Technically it becomes less and less reliable each time they do a die shrink on the flash. Adding a whole extra bit level makes things worse still. In the early 2000s you were looking at 100'000 P/E cycles, maybe a million for the really good stuff. Good TLC memory seems to be rated around 3000, with a figure of 1000 being widely quoted, and in some cases, less.
Lets not neglect the fact that while every die shrink does reduce the erase-limit per cell, it also (approximately) linearly increases the number of cells for a given chip area. In other words, for a given die area the erase limit (as measured in bytes, blocks, or cells) doesnt actually change with improving density. What does change is overall storage capacities and price.
When MLC SSD's dropped from ~2000 cycles per cell to ~1000 cycles per cell, their capacities doubled (so erases per device remains about constant) and prices also dropped from ~$3/GB to about ~$1/GB. Now MLC SSD's are around ~600 cycles per cell, their capacities are larger still (again erases per device remain about constant), and they are selling for ~$0.75/GB (and falling.)
By every meaningful measure these die shrinks improve the technology.
So now lets take it to the (extreme) logical conclusion, where MLC cells have exactly 1 erase cycle (we have a name for this kind of device.. WORM: Write Once Read Many.) To compensate, the device capacities would be about 600 times that of todays current capacities, so in the same size package as todays 256 GB SSD's we would be able to fit a 153 TB SSD WORM drive, and it would cost about $200.
Indeed. I just don't see how the erase-limit issue applies for most people. The most common activity where it might apply is in a machine used as a DVR (dont use an SSD in a DVR), with the next being a heavily updated database server (you may still prefer the SSD if transaction latency is important.)
For people that use their computers for regular stuff like browsing the web, streaming video off the web, playing video games, and software development.. then get the damn SSD -- its a no-brainer for you folks.. you will love it and it will certainly die of something other than the erase-limit long before you approach that limit.
Intel provide a handy utility that tells you how much data has been written to your drive and mine reached the limit in about 18 months so had to be replaced under warranty.
You were (amplified?) writing 32.8 GB per day, on average.
Clearly you will run into SSD erase-limit problems at such a rate, but such workloads normally turn out to not be tasks that actually benefit from an SSD to begin with (32.8GB/day = 380KB/sec, so the devices speed wasnt actually an issue for you)
You were either very clever and knew you would hit the limit and get a free replacement, or very foolish and squandered the lifetime of an expensive device when a cheap deice would have worked.
In any event, in general the larger the SSD the longer its erase-cycle lifetime will be. For a particular flash process its a completely linear 1:1 relationship, where twice the size buys twice as many block erases (a 320GB SSD on the same process would have lasted twice as long as your 160GB SSD with that work load)
That is the case in Europe. They still sell all the stuff, but there is nothing at the point of sale to say what it is supposed to do.
The thing is that at one time our FDA operated in the same fashion. Their only goal was to ensure the safety of the product, not its efficacy.
But then the large pharmaceutical companies lobbied to corrupt the system, pushing for the requirement that efficacy also be proven. The reason for this is as both an expensive barrier to entry as well as a delay tactic.
Now, we can debate the merits of Pew if you want, but I highly doubt that, because that would mean actually having an informed opinion about something, which clearly isnt important to the person that said 'consider your source' but got it fucking wrong.
So do you give them two weeks notice when you terminate their employment? That would be quite courteous. Or does the courtesy only get extended if it favors you?
People often forget that in most countries of the world (including America) that the situation is entirely asymmetric.
If you quit without notice or cause, the employer is entitled to no compensation.
If you are fired without notice or cause, the employer is then liable for some compensation. In many cases that liability is for a lot longer than 2 weeks (13+ in America - we call it unemployment insurance, and employers do pay increased costs for every one of their former employees that is drawing)
So lets not simply assume that the "courtesy" should so simply extend both ways. If you want to justify why it should, then lets hear it.
Manning dumped all of the data indiscriminately onto wikileaks lap. It is only a fortunate coincidence that wikileaks (so it appears) acted more responsibly than he did after that.
