You will often see comments to the effect that C is like assembler or that you can do anything in C it just lacks some syntactic sugar. But that is very wrong.
Its the "assembler like" that really grinds my gears. So not only do we have to deal with C programmers that think its "low level" but also the twits that think its "assembler like."
C is a high level language. Its only low level feature is pointers, but even that is in a high level incarnation that manages type size for you. C is founded upon a simplistic abstract machine, however "simplistic" is not an equate for "low level." The C abstract machine literally has no concept of any actual low level hardware features, so is by definition not low level.
When you look at the wikipedia page for "high level language" it amazingly says "Some decades ago, the C language, and similar languages, were most often considered "high-level", as it supported concepts such as expression evaluation, parameterised recursive functions, and data types and structures, while assembly language was considered "low-level". Many programmers today might refer to C as low-level, as it lacks a large runtime-system (no garbage collection, etc.), basically supports only scalar operations, and provides direct memory addressing. It, therefore, readily blends with assembly language and the machine level of CPUs and microcontrollers."
So all those years of C programmers claiming that they were low level programmers has finally stuck I guess.. but not because C has any low level features.. but because it lacks some high level features.. seriously.. thats the new definition.
All was fairly quiet in the mobile business due to what was essentially mutually assured destruction. Apples first successful entry into the mobile phone market brought with it an asymmetric patent playing field, as the entire concept of the smart+touch phone was still being hammered out and only a few players actually had lots of patents for this new market.
Apple fired first and it took less than a year after that for the entire market to be ablaze with lawsuits.
Its easily worth 10K if its a topless computer-repair shop. Too bad none of us have the charisma to convince a halfway decent looking stripper that we arent creepers.
Sure when government is run wrong it's a problem. But just look at the reality: corporations are inherently tyrannical, fetishizing property over people.
Yet the government fetishizes people AS property, and barters them away to corporations for favors and cash.
When you are no longer free to choose... you are property. This idea that its either government or corporations it a false dichotomy. Currently its government AND corporations, and mostly the corporations are ENABLED by government. You think your lack of choices isn't rooted in government powers? You think those regulations are for your benefit?
If you don't know where "subject to reasonable network management" comes from, you shouldnt be opening your mouth. Seriously. Thats the FCC version of "Net Neutrality".. the ISP's can block and throttle whatever the hell they want as long as they can make it look "reasonable" to do so.
Meanwhile new innovative providers are blocked from the market because it is unreasonable to sell intentionally-limited or wholly-specialized (cost-effective) internet service. Want just email? Too fucking bad now. The ISP's conspired with the FCC to fuck you out of options like that. You are no longer free to choose. You are their property and I bklame you net neutrality zealots that didnt know who the fuck you were getting into bed with.
Anyone with a clue knows what the government means by "net neutrality" - you apparently have no clue because you expect the world to conform to your version in spite of it already rejecting it.
Laptops draw in the order of 25-50 watts, and laptops outsell desktops.
Clearly when discussing heat pumps to extract power from the waste heat of a PC, we arent talking about laptops. Notice that we are in fact talking about heat pumps to extract power from the waste heat of a PC.
While the PSU in a desktop may be 300W+, most of the time it's idling at far less.
Yet still far more than the 50 watt figure given by the grandparent.
The sandy bridge i7 is well known for its gains in power efficiency over its predecessors. After the sandy bridge introduction, AnandTech measured the power draw of various mid to high range systems when idling (not counting monitor!) and did not find any that drew less than 63.9 watts. The i3-2100 system idled at 73 watts while the i7-2600K idled at 74 watts.
And here is the verbatim Amendment that the Democrats were hostile towards:
Section 1. Total estimated outlays of the operating funds of the United States for any fiscal year shall not exceed total estimated receipts to those funds for that fiscal year, unless Congress approves a specific excess of outlays over receipts by three-fifths of the whole number of each House by a roll-call vote.
