RAM used out of 3gb, well, 2.5gb is not being used. That is unused RAM
Where the hell did you come up with this disk cache BS? The opposite happens - the OS pulls data out of RAM and caches it onto disk when the data has been loaded but is not expected to be used for a while, or other programs need the RAM. This is called a PageFile in windows, and a Swap partition in Linux.
I don't think you have much programming background at all, or you'd know that directly pointing to addresses hasn't been done in a long, long time. Some languages, like C and others still allow it, but 99.99% of the time it is a very bad idea. It's the kind of shit you do with assembly language programing. For a couple decades now the OS has handled RAM management and address allocation, for precisely the reason you state: There is no way for an application to know the addressing needs of another application.
The only thing that is -somewhat- like your imaginary "disk caching" is Vista's ReadyBoost, which moves frequently used data to a FLASH drive in order to improve responsiveness.
Now, what you might be talking about, in a confused illiterate monkey sort of way, is the process by which the OS moves data out of physical RAM and onto disk cache (the swap or pagefile). An aggressive scheme tries to keep as much RAM free and available for quick use by another application, re-loading cached data into RAM when necessary. This was vital when RAM was small and expensive, as there wasn't much to go around it had to be rationed sparingly. The computer was less responsive than it could have been, but it also prevented memory errors popping up.
RAM is now cheap and big, so OS's are moving to take advantage of that, basically by being less agressive about what gets moved to the swap and what stays in RAM - you have 8gb of RAM, why waste time moving stuff from RAM to Swap and back again when you have 6gb free? You could have a full DVD loaded into RAM and should not suffer any issues with other programs. In no way, shape, or form does this mean the OS takes commonly used data and loads it into RAM. All that is happening, is when an application requests address space (all applications must request address space), the OS does not move them onto the disk cache unless it is absolutely necessary, thereby speeding all programs up.
Good god, can't you read?
I'll break it down for you, so you can understand multiple negations.
First, start with all positives: Is Responsive
Next, the first negation: Is Unresponsive - opposite of above.
Third, the double negation: Isn't Unresponsive - opposite of above, means the same as the pre-negation statement.
Last, the triple negation: Isn't Not Unresponsive - Opposite of above, means the same as the negated statement.
It means it is unresponsive. Or isn't responsive. Or is not responsive. They are all the same.
Whether or not that's what he meant, how the hell should I know? It's English for heaven's sake! There is an exception for every rule! (even that one)
As with everything in English, not using double+ negatives is not a rule, it's a suggestion for clarity. So is the placement of complex modifiers or the "rules" for pronouns, or never using a big word when a diminutive word will do. ;)
That's just because Outlook search sucks. You don't want to know how bad it would be if they didn't load the PST/OST into ram.
You responded to a statement saying that the bug was determined to be in the chipset driver, not the OS, with a statement that says it MIGHT be in the chipset driver OR the OS.
Brilliant.
You know people don't always have the most current information regardless of how recent their post is, right? One post was by someone who FIXED the problem on their machine, the other a conversation with a MS rep who may or may not have had the best information as well.
To put it another way, you responed to "We found out why the chair is leaning, you can see where it is cracked and bowed here and here" with "Bob from the chair store thinks it's either the leg or the floor."
Sounds retarded huh?
(just wait for this pay-for-propaganda-in-news-clothing thing to take effect)
Wait, is MSNBC planning to charge for thier website too?
The only reason the EU is forcing browser choice rather than splitting up Microsoft is because MS is a US based company, and nothing the EU does will be able to significantly alter its structure.
What it can do, however, is place restrictions on what it can and cannot sell in the US. The EU provisions do exactly that.
I don't doubt that if the EU could split microsoft, they would.
How the hell is this a troll?
Who's modding this crap?
I read this in Time magazine just last week (granted, it was the bathroom copy, so quite a bit delayed, but still).
It's a valid point with references. WTF?
I'm burning some karma just to be sure it stays visible.
cliffski wrote:
actually a lot of stuff you assume goes to landfill gets stuck on a ship and exported to some third world country where it becomes 'someone else's problem'.
the west are great and dumping our crap on poorer countries. We brits got caught doing it with 1,400 tonnes of toxic waste a few days ago:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6719508.ece
Of course we are all better off just not knowing about this ro giving a fuck about how our actions affect other countries, so I'm sure its evil of greenpeace to even draw attention to it.
bastards eh?
The right to a fair trial is well accepted as a basic human right. That a government denies you a basic human right does not take away from the fact that it is a basic human right. Even in despotisms, people don't get hauled off in the middle of the night while the average person things "Well, that's totally fair." It's UNfair, and everybody knows it, because everyone has a right to a fair trial. Whether they are able to recieve it is another matter entirely.
In the US Constitution it is recognized in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the constitution.
In the UK it is enumerated in the Human Rights Act.