Or, you know, you might want to look in it, since if you are basing your theory on these things, then it's up to you to do the research which demonstrates how they are significant.
This statement right here is the problem with most people. They, like you, dont understand what the fuck they are talking about.
All the long-duration proxies (more than a few hundred years) do measure as an average over hundreds and even thousands of years because there is too much short term noise in the signal. Thusly statements about the rate of warming on short time scales cannot be made about periods in the past more than a few hundred years. He doesnt need to look into why this is because its proven within mathematics (more specifically, in the fields of statistics, calculus, and now information theory) rather than physics, chemistry, or "earth science."
Thousand-year running average cannot ever make meaningful statement abouts hundred year derivatives. because its impossible. You just argued that he should re-prove whats already known for an absolute undeniable fact.
June 30, 2013 - mass protests erupt calling for the presidents resignation after severe fuel shortages and electricity outages
Understatement of the year.
It was arguably the largest protest in the history of the world. Some claims are as much as 14 million people, nearly 17% of the Egyptian population.
To put that in perspective, 17% of the American population is more than 50 million people.
If 50 million Americans were protesting in the streets demanding that Obama (or Bush) to be removed from office, and as a response Obama (or Bush) then held a 5 hour television broadcast declaring that he will not only not be leaving office but that additionally that the constitution will never apply to him, then I damn well expect the American military to do the same thing.
Ummm no. The problem here began because girlintraining just got caught not knowing what he was talking about, again, while acting like an expert about a topic, again.
girlintraiing then just did a complete about-face attempting to salvage the situation, proving as well that honesty and accuracy on the tin isnt as important to him as appearances.
The common theme between the two posts is appearances, accuracy be damned.
Your politics are rather black-and-white and naive. Are you a libertarian?
Who taught you to cast "black and white" aspersions as your "excuse" for the bad excuse?
(a) willingly vote for someone that you know is bad
(b) willingly vote for someone that you think might be good
Yes it really is black and white, but no it is not wrong or bad to see it for what it really is.
Do you know why?
Because the argument doesnt present an opinion. Instead, the argument examines an excuse that relates to your own opinion. The argument deals with your opinion of a man and your actions given that opinion of that man. Specifically the argument destroys the excuse of willingly voting for the lesser of two (in your opinion) evils, because it shows quite succinctly that you still voted for what you believed to be evil.
Its black and white because it doesnt present an opinion. I know its uncomfortable when someone tells you that you willingly voted for fucking evil. Doesnt change the fact that you willingly voted for fucking evil.
Those on welfare don't vote -- if we have to feed your ass, you don't get to decide a damn thing.
I'm not sure I agree on the land-owner qualifier but this I can get behind 100% -- If we draw the line somewhere that is even remotely close to some measure of "skin in the game", then the people that accept tax dollars as the means of their basic survival would certainly fall on the "you don't get to vote right now" side of things.
I would suggest however that "land owner" is probably not even close to the best metric of "skin in the game", even though it is probably easily provable that it is better than the current "a citizen that is not currently in prison" metric. Many wealthy people enjoy that wealth entirely due to the government in some way, people that have not contributed to the production of any real value at all. They are just as much leaching off the government as those on welfare, yet they often own plenty of land.
My fear with drawing a voter line however, is that it will be redrawn in a series of tactical moves that repeatedly culls the set of illegible voters. To defend against this, all people should have a vote as to where the line should be drawn and what metric is used while only the reduced set get to vote on anything else.
Only in theory, not in practice. Without ranked voting, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is effectively a vote against whoever your second choice is, so voters are often faced with voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
There is never an excuse when you willingly vote for evil. Never.
This excuse of yours only convinces other people that are also looking for an excuse for why they willingly voted to increase evil. Excuses only help the conscience of people willing to swallow them.
The problem of course is that a nation is not a tribe. They are a collection of tribes.