Section 2. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for the fiscal year beginning in that calendar year in which total estimated outlays of the operating funds of the United States for that fiscal year shall not exceed total estimated receipts to those funds for that fiscal year.
Section 3. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a roll-call vote.
Section 4. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year and the first fiscal year thereafter if a declaration of war is in effect or if the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, or any successor, estimates that real economic growth has been or will be less than one percent for two consecutive quarters during the period of those two fiscal years. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law, or if a presidential declaration of major disaster is in effect.
Section 5. Total estimated receipts of the operating funds shall exclude those derived from net borrowing. Total estimated outlays of the operating funds of the United States shall exclude those for repayment of debt principal; and for capital investments. The receipts (including attributable interest) and outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as receipts or outlays for purposes of this article.
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.
Section 7. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2016.
Congress did try to pass a balanced budget amendment (TWICE, in 1995 and 1996) during Clinton's 8 years, but because it was the Republicans that proposed and promised the amendment (their "Contract With America") that most of the Democrats voted against it (because apparently there is nothing worse than Republicans getting credit for promising and then passing it.)
The 1995 act passed the House 300 to 132 but failed to get a 2/3rds majority (required for amendments) in the Senate with a vote of 65 to 35.
If you actually look at these references, you see that it was the Democrats voting against the balanced budget amendment and they are why it never got to Clinton's desk to be signed (although he had already stated that he would veto it anyways.) 97.7% of the Nay votes in the House were Democrats and 94.3% of the Nay votes in the Senate were Democrats.
Had it passed the Senate though, Clinton had already stated that he would veto it. You claim it would have been ingenious if he had gotten the balanced budget amendment passed, but in actually he and his party were hostile to it. The amendment itself was fairly benign, giving congress the power to still pass unbalanced budgets if they had to as long as they could get a 60% vote in both House and Senate.
You people act as if Clinton was great for the economy, but the facts transcend the media reporting, and obviously your ignorance. Clinton vetoed every balanced budget plan that hit his desk until after the government shutdown twice in 1995 for lack of a budget. There was no plan for a balanced budget until the Republicans took control of both House and Senate by promising exactly that. Clinton had already been in office for 2 years by that point, but he didnt even have a balanced budget plan. The media gave Clinton credit but he didnt deserve it. The media loved Clinton.
Actually no.. because only one number at a given location is right, if there are currently 5 possibilities then it adds p*5 more things to be searched no matter what (where p is the number of cases already counted)
You are drawing incorrect conclusions. It is not times no matter how you slice it.
When you try a number with your algorithm, it might be "100% certainly right", "100% certainly wrong", or the option you seem to be ignoring...
"dont know yet"
Even when your heuristic constraints reduces the problem space to only 2 possibilities, if the remaining space is guaranteed to have at least 1 solution, then its brute force.
I think you are all getting confused by alpha-beta chess engines not being brute force.. but have wrongly decided the reason for them not being so. The reason they are not is that they are truncated searches.. they do not look ahead all the way to the end of the game.
That should be 5^58, or 5**58 if you only know a C dialect.
3.46944695E+40 is hardly the small number you wrongly concluded.
In actual practice, this number is way larger than necessary because it presumes an average of 5 not-immediately-constraint-breaking possibilities per square, which is not at all even close to true in practice (p.s: its still brute force when you check for constraint violations at each insertion, unlike what some folks are claiming)
Aren't you exaggerating a bit? Comcast charges around $100 and Dish just $50 for hundreds of digital channels.
The number of channels is meaningless, really. The right metric is the fraction of content broadcast per unit time that you would actually sit down and watch (remember that you pay per unit time even when you arent watching anything.) Due to high rates of repetition of the good while the bulk being utter crap anyways, "hundreds of channels" doesnt tell anyone anything.
The reason his "all the channels" comment is meaningful is because those packages maximizes the amount of content available. No sacrifices.
