Uhhhhhh - 99% buy in pairs? You're limiting that statement to corporate and geek customers, right? If you include average consumers in your group of purchasers, I'd say that little more than 30% buy in pairs. I've NEVER heard the average consumer talk about or ask for a RAID array, a mirror, or even a backup drive. Never. Only geeks, and IT people. Even if you were including only geeks and corporate purchasers - many, many, many businesses don't understand or run arrays. Instead, they just use a central server for backups.
I think the lego analogy is oversimplified. They should have said it would be like building your own telvision via remote control while looking through a telescope. Legos "just fit". Diodes, resistors, etc, don't just snap together - and neither will all those parts form satellites launched by different companies, for different purposes, over the span of a few decades. Almost nothing is going to "just fit".
1. Online piracy — while it is definitely illegal and immoral — is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance. We're talking brats stealing chewing gum, here, not the Barbary Pirates.
2. Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc.
3. Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market — especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people — is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom.
So - I'm wondering why, exactly, do people want to do RAID with SSD? There are really only two reasons (that I'm aware of) for a RAID. Either you need performance - which the SSD delivers, or you need redundant security for your data. Even in a corporate setting, it seems that running the OS and applications from from the SSD, while keeping data on RAID would be a good solution. Investing in enough SSD's for RAID arrays seems a bit of a waste.
Servers, on the other hand, might make good use of SSD's in RAID arrays. I wonder if Google or Amazon are going that route yet? About the time that they both finish upgrading all of their servers to SSD RAIDs, the price of SSD's should be down where I can afford a terrabyte drive!
I know, it's only wikipedia - but you can begin your education there. If you should so choose, you can study more in depth later. Eugenics. Hitler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics
The Nazis did indeed have eugenics. Why did you think they were trying to rid the world of the Jews?
And, it doesn't matter whether you choose to believe that human embryos are not people. They are HUMAN. Try reading. The Euro prohibition specifically uses the word HUMAN. A human embryo is certainly not canine, or feline, or - whatever.
Another poster, way up above, has already made reference to the eugenics programs of the Nazi party. That "dignity" thing has far less to do with any question of God's existence, than it has to do with the atrocities committed in the name of "science", before and during WW2.
Mind control. Yeah, right. If the EU had mind control, they'd have shared it with the US government by now. And, the mind controllers would have peacefully, casually, and invisibly herded all those "Occupy Wall Street" protesters into holding pens by now.
Like AC has already said - you link to videos that will take hours to watch. Interviews of people that no one has ever heard of. I'm going to waste my day watching videos of nobodies? No way, Jose. Especially so, since I'm more than 99.1% convinced that they are raging lunatics to start with!
Quantitative easing - isn't that just another term for fiat money? The old generations understand fiat money. The youngsters probably don't understand just how worthless the dollar really is. Let's try this: your dollar isn't worth the paper, rags, and ink used to print it on! That dollar isn't backed by silver, gold, or even oil. It's nothing. It's ONLY value, is the faith that people have in the US Federal Reserve. And, that Fed is privately owned, by many of the same people who have been shipping jobs out of America to China for the past two decades!
I read the summary. I've read some of the discussion. Haven't bothered to read TFA. I'm just sitting here, wondering. Would I rather have my searches shaped by the preferences of someone like Paris Hilton, or would I rather be caught blaspheming against Allah in Iran? Tough question. FFS - if there were any "celebrities" that I gave a damn about, I still wouldn't want my searches to reflect their preferences!
Case in point - I happen to like Linus Torvalds. He's in my circle on G+. I've learned a few cool things about him. In fact, I've learned that we actually share some interests aside from his operating system. But, we're worlds apart. For starters, he's a young father. I'm an old grandfather. He has concerns, regarding his family, that I just don't give a rat's ass about anymore. Oh - I might sympathize with some of his day to day problems, momentarily. But, I solved all those problems, on a daily basis, a lifetime ago. I just don't give a rat's ass anymore. I don't WANT my searches to give me hits on childhood illnesses, discipline and motivation tips, etc ad nauseum.
The "celebrities" that are likely to show up on Bing are mostly mindless idiots. I'd just barf if my search results were keyed to any of them.