But this is why leaders do not call the thing that they are exploiting tribalism. Nationalism is sometimes what its called, but thats only once removed. The term patriotism on the other hand is twice removed.
The problem with the majority of the world is that they forgot (or never knew) how to make good bets. Elon considers many things, but only puts piles of money down on stuff that will pan out.
Just curious, because it sees to me that people that think like you never have. Its my investment. I pay for the lights and the equipment. Those are my clients. I took the risk.
Who are you to tell me that I cannot seek a level excellence from my employees that is way above your standards? Who are you to tell me that I cannot simply get rid of those that arent up to my standards of excellence?
Reason for termination:Was only marginally above average.
You are using a lot of words, but arent saying much.
For instance:
The Chinese rare earth fiasco? Easily predictable to anybody with common sense who didn't drink ECON kool-aid and try to apply micro theories to macro situations.
What fiasco? They don't have a monopoly. They are selling below the cost it takes us to extract rare earths, and that benefits us. Seems like every "problem" you seem to have identified in your post are essentially the same sort of thing, where you simply claim that a problem exists based on a "controversy metric" of some kind.
In the real world, not all controversies are a problem. Often they are just dramatized bullshit like the suicide rate at Foxconn.
It does seem to me that you would be able to intentionally create specific errors in parts of documents as long as you had carte-blanch control over the contents of other parts of it.
Your whole point was that it was like stealing someones cells without consent. You stated it very directly. Go over to someones house and just take them without permission.
You seem to have missed the point that the analogies that you use are not supposed to have meaningfully different aspects to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Technically it becomes less and less reliable each time they do a die shrink on the flash. Adding a whole extra bit level makes things worse still. In the early 2000s you were looking at 100'000 P/E cycles, maybe a million for the really good stuff. Good TLC memory seems to be rated around 3000, with a figure of 1000 being widely quoted, and in some cases, less.
Lets not neglect the fact that while every die shrink does reduce the erase-limit per cell, it also (approximately) linearly increases the number of cells for a given chip area. In other words, for a given die area the erase limit (as measured in bytes, blocks, or cells) doesnt actually change with improving density. What does change is overall storage capacities and price.
When MLC SSD's dropped from ~2000 cycles per cell to ~1000 cycles per cell, their capacities doubled (so erases per device remains about constant) and prices also dropped from ~$3/GB to about ~$1/GB. Now MLC SSD's are around ~600 cycles per cell, their capacities are larger still (again erases per device remain about constant), and they are selling for ~$0.75/GB (and falling.)
By every meaningful measure these die shrinks improve the technology.
So now lets take it to the (extreme) logical conclusion, where MLC cells have exactly 1 erase cycle (we have a name for this kind of device.. WORM: Write Once Read Many.) To compensate, the device capacities would be about 600 times that of todays current capacities, so in the same size package as todays 256 GB SSD's we would be able to fit a 153 TB SSD WORM drive, and it would cost about $200.
Indeed. I just don't see how the erase-limit issue applies for most people. The most common activity where it might apply is in a machine used as a DVR (dont use an SSD in a DVR), with the next being a heavily updated database server (you may still prefer the SSD if transaction latency is important.)
For people that use their computers for regular stuff like browsing the web, streaming video off the web, playing video games, and software development.. then get the damn SSD -- its a no-brainer for you folks.. you will love it and it will certainly die of something other than the erase-limit long before you approach that limit.
Intel provide a handy utility that tells you how much data has been written to your drive and mine reached the limit in about 18 months so had to be replaced under warranty.
You were (amplified?) writing 32.8 GB per day, on average.
Clearly you will run into SSD erase-limit problems at such a rate, but such workloads normally turn out to not be tasks that actually benefit from an SSD to begin with (32.8GB/day = 380KB/sec, so the devices speed wasnt actually an issue for you)
You were either very clever and knew you would hit the limit and get a free replacement, or very foolish and squandered the lifetime of an expensive device when a cheap deice would have worked.