It is interesting to note that, as I was reading through the UK human rights act, I realized it is far, far less robust than the Bill of Rights. It also seems to be a simple act of law, which in the US is generally pretty easilly overturned or supplanted, as opposed to an amendment to the constitution, which is very difficult to alter or supplant.
Bullshit. I suppose people 25 years ago couldn't learn anything because they had no access to the internet, eh? I suppose people 10 years ago couldn't do much of anything either because the internet was small and slow, eh?
The truth is, 90-99% of what people do on the internet is worthless. The average highschool student today has half the vocabulary of highschool kids 50 years ago, yet today kids have nearly unlimited access to information. The vocabulary should be huge and growing, but instead it is plummeting.
If anything, the internet has made people dumber on average, not smarter. So it's no wonder you can't figure out what to do if the internet is not available.
Get off your ass and do something worth while. Shut off the internet for a month and you'll realize you can get along just fine without it. Doing the same with your cell phone can be quite rewarding as well.
Yeah, but you can also use a grammar checker, and the sentance fails miserably there.
Ewes is a plural noun, not a verb.
Real shotguns don't work the same way video game shotguns do.
Short barrel shotguns behave similarly, the short barrel allows the shot to spread sooner, but a long barrel, particularly one with a choke, could keep the spray relatively tight for 50 yards or so. More than enough range to devastate an office.
Sure a slug will put a hole in you that you probably won't recover from, but buckshot will rip you up, AND has the added bonus of potential collateral damage if you're nervous and your aim is off.
Bird shot is what you don't want to use in this environment, all that is really going to do is hurt like hell. Maybe give some people lead poisoning, but that's about it. Ol' Dick just got lucky when he nearly killed his hunting buddy with bird shot.
They stopped making the comic in 2002, such website designs were common back then. It's been 7 years man, web design has improved.
It appears to have been crushed under the weight of slashdot. It's a Parking Lot Is Full comic from Dec 4, 2000.
No idea what it says.
Have you ever actually used a bittorent client before?
There is no such thing as an overseeded torrent. There are underseeded torrents, and those are frustrating, but there is no such thing as an overseeded torrent. The general idea with upload ratio requirements is that it encourages you to never stop seeding a torrent. If 100 people are seeding and only 3 are downloading, those three get the file extremely fast, and your bandwidth isn't taxed. If you download enough content that you are on a private tracker, then you should have a number of torrents to share. If you aren't downloading all that much, then it will be easy to keep a 100%+ share ratio. If you ARE downloading a lot, you should still be in the 50% range, and eventually you will hit critical mass and the ammount you download won't be able to keep up with the amount you upload.
It's good for everybody. Plus, if a private tracker has a very high seed rate, chances are the required share ratio will be lowered. It creates a win-win situation.
Remember, no such thing as an overseeded torrent. If you download a lot, you WILL share a lot. If you keep sharing after you download, you will soon be sharing more than you download. People move on, quit sharing, lose their computers, etc.
Your share ratio math ignores a lot of things that reduce the amount of data on the network which occur all the time. It's actually pretty easy to exceed 100% share ratios for everybody on the network. If you can't see how it's because you've locked yourself in a tiny box and completely ignored outside factors which remove data and introduce data without affecting increasing the amount of data a person can download. Whenever someone adds a new download to the tracker, the potential share ratio for everyone in the network increases. Whenever a new member joins, the potential share ratio for everyone on the network increases. Eventually it balances out to 100%, but the network is ever changing so it never actually gets there.
If you want to carry a huge load and you don't mind driving day and night for a week, you need a Semi.
If you want to get to the end of the track as fast as possible, turn around and come back as fast as possible, what you need is a sub 7 second hot-rod.
Who in their right mind would buy a sub 7 second Semi? That's insane! It'd also cost millions of dollars, if you could even do it. Better to just fly.
I think my analogy went awry there somewhere. Anyway, slow, steady, big semi is the cheap HDD, great for long trips with a big load, while lighting fast hot-rod is the SSD. It can't haul as much, but man oh man is it fast! High-end HDDs are like the 15-second dodge van. Ya kinda go "Huh?".
Hold on a sec, have you looked at the benchmarks? At all?
The fastest hard discs on the market can only keep up on the sequential reads and writes. These are drives like the 300gb velociraptor, which is loud and costs nearly $300. Granted, it's still about 1/3 the cost of the X-25m G2, but there simply is not a faster consumer grade hard drive that you can buy if you wanted to, so capacity is not relevant if you only want to talk speed.
Random reads and writes, which is what normally happens when you are using a computer for anything but mass data transfer, the fastest hard drives on the market are significantly slower than the slowest SSD's on the market.
Seek times? Hello? That's the single biggest failing of HDDs, and it's the reason drive manufactureres put massive amounts of cache on the drive - to mitigate that. Even with that SSDs are in the single-digit NANOSECOND range, while HDDs are in the millisecond range.