Sorry, I should have put a/facetiousness tag on that.;^)
Of course, after thinking about it - no one in government reads anything other than dry reports. There's probably not a decision maker anywhere who knows who Heinlein was. And, I don't think Harsh Mistress made it to Hollywood, so we're probably safe if we suggest a catapult!
"no government in their right mind would allow a catapult on the Moon that has the potential to drop bigassed rocks & metal chunks weighing over 100 tons on Earth."
Didn't I read that somewhere? I'm sure I did. What was his name?
Uhhhh - I'm all for exploration and expansion into space. But, my primary focus is on colonization of other stellar bodies. Those who advocate for orbital habitats seem to forget that there are serious health issues involved with low gravity. Artificial gravity would impose severe structural requirements on those habitats. Yeah, it can be done, I'm sure - but putting habitats under the surface of the moon will likely be cheaper and safer. Similar habitats on Mars would be a lot safer yet.
Oh - excuse me. I thought the discussion here was centered on the mobile market. I must have missed something. Yes, Win7 installs fairly quickly on a desktop. You win that point. Now - let's look at the scoreboard. Oh. Wait. No point, because the desktop isn't in this competition at all!
How wonderful. I have exactly two working choices - DSL from my phone company, or dial up from a third party. Or, I COULD get satellite, and watch my lag shoot higher than the satellites orbit. End of choices, for me. And, others in this country have fewer choices than I have. Satellite doesn't exactly work everywhere, and DSL is not available in all locations.
"I think Ritchie is getting just as much attention and celebration as I think he should, "
That's a little bit funny, when you consider that Mr. Ritchie doesn't seem to have made any headlines at all. Only after reading OP above, did I do a google search, to learn that Mr. Ritchie is, indeed, just as dead as Steve Jobs.
Space habitats don't really make all that much sense. You have problems to overcome that planetary surfaces solve simply by being planetary. Lack of gravity has been shown to be a health problem. Spinning the habitat may give you "gravity", but you introduce other problems, starting with the ability to dock with the habitat, and structural integrity of the habitat. There will ALWAYS be a risk of catastrophic decompression on a space habitat. Radiation needs to be dealt with.
Unless, of course, you're going to build those habitats to be planet sized to provide gravity, then provide an atmosphere to stop the radiation, In which case, why not just colonize an existing planet?
"The biggest problem though, I don't know how to fix this situation."
Don't feel lonely. Thousands of very intelligent people have attempted to "fix this situation", including Lenin and Marx. Tens of thousands of less intelligent people have attempted to "fix this situation". So far - nothing short of revolution seems to fix it at all. And, revolutions tend to be messy, and cause all sorts of other problems.
The best thing that could happen, IMO, is for the people who vote to just fire all the politicians, and start fresh. Strict term limits, and ultra strict accountability for personal finances while in office would go a long way toward fixing the problems. Any representative who sold a vote to a lobbyist should be stripped of his office, all benefits of that office including pensions and health care, convicted of bribery charges, and serve a minimum of 5 years in prison.
Alas, I'm dreaming. Nothing like that is going to happen, in this lifetime, or any other.
Eventually rebel? Most assuredly. About the only way that they won't rebel, is if people are sent there with the understanding that they are on their own to start with. That is, Earth would commit resources to getting them up there, with the minimal resources necessary to give them a fighting chance at survival - then it's up to them to make things work, because there won't be any more support. Given such a scenario, with no involvement in politics, economics, military, or anything at all - then there would be no reason to ever declare independence.
But, you go ahead and figure the odds of us sending anyone into space, without demanding some sort of "profit", while at the same time demanding that they abide by myriad rules and regulations that range from asinine to despotic. Using history as an example, I don't put those odds above 1 in gazillions of gazillions.
Incidentally, my sympathies would be with the colonists.
To bad you're posting as AC - whoever you are, thanks for that link. I'm probably less surprised by some of that than you think - but there ARE some surprises. For instance - sealed envelopes for mailing letters were invented "mid-1800's". Prior to that, I guess everything was written on postcards? Hmmm - I probably won't spend much time on the subject, but it is enlightening!
Slashdot Mirror
Uhhhhhh - 99% buy in pairs? You're limiting that statement to corporate and geek customers, right? If you include average consumers in your group of purchasers, I'd say that little more than 30% buy in pairs. I've NEVER heard the average consumer talk about or ask for a RAID array, a mirror, or even a backup drive. Never. Only geeks, and IT people. Even if you were including only geeks and corporate purchasers - many, many, many businesses don't understand or run arrays. Instead, they just use a central server for backups.