In any event, in general the larger the SSD the longer its erase-cycle lifetime will be. For a particular flash process its a completely linear 1:1 relationship, where twice the size buys twice as many block erases (a 320GB SSD on the same process would have lasted twice as long as your 160GB SSD with that work load)
FCC licensees, not people who happen to have random content licenses with third parties.
The FCC licensees include everyone that the FCC has demanded have a licenses.
In other words, you arent saying much.. even though you thought yourself clever.
That is the case in Europe. They still sell all the stuff, but there is nothing at the point of sale to say what it is supposed to do.
The thing is that at one time our FDA operated in the same fashion. Their only goal was to ensure the safety of the product, not its efficacy.
But then the large pharmaceutical companies lobbied to corrupt the system, pushing for the requirement that efficacy also be proven. The reason for this is as both an expensive barrier to entry as well as a delay tactic.
Now the US is much better than many other countries
This fact is no longer in evidence storage room.
Forbes? Consider your source.
Ah, the source is Pew Research, not Forbes.
Now, we can debate the merits of Pew if you want, but I highly doubt that, because that would mean actually having an informed opinion about something, which clearly isnt important to the person that said 'consider your source' but got it fucking wrong.
So do you give them two weeks notice when you terminate their employment? That would be quite courteous. Or does the courtesy only get extended if it favors you?
People often forget that in most countries of the world (including America) that the situation is entirely asymmetric.
If you quit without notice or cause, the employer is entitled to no compensation.
If you are fired without notice or cause, the employer is then liable for some compensation. In many cases that liability is for a lot longer than 2 weeks (13+ in America - we call it unemployment insurance, and employers do pay increased costs for every one of their former employees that is drawing)
So lets not simply assume that the "courtesy" should so simply extend both ways. If you want to justify why it should, then lets hear it.
You seem to be confusing Manning with Wikileaks.
Manning dumped all of the data indiscriminately onto wikileaks lap. It is only a fortunate coincidence that wikileaks (so it appears) acted more responsibly than he did after that.
Or, you know, you might want to look in it, since if you are basing your theory on these things, then it's up to you to do the research which demonstrates how they are significant.
This statement right here is the problem with most people. They, like you, dont understand what the fuck they are talking about.
All the long-duration proxies (more than a few hundred years) do measure as an average over hundreds and even thousands of years because there is too much short term noise in the signal. Thusly statements about the rate of warming on short time scales cannot be made about periods in the past more than a few hundred years. He doesnt need to look into why this is because its proven within mathematics (more specifically, in the fields of statistics, calculus, and now information theory) rather than physics, chemistry, or "earth science."
Thousand-year running average cannot ever make meaningful statement abouts hundred year derivatives. because its impossible. You just argued that he should re-prove whats already known for an absolute undeniable fact.
June 30, 2013 - mass protests erupt calling for the presidents resignation after severe fuel shortages and electricity outages
Understatement of the year.
It was arguably the largest protest in the history of the world. Some claims are as much as 14 million people, nearly 17% of the Egyptian population.
To put that in perspective, 17% of the American population is more than 50 million people.
If 50 million Americans were protesting in the streets demanding that Obama (or Bush) to be removed from office, and as a response Obama (or Bush) then held a 5 hour television broadcast declaring that he will not only not be leaving office but that additionally that the constitution will never apply to him, then I damn well expect the American military to do the same thing.
Ummm no. The problem here began because girlintraining just got caught not knowing what he was talking about, again, while acting like an expert about a topic, again.
girlintraiing then just did a complete about-face attempting to salvage the situation, proving as well that honesty and accuracy on the tin isnt as important to him as appearances.
The common theme between the two posts is appearances, accuracy be damned.
Your politics are rather black-and-white and naive. Are you a libertarian?
Who taught you to cast "black and white" aspersions as your "excuse" for the bad excuse?
(a) willingly vote for someone that you know is bad
(b) willingly vote for someone that you think might be good
Yes it really is black and white, but no it is not wrong or bad to see it for what it really is.