For the stuff that HDDs are very, very good at (large amounts of sequential reads and writes) they are close to what an SSD can do. Most people very rarely do bulk transfers of data. A few people do large data reads on a regular basis, but the HDD is not even on the same level for every-day usage.
So, what you end up with is SSDs are quickly approaching high-end hard drives in price and capacity, and they are faster in every way. In the ways that are generally most noticeable - random reads and writes, they are currently 40-160x faster. That's a crapton, and they are only getting faster, cheaper, and bigger.
Extrapolation: almost as good as copulation.
Almost.
The DoD wipe criteria are based on magnetic drives. For SSD, I believe a delete + TRIM would be equivalent to a DoD wipe, and much faster.
Don't quote me on that though.
It's not that the data can't be completely removed, in fact once data is overwritten on an SSD as far as I know there is no way to recover what was previously there. Again, don't quote me on that, but if you are re-formating a drive, filling it up with a full pass of 0's should do the trick, because unlike magnetic media it isn't "mostly 0" or "mostly 1", it's either switched one way or the other. It's a completely different technology and the drawbacks that created the need for DoD multi-pass writes to elimate the ability to read back data should not be necessary.
Once the write gates have worn out and all you can do is read it, though, physical destruction is probably the only way to eliminate the data. Even then, it would be easier and less expensive than magnetic disc destruction (not that that's all that expensive).
BTW, regarding the effectiveness of HDD recovery from random writes and the DoD wipe spec, hard drive data extraction that made the extreme measures of the DoD wipe spec necessary is very very difficult today because the drives are laid out differently than they used to be 10 years ago. In particular, standing the magnetic bits on end made the surface area for each bit an order of magnitude smaller. This is what caused the explosion of hard drive sizes (500gb drives were seen very shortly after this happened), it also required much finer equipment to read and write to the drives in the hard drive. The techniques for recovering data on drives that had been over-written relied on the fact that the small read/write mechanism inside the drives was not very precise. It did not write the perfect magnetic equivalent of a 1 or a 0, the best it could manage was a .98 or .99. Well, upon writing a "0" over a .99 (which read as a 1 to the imprecise hard drive)it became a .02 or maybe .03. Because of this the writes and re-writes were effectively trackable three or four writes deep, and with sharp equipment and a good algorithm you could reliably trace and recover the original data. Hence the multiple passes of 0's, then 1's, then random, then more 0's, etc. all designed to fool data recovery algorithms. Fast forward to modern drives, however, and the read/write heads are writing .999's and .001's instead of .99's and .01's. It is significantly more difficult to measure and recover the data these days
None of it applies to SSDs though, they are different in every way and the DoD spec is meaningless when applied to them. Seriously though, if you want to be truly secure, a delete + TRIM should be enough, but there are also already programs that will fill the disk with useless data, after which a delete + TRIM would be as secure as you can get.
Nobody has a funny accent when they type. Other than the accent and occasional odd phrasing (which would never come out in a transcription service - english to english is pretty frickin easy), most of these people speak excellent English, particularly since it is a second language for all of them.
Hell, my last college english class was taught by an Indian immigrant. She had a heavy accent, but her English was very precise and correct. The only annoying thing was she liked the word "rubric", and rolled her r's heavilly.
Also not that only ONE of those definitions actually implies a lack of skill. All Olympians are ametures, but only a fool would say they are not among the most skilled in the world at what they do (perhaps with the exception of the combat sports).
...given how long these things typically drag-out (4-5 years)...
They only last that long if you have the money or support to fight that long. Typically a long, drug out court case lasts a few months at the most. Most court cases last a week or two, with maybe a month or two of prep time before going to court.
It's the right to a speedy trial in the constitution, they try to move people through the courts as fast as they can so the world doesn't end when someone requests a speedy trial. It's only when you've got cash to spend and the issue is muddy enough that a decision can't be reached quickly that a trial goes on for years.
Er, TFS doesn't say it "Rivals" gas powered cars, it says it "Outperforms rival gas powered cars". Which it doesn't.
Huh?
33.6kWh is the energy potential of gasoline. That it is impossible to perfectly convert 100% of the chemical energy into kinetic energy is meaningless. It is just as impossible for an electric motor to turn 100% of 33.6kWh of electrical energy into kinetic energy.
To compare the efficiency of an EV to the efficiency of a gas powered car, you compare the amount of kinetic energy it can squeeze out of 33.6kWh. For gasoline engines this is done in miles per gallon. The electrical equivalent of a gallon of gas is 33.6kWh. This will NEVER CHANGE. That's why we can use it to compare them! That's how conversions work. So an EV that gets 100 miles on 33.6kWh of electricity has exactly the same efficiency as a gas powered car that gets 100mpg.
They are the same. Identical. It's a conversion.