The right way to drive into his "all the channels" comment is not by going after the number of channels, but instead by going after the cost per desirable content that you need to pay, which is likely to be minimized on the most basic of packages instead of either the "hundreds of digital channels" packages that you are talking about or the "all the channels" packages that he is talking about.
Its because Europeans consume heaping helpings of American entertainment, which puts them in a situation where subconsciously they have to constantly remind themselves of all the things that are better in Europe than in America.. which are sometimes just exaggerations or formed from cherry picking.
Well, its not a lost second.. its an extra second..
The entire issue is that there are so many uses for time that any one strategy does not work in all cases. Consider a simple logger that outputs some value once per second.. well you dont want that logger to output 23:59:59 twice.. that could easily create problems.. and you dont want the logger to miss a tick either because that could cause other problems..
So to solve that problem we create the abnormal 23:59:60.. but because its abnormal it can easily look like 00:00:00 after simple time manipulation operations, causing 00:00:00 to be seen twice instead.. the same problem we were trying to avoid..
I propose the following solution: Stop fucking with time in abnormal ways such as leap seconds.. the subset of problem domains where syncing to some abstract ideal celestial clock is rather small and its far easier to let those problem domains handle conversion from system time to abstract celestial time that it is to make everything else work well with edge cases.
Excuse me. I was confusing high deductable plans with junk plans that have low yearly or lifetime limits.
You had no idea what you were talking about, but got modded +5 insightful (now only +4 insightful.) Congratulations on the benefits of slashdots general ignorance on subjects outside the tech field.
the AFA doesn't prohibit high deductible plans at all.
No, it just makes them unprofitable to offer because of the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) mandated by the ACA is capped at 15% but does not include care paid for by Health Savings Accounts (HSA's.) High Deductible Plans (HDP's) have lower premiums per client, yet administrative costs per client remain largely unchanged. The reason HDP's were attractive to people in spite of a significantly higher percentage middleman cost was that accompanying HSA's have almost no middleman costs (HSA management is at no risk.)
The only way to get HDP's to meet the MLR mandate is to lower the deductibles and raise the premiums to compensate, so that more care is covered. In other words, HDP's are impossible under the ACA.
Insurance on universally needed services works best that way, as your high deductible plan makes it harder for others to afford insurance.
How exactly does my business relationship with a private entity make it harder for others to afford insurance?
The carts are leading the horse here. People with high deductible insurance are paying their own way right now.
By forcing gamblers like you to be more responsible, costs for more responsible people are lowered.
In what universe is personally taking on the cost of routine and highly predictable visits to doctors out of pocket considered gambling? Only in the universe of those that like to make stupid claims.
People with high deductible insurance plans are the most responsible people in the country when it comes to health care, contrary to your ludicrously ignorant and obviously bias motivated lies. Thats right.. lies.
And please stop deluding yourself into believing that your high deductible plan won't leave the rest of the people in the insurance pool on the hook if you come down with a catastrophic illness that costs millions of dollars to treat.
I get it.. Either you think that insurance companies are taking a loss on high deductible plans because somehow amazingly they dont know the rates of catastrophic events.. or you have no idea what high deductible plans cover. Seriously you seem to think that it covers the exact opposite of what it covers. You do know that the deductible is what YOU pay out of pocket and the rest is covered by the insurance, right? That its not the opposite, right?
Did you honestly think the actual claim was that you could go on using the unwritable drive as if nothing happened? Thats essentially the straw man you seem to be fighting.
There is still no obvious drug use in your description of events.
What is obvious is that you easily leap to the conclusion that drugs are involved, which as I said makes it obvious that you are retarded. An extreme lack of critical thinking ability is a form of retardation. You are retarded.
Imagine a typical 500GB drive in a typical PC. Assuming 1000 write cycles and 10 years of life, that is somewhere around 130GB written per day. How many people do you know who write 130GB to their drive every day, and at the same time keep their drives for 10 years?