Do you know why?
Because the argument doesnt present an opinion. Instead, the argument examines an excuse that relates to your own opinion. The argument deals with your opinion of a man and your actions given that opinion of that man. Specifically the argument destroys the excuse of willingly voting for the lesser of two (in your opinion) evils, because it shows quite succinctly that you still voted for what you believed to be evil.
Its black and white because it doesnt present an opinion. I know its uncomfortable when someone tells you that you willingly voted for fucking evil. Doesnt change the fact that you willingly voted for fucking evil.
Those on welfare don't vote -- if we have to feed your ass, you don't get to decide a damn thing.
I'm not sure I agree on the land-owner qualifier but this I can get behind 100% -- If we draw the line somewhere that is even remotely close to some measure of "skin in the game", then the people that accept tax dollars as the means of their basic survival would certainly fall on the "you don't get to vote right now" side of things.
I would suggest however that "land owner" is probably not even close to the best metric of "skin in the game", even though it is probably easily provable that it is better than the current "a citizen that is not currently in prison" metric. Many wealthy people enjoy that wealth entirely due to the government in some way, people that have not contributed to the production of any real value at all. They are just as much leaching off the government as those on welfare, yet they often own plenty of land.
My fear with drawing a voter line however, is that it will be redrawn in a series of tactical moves that repeatedly culls the set of illegible voters. To defend against this, all people should have a vote as to where the line should be drawn and what metric is used while only the reduced set get to vote on anything else.
Only in theory, not in practice. Without ranked voting, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is effectively a vote against whoever your second choice is, so voters are often faced with voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
There is never an excuse when you willingly vote for evil. Never.
This excuse of yours only convinces other people that are also looking for an excuse for why they willingly voted to increase evil. Excuses only help the conscience of people willing to swallow them.
Humans have evolved a tendency towards tribalism.
The problem of course is that a nation is not a tribe. They are a collection of tribes.
But this is why leaders do not call the thing that they are exploiting tribalism. Nationalism is sometimes what its called, but thats only once removed. The term patriotism on the other hand is twice removed.
The problem with the majority of the world is that they forgot (or never knew) how to make good bets. Elon considers many things, but only puts piles of money down on stuff that will pan out.
owever *random stop and frisks are not unconstitutional
ummm... yes, they are.
Do you own your own business?
Just curious, because it sees to me that people that think like you never have. Its my investment. I pay for the lights and the equipment. Those are my clients. I took the risk.
Who are you to tell me that I cannot seek a level excellence from my employees that is way above your standards? Who are you to tell me that I cannot simply get rid of those that arent up to my standards of excellence?
Reason for termination: Was only marginally above average.
For instance:
The Chinese rare earth fiasco? Easily predictable to anybody with common sense who didn't drink ECON kool-aid and try to apply micro theories to macro situations.
What fiasco? They don't have a monopoly. They are selling below the cost it takes us to extract rare earths, and that benefits us. Seems like every "problem" you seem to have identified in your post are essentially the same sort of thing, where you simply claim that a problem exists based on a "controversy metric" of some kind.
In the real world, not all controversies are a problem. Often they are just dramatized bullshit like the suicide rate at Foxconn.
Giving local companies preferential treatment isn't a bad thing.
It isn't bad for the companies getting preferential treatment, but its bad for everyone else (even all the people you wouldn't expect to be effected.)
Protectionism is, at its core, inefficiency.
It does seem to me that you would be able to intentionally create specific errors in parts of documents as long as you had carte-blanch control over the contents of other parts of it.
You missed the whole point.
Your whole point was that it was like stealing someones cells without consent. You stated it very directly. Go over to someones house and just take them without permission.
You seem to have missed the point that the analogies that you use are not supposed to have meaningfully different aspects to them.
Well, its certainly leftist from the American perspective where the right is "religious conservative" and the left is "whatever is popular today"
It makes the news interesting when you see it from both sides.
Notice how easily they convinced you that there were only two sides...