I think the lego analogy is oversimplified. They should have said it would be like building your own telvision via remote control while looking through a telescope. Legos "just fit". Diodes, resistors, etc, don't just snap together - and neither will all those parts form satellites launched by different companies, for different purposes, over the span of a few decades. Almost nothing is going to "just fit".
http://www.baen.com/library/
1. Online piracy — while it is definitely illegal and immoral — is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance. We're talking brats stealing chewing gum, here, not the Barbary Pirates.
2. Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc.
3. Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market — especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people — is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom.
So - I'm wondering why, exactly, do people want to do RAID with SSD? There are really only two reasons (that I'm aware of) for a RAID. Either you need performance - which the SSD delivers, or you need redundant security for your data. Even in a corporate setting, it seems that running the OS and applications from from the SSD, while keeping data on RAID would be a good solution. Investing in enough SSD's for RAID arrays seems a bit of a waste.
Servers, on the other hand, might make good use of SSD's in RAID arrays. I wonder if Google or Amazon are going that route yet? About the time that they both finish upgrading all of their servers to SSD RAIDs, the price of SSD's should be down where I can afford a terrabyte drive!
I know, it's only wikipedia - but you can begin your education there. If you should so choose, you can study more in depth later. Eugenics. Hitler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics
Troll, much?
The Nazis did indeed have eugenics. Why did you think they were trying to rid the world of the Jews?
And, it doesn't matter whether you choose to believe that human embryos are not people. They are HUMAN. Try reading. The Euro prohibition specifically uses the word HUMAN. A human embryo is certainly not canine, or feline, or - whatever.
Another poster, way up above, has already made reference to the eugenics programs of the Nazi party. That "dignity" thing has far less to do with any question of God's existence, than it has to do with the atrocities committed in the name of "science", before and during WW2.
Mind control. Yeah, right. If the EU had mind control, they'd have shared it with the US government by now. And, the mind controllers would have peacefully, casually, and invisibly herded all those "Occupy Wall Street" protesters into holding pens by now.
Like AC has already said - you link to videos that will take hours to watch. Interviews of people that no one has ever heard of. I'm going to waste my day watching videos of nobodies? No way, Jose. Especially so, since I'm more than 99.1% convinced that they are raging lunatics to start with!
Quantitative easing - isn't that just another term for fiat money? The old generations understand fiat money. The youngsters probably don't understand just how worthless the dollar really is. Let's try this: your dollar isn't worth the paper, rags, and ink used to print it on! That dollar isn't backed by silver, gold, or even oil. It's nothing. It's ONLY value, is the faith that people have in the US Federal Reserve. And, that Fed is privately owned, by many of the same people who have been shipping jobs out of America to China for the past two decades!
Imagine that . . .
I recommend against TV for children under 99.
I read the summary. I've read some of the discussion. Haven't bothered to read TFA. I'm just sitting here, wondering. Would I rather have my searches shaped by the preferences of someone like Paris Hilton, or would I rather be caught blaspheming against Allah in Iran? Tough question. FFS - if there were any "celebrities" that I gave a damn about, I still wouldn't want my searches to reflect their preferences!
Case in point - I happen to like Linus Torvalds. He's in my circle on G+. I've learned a few cool things about him. In fact, I've learned that we actually share some interests aside from his operating system. But, we're worlds apart. For starters, he's a young father. I'm an old grandfather. He has concerns, regarding his family, that I just don't give a rat's ass about anymore. Oh - I might sympathize with some of his day to day problems, momentarily. But, I solved all those problems, on a daily basis, a lifetime ago. I just don't give a rat's ass anymore. I don't WANT my searches to give me hits on childhood illnesses, discipline and motivation tips, etc ad nauseum.
The "celebrities" that are likely to show up on Bing are mostly mindless idiots. I'd just barf if my search results were keyed to any of them.
Sorry, I should have put a /facetiousness tag on that. ;^)
Of course, after thinking about it - no one in government reads anything other than dry reports. There's probably not a decision maker anywhere who knows who Heinlein was. And, I don't think Harsh Mistress made it to Hollywood, so we're probably safe if we suggest a catapult!