A system that average that much write volume per day isn't typically using commodity hard drives. Its using enterprise drives so that also changes the comparison quite a bit.
On that note, you often see anti-SSD slashdotters harping on "$0.05 per gigabyte" or some such, a price only seen in commodity drives. The shittiest enterprise SAS drives start at $0.15 per gigabyte, while prices higher than $1.00 per gigabyte (more than the current generation commodity SSD's) are actually considered normal.
It is painfully obvious that the flash itself remains readable when the write limits are reached.. anyone that says different is extremely ignorant of the subject.
The SSD's that are failing rapidly are not doing so because the flash has reached its erase limits. They are doing so because something else is breaking, and this is immediately obvious when several different companies produce SSD's using flash chips from the same source (in particular, Intel or Sandisk) but have drastically different first-year failure rates.
Steadfast Networks (aka Karl Zimmerman) reports a 1.6% AFR for the SSD's that they use, but a 5% AFR for the HDD's that they use. Thats with ~150 SSD's (mainly Intel-branded) and ~2800 HDD's so a good but not a great sample size.
I suspect that many of the "commonly fails" SSD's are simply cutting things too close in the design in an attempt to compete on price with other companies that are also cutting things too close.
Ah yes.. the solid 'they did something stupid so *obviously* they were on drugs' logic..
Got news for ya.. the logic you are pushing tells us that you are obviously retarded.. meanwhile there was no obvious drug use in your description of events.
Slashdot Mirror
You will often see comments to the effect that C is like assembler or that you can do anything in C it just lacks some syntactic sugar. But that is very wrong.
Its the "assembler like" that really grinds my gears. So not only do we have to deal with C programmers that think its "low level" but also the twits that think its "assembler like."
C is a high level language. Its only low level feature is pointers, but even that is in a high level incarnation that manages type size for you. C is founded upon a simplistic abstract machine, however "simplistic" is not an equate for "low level." The C abstract machine literally has no concept of any actual low level hardware features, so is by definition not low level.
When you look at the wikipedia page for "high level language" it amazingly says "Some decades ago, the C language, and similar languages, were most often considered "high-level", as it supported concepts such as expression evaluation, parameterised recursive functions, and data types and structures, while assembly language was considered "low-level". Many programmers today might refer to C as low-level, as it lacks a large runtime-system (no garbage collection, etc.), basically supports only scalar operations, and provides direct memory addressing. It, therefore, readily blends with assembly language and the machine level of CPUs and microcontrollers."
So all those years of C programmers claiming that they were low level programmers has finally stuck I guess.. but not because C has any low level features.. but because it lacks some high level features.. seriously.. thats the new definition.
Are mugshots public record?
Mod parent up.
All was fairly quiet in the mobile business due to what was essentially mutually assured destruction. Apples first successful entry into the mobile phone market brought with it an asymmetric patent playing field, as the entire concept of the smart+touch phone was still being hammered out and only a few players actually had lots of patents for this new market.
Apple fired first and it took less than a year after that for the entire market to be ablaze with lawsuits.
Its easily worth 10K if its a topless computer-repair shop. Too bad none of us have the charisma to convince a halfway decent looking stripper that we arent creepers.
Sure when government is run wrong it's a problem. But just look at the reality: corporations are inherently tyrannical, fetishizing property over people.
Yet the government fetishizes people AS property, and barters them away to corporations for favors and cash.
.. the ISP's can block and throttle whatever the hell they want as long as they can make it look "reasonable" to do so.
When you are no longer free to choose... you are property. This idea that its either government or corporations it a false dichotomy. Currently its government AND corporations, and mostly the corporations are ENABLED by government. You think your lack of choices isn't rooted in government powers? You think those regulations are for your benefit?
If you don't know where "subject to reasonable network management" comes from, you shouldnt be opening your mouth. Seriously. Thats the FCC version of "Net Neutrality"
Meanwhile new innovative providers are blocked from the market because it is unreasonable to sell intentionally-limited or wholly-specialized (cost-effective) internet service. Want just email? Too fucking bad now. The ISP's conspired with the FCC to fuck you out of options like that. You are no longer free to choose. You are their property and I bklame you net neutrality zealots that didnt know who the fuck you were getting into bed with.
Anyone with a clue knows what the government means by "net neutrality" - you apparently have no clue because you expect the world to conform to your version in spite of it already rejecting it.
Laptops draw in the order of 25-50 watts, and laptops outsell desktops.
Clearly when discussing heat pumps to extract power from the waste heat of a PC, we arent talking about laptops. Notice that we are in fact talking about heat pumps to extract power from the waste heat of a PC.
While the PSU in a desktop may be 300W+, most of the time it's idling at far less.
Yet still far more than the 50 watt figure given by the grandparent.
The sandy bridge i7 is well known for its gains in power efficiency over its predecessors. After the sandy bridge introduction, AnandTech measured the power draw of various mid to high range systems when idling (not counting monitor!) and did not find any that drew less than 63.9 watts. The i3-2100 system idled at 73 watts while the i7-2600K idled at 74 watts.
And here is the verbatim Amendment that the Democrats were hostile towards:
Section 1. Total estimated outlays of the operating funds of the United States for any fiscal year shall not exceed total estimated receipts to those funds for that fiscal year, unless Congress approves a specific excess of outlays over receipts by three-fifths of the whole number of each House by a roll-call vote.
Section 2. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for the fiscal year beginning in that calendar year in which total estimated outlays of the operating funds of the United States for that fiscal year shall not exceed total estimated receipts to those funds for that fiscal year.
Section 3. No bill to increase revenue shall become law unless approved by a majority of the whole number of each House by a roll-call vote.
Section 4. The Congress may waive the provisions of this article for any fiscal year and the first fiscal year thereafter if a declaration of war is in effect or if the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, or any successor, estimates that real economic growth has been or will be less than one percent for two consecutive quarters during the period of those two fiscal years. The provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict which causes an imminent and serious military threat to national security and is so declared by a joint resolution, adopted by a majority of the whole number of each House, which becomes law, or if a presidential declaration of major disaster is in effect.
Section 5. Total estimated receipts of the operating funds shall exclude those derived from net borrowing. Total estimated outlays of the operating funds of the United States shall exclude those for repayment of debt principal; and for capital investments. The receipts (including attributable interest) and outlays of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund shall not be counted as receipts or outlays for purposes of this article.
Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.
Section 7. This article shall take effect beginning with the later of the second fiscal year beginning after its ratification or the first fiscal year beginning after December 31, 2016.
Congress did try to pass a balanced budget amendment (TWICE, in 1995 and 1996) during Clinton's 8 years, but because it was the Republicans that proposed and promised the amendment (their "Contract With America") that most of the Democrats voted against it (because apparently there is nothing worse than Republicans getting credit for promising and then passing it.)
The 1995 act passed the House 300 to 132 but failed to get a 2/3rds majority (required for amendments) in the Senate with a vote of 65 to 35.
If you actually look at these references, you see that it was the Democrats voting against the balanced budget amendment and they are why it never got to Clinton's desk to be signed (although he had already stated that he would veto it anyways.) 97.7% of the Nay votes in the House were Democrats and 94.3% of the Nay votes in the Senate were Democrats.
Had it passed the Senate though, Clinton had already stated that he would veto it. You claim it would have been ingenious if he had gotten the balanced budget amendment passed, but in actually he and his party were hostile to it. The amendment itself was fairly benign, giving congress the power to still pass unbalanced budgets if they had to as long as they could get a 60% vote in both House and Senate.