"no government in their right mind would allow a catapult on the Moon that has the potential to drop bigassed rocks & metal chunks weighing over 100 tons on Earth."
Didn't I read that somewhere? I'm sure I did. What was his name?
Could you convert a fsckload of energy into gigawatts, or something? My math sucks! ;^)
Uhhhh - I'm all for exploration and expansion into space. But, my primary focus is on colonization of other stellar bodies. Those who advocate for orbital habitats seem to forget that there are serious health issues involved with low gravity. Artificial gravity would impose severe structural requirements on those habitats. Yeah, it can be done, I'm sure - but putting habitats under the surface of the moon will likely be cheaper and safer. Similar habitats on Mars would be a lot safer yet.
"large scale reboot storm after a host crashes "
Friends don't let friends use Windows hosts.
Skittles are disgusting. Just give me regular shit, please.
"Microsoft's store number fourteen will open in University Village next week, within verbal insult range of Apple's store at the same location."
Oh - excuse me. I thought the discussion here was centered on the mobile market. I must have missed something. Yes, Win7 installs fairly quickly on a desktop. You win that point. Now - let's look at the scoreboard. Oh. Wait. No point, because the desktop isn't in this competition at all!
How wonderful. I have exactly two working choices - DSL from my phone company, or dial up from a third party. Or, I COULD get satellite, and watch my lag shoot higher than the satellites orbit. End of choices, for me. And, others in this country have fewer choices than I have. Satellite doesn't exactly work everywhere, and DSL is not available in all locations.
"I think Ritchie is getting just as much attention and celebration as I think he should, "
That's a little bit funny, when you consider that Mr. Ritchie doesn't seem to have made any headlines at all. Only after reading OP above, did I do a google search, to learn that Mr. Ritchie is, indeed, just as dead as Steve Jobs.
Rest in Peace, Dennis Ritchie, and thank you!
Space habitats don't really make all that much sense. You have problems to overcome that planetary surfaces solve simply by being planetary. Lack of gravity has been shown to be a health problem. Spinning the habitat may give you "gravity", but you introduce other problems, starting with the ability to dock with the habitat, and structural integrity of the habitat. There will ALWAYS be a risk of catastrophic decompression on a space habitat. Radiation needs to be dealt with.
Unless, of course, you're going to build those habitats to be planet sized to provide gravity, then provide an atmosphere to stop the radiation, In which case, why not just colonize an existing planet?
"The biggest problem though, I don't know how to fix this situation."
Don't feel lonely. Thousands of very intelligent people have attempted to "fix this situation", including Lenin and Marx. Tens of thousands of less intelligent people have attempted to "fix this situation". So far - nothing short of revolution seems to fix it at all. And, revolutions tend to be messy, and cause all sorts of other problems.
The best thing that could happen, IMO, is for the people who vote to just fire all the politicians, and start fresh. Strict term limits, and ultra strict accountability for personal finances while in office would go a long way toward fixing the problems. Any representative who sold a vote to a lobbyist should be stripped of his office, all benefits of that office including pensions and health care, convicted of bribery charges, and serve a minimum of 5 years in prison.
Alas, I'm dreaming. Nothing like that is going to happen, in this lifetime, or any other.
Eventually rebel? Most assuredly. About the only way that they won't rebel, is if people are sent there with the understanding that they are on their own to start with. That is, Earth would commit resources to getting them up there, with the minimal resources necessary to give them a fighting chance at survival - then it's up to them to make things work, because there won't be any more support. Given such a scenario, with no involvement in politics, economics, military, or anything at all - then there would be no reason to ever declare independence.
But, you go ahead and figure the odds of us sending anyone into space, without demanding some sort of "profit", while at the same time demanding that they abide by myriad rules and regulations that range from asinine to despotic. Using history as an example, I don't put those odds above 1 in gazillions of gazillions.
Incidentally, my sympathies would be with the colonists.
To bad you're posting as AC - whoever you are, thanks for that link. I'm probably less surprised by some of that than you think - but there ARE some surprises. For instance - sealed envelopes for mailing letters were invented "mid-1800's". Prior to that, I guess everything was written on postcards? Hmmm - I probably won't spend much time on the subject, but it is enlightening!