You people act as if Clinton was great for the economy, but the facts transcend the media reporting, and obviously your ignorance. Clinton vetoed every balanced budget plan that hit his desk until after the government shutdown twice in 1995 for lack of a budget. There was no plan for a balanced budget until the Republicans took control of both House and Senate by promising exactly that. Clinton had already been in office for 2 years by that point, but he didnt even have a balanced budget plan. The media gave Clinton credit but he didnt deserve it. The media loved Clinton.
(very) few computers only draw 25 to 50 watts. Most draw a hell of a lot more.
The simple proof is that 300+ watt power supply in it (gamers cannot get by without at least a 450 watt PSU to power a mid range card)
Actually no.. because only one number at a given location is right, if there are currently 5 possibilities then it adds p*5 more things to be searched no matter what (where p is the number of cases already counted)
Exponential is right... his "5" is what is wrong.
That is why it is times, and not exponential.
You are drawing incorrect conclusions. It is not times no matter how you slice it.
When you try a number with your algorithm, it might be "100% certainly right", "100% certainly wrong", or the option you seem to be ignoring... "dont know yet"
Even when your heuristic constraints reduces the problem space to only 2 possibilities, if the remaining space is guaranteed to have at least 1 solution, then its brute force.
I think you are all getting confused by alpha-beta chess engines not being brute force.. but have wrongly decided the reason for them not being so. The reason they are not is that they are truncated searches.. they do not look ahead all the way to the end of the game.
So 5 * 58 = 290
That should be 5^58, or 5**58 if you only know a C dialect.
3.46944695E+40 is hardly the small number you wrongly concluded.
In actual practice, this number is way larger than necessary because it presumes an average of 5 not-immediately-constraint-breaking possibilities per square, which is not at all even close to true in practice (p.s: its still brute force when you check for constraint violations at each insertion, unlike what some folks are claiming)
Aren't you exaggerating a bit? Comcast charges around $100 and Dish just $50 for hundreds of digital channels.
The number of channels is meaningless, really. The right metric is the fraction of content broadcast per unit time that you would actually sit down and watch (remember that you pay per unit time even when you arent watching anything.) Due to high rates of repetition of the good while the bulk being utter crap anyways, "hundreds of channels" doesnt tell anyone anything.
The reason his "all the channels" comment is meaningful is because those packages maximizes the amount of content available. No sacrifices.
The right way to drive into his "all the channels" comment is not by going after the number of channels, but instead by going after the cost per desirable content that you need to pay, which is likely to be minimized on the most basic of packages instead of either the "hundreds of digital channels" packages that you are talking about or the "all the channels" packages that he is talking about.
Its because Europeans consume heaping helpings of American entertainment, which puts them in a situation where subconsciously they have to constantly remind themselves of all the things that are better in Europe than in America.. which are sometimes just exaggerations or formed from cherry picking.
Well, its not a lost second.. its an extra second..
The entire issue is that there are so many uses for time that any one strategy does not work in all cases. Consider a simple logger that outputs some value once per second.. well you dont want that logger to output 23:59:59 twice.. that could easily create problems.. and you dont want the logger to miss a tick either because that could cause other problems..
So to solve that problem we create the abnormal 23:59:60.. but because its abnormal it can easily look like 00:00:00 after simple time manipulation operations, causing 00:00:00 to be seen twice instead.. the same problem we were trying to avoid..
I propose the following solution: Stop fucking with time in abnormal ways such as leap seconds.. the subset of problem domains where syncing to some abstract ideal celestial clock is rather small and its far easier to let those problem domains handle conversion from system time to abstract celestial time that it is to make everything else work well with edge cases.
Excuse me. I was confusing high deductable plans with junk plans that have low yearly or lifetime limits.
You had no idea what you were talking about, but got modded +5 insightful (now only +4 insightful.) Congratulations on the benefits of slashdots general ignorance on subjects outside the tech field.
the AFA doesn't prohibit high deductible plans at all.
No, it just makes them unprofitable to offer because of the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) mandated by the ACA is capped at 15% but does not include care paid for by Health Savings Accounts (HSA's.) High Deductible Plans (HDP's) have lower premiums per client, yet administrative costs per client remain largely unchanged. The reason HDP's were attractive to people in spite of a significantly higher percentage middleman cost was that accompanying HSA's have almost no middleman costs (HSA management is at no risk.)
The only way to get HDP's to meet the MLR mandate is to lower the deductibles and raise the premiums to compensate, so that more care is covered. In other words, HDP's are impossible under the ACA.
Insurance on universally needed services works best that way, as your high deductible plan makes it harder for others to afford insurance.
How exactly does my business relationship with a private entity make it harder for others to afford insurance?
The carts are leading the horse here. People with high deductible insurance are paying their own way right now.
By forcing gamblers like you to be more responsible, costs for more responsible people are lowered.
In what universe is personally taking on the cost of routine and highly predictable visits to doctors out of pocket considered gambling? Only in the universe of those that like to make stupid claims.
People with high deductible insurance plans are the most responsible people in the country when it comes to health care, contrary to your ludicrously ignorant and obviously bias motivated lies. Thats right.. lies.
And please stop deluding yourself into believing that your high deductible plan won't leave the rest of the people in the insurance pool on the hook if you come down with a catastrophic illness that costs millions of dollars to treat.
I get it.. Either you think that insurance companies are taking a loss on high deductible plans because somehow amazingly they dont know the rates of catastrophic events.. or you have no idea what high deductible plans cover. Seriously you seem to think that it covers the exact opposite of what it covers. You do know that the deductible is what YOU pay out of pocket and the rest is covered by the insurance, right? That its not the opposite, right?
What the hell are you talking about?
Did you honestly think the actual claim was that you could go on using the unwritable drive as if nothing happened? Thats essentially the straw man you seem to be fighting.
There is still no obvious drug use in your description of events.
What is obvious is that you easily leap to the conclusion that drugs are involved, which as I said makes it obvious that you are retarded. An extreme lack of critical thinking ability is a form of retardation. You are retarded.
Imagine a typical 500GB drive in a typical PC. Assuming 1000 write cycles and 10 years of life, that is somewhere around 130GB written per day. How many people do you know who write 130GB to their drive every day, and at the same time keep their drives for 10 years?
A system that average that much write volume per day isn't typically using commodity hard drives. Its using enterprise drives so that also changes the comparison quite a bit.
On that note, you often see anti-SSD slashdotters harping on "$0.05 per gigabyte" or some such, a price only seen in commodity drives. The shittiest enterprise SAS drives start at $0.15 per gigabyte, while prices higher than $1.00 per gigabyte (more than the current generation commodity SSD's) are actually considered normal.
It is painfully obvious that the flash itself remains readable when the write limits are reached.. anyone that says different is extremely ignorant of the subject.
The SSD's that are failing rapidly are not doing so because the flash has reached its erase limits. They are doing so because something else is breaking, and this is immediately obvious when several different companies produce SSD's using flash chips from the same source (in particular, Intel or Sandisk) but have drastically different first-year failure rates.
Steadfast Networks (aka Karl Zimmerman) reports a 1.6% AFR for the SSD's that they use, but a 5% AFR for the HDD's that they use. Thats with ~150 SSD's (mainly Intel-branded) and ~2800 HDD's so a good but not a great sample size.
I suspect that many of the "commonly fails" SSD's are simply cutting things too close in the design in an attempt to compete on price with other companies that are also cutting things too close.
I've watched people who were obviously high
Ah yes.. the solid 'they did something stupid so *obviously* they were on drugs' logic..
.. the logic you are pushing tells us that you are obviously retarded.. meanwhile there was no obvious drug use in your description of events.
Got news for ya
Trying to be dramatic requires being dramatic...
Regardless of what is required, its intellectually dishonest.
Do you enjoy being an intellectually dishonest prick?