whose one-letter summary required less effort to train parents.
Thing is, except for maybe less than 1% of parents, they're STILL ignoring it. It's just that some segment of that <1% crowd is very, very vocal.
For example, as a kid my parents didn't really give a hoot about drugs, sexual violence, etc... I got a waiver letter every year to let me rent whatever I wanted from the video store(yes, I'm dating myself). I was watching R rated films while still in the single digits. Only thing they didn't want me watching was horror films.
GTA? They'd of had no problem with it. I think most parents don't care. The whole reason for the rating system is to give them cover when the occasional butt-hurt 'What is my child playing?!?!' parent tries to sue.
So, unless the cost of petrol gets very significantly higher (by x3-4) or the cost of batteries drops considerably the fuel cost of an electric vehicle is significantly higher than a petrol driven one. I wish that were not the case but sadly, for now, it is.
You make a very good point, and it's part of the reason I haven't bought one yet. Heck, it's part of the spreadsheet I built for determining the costs and break even points for various alternate and multi-fuel vehicles.
Of course, part of the cost of the Tesla's battery is because it's a premium LiIon pack. It's actually only 53-56 kwh, but the roadster is light for a EV. At 200 miles a charge, 100k miles is 500 charges. Cell phone batteries typically last for more charges, and they're the same technology. The 100k is 'worst case' - it's what they guarantee, not how long it can last in reality. Then there's that they're offering to sell you a replacement battery in the future for $12k now. That would indeed make an EV's per mile cost including battery depreciation about that as a gasoline vehicle, assuming that gas goes up a tad more. They're hoping to produce LFP(lithium iron phosphate) cells that have lifespans in the decades and half the cost compared to LiIon cells- they just start out with ~10% less capacity, but after year 3-4 they end up having more due to the slower degradation.
I'll note that there are separate reasons for buying an EV in an inner city type environment - local emissions, for example. Heck, my understanding today is that many low-emission vehicles are still fairly dirty until they warm up - and in many cases they're getting warmed up about the time the drivers are shutting them off, for inner city trips, at least.
Vac65 - most charging for EVs is anticipated to be 'off-peak' - which puts less strain on the electrical grid than you'd think. The grid has to be built to handle the peak, after all.
Oh, and very rough figuring - on average, a family that replaces it's gasoline vehicles with electric ones will see a 50% increase in their electricity usage. Probably more than 50% for people like me without AC and non-electric water heating, less than 50% for those with electric water heating and heavy usage of AC.
As for hurting from gas prices- nobody except the sellers of petroleum products LIKES high fuel costs, but hurting?
Even the producers of petroleum products don't like high fuel costs, because that spurs conservation, IE they sell less.
My point about a standard 120v outlet is that if a Tesla owner DOES get stuck with a low charge light in the middle of their travels they are not likely to find a place where it is possible to easily connect to a 240v outlet. 120v is likely all the y would have available and it is not good enough.
It was the way you put it. 'TELL ME 120V IS ENOUGH SO I CAN CALL YOU A LIAR!!!' was how I took it.
I'll fully admit - 120V@15-20A isn't ever going to be enough for more than a cripple charge system to get you just far enough to hook up to a proper charger. Thing is, if EV usage spreads, you'll have more and more spots where you can get said proper charge, especially in an EV's natural home: the City.
Which brings me back to the other point. There will ALWAYS be a segment that cannot participate in the established system due to some reason. These people WILL attempt to establish themselves as the head of their own government. Even if they can only manage "warlordism" and "rule" through violence in their segment.
Perhaps, but look at the USA, Canada, Europe, hell, most of the developed world. So many people work from within the system that those that don't are reduced to ineffective 'kooks' and are of marginal impact, assuming that it's even noticed at anything more than a local level. That's what I'm talking about.
Actually, you do. The mafia runs alcohol from cheap states/cities to expensive states/cities. That's why part of the local government's alcohol control board investigates where the local bars are buying their alcohol from. If they don't have legitimate receipts, they are fined.
I mentioned this with cigarettes, didn't I? And while they're organized, for a given level of organization, they aren't, in the USA, engaging in excessive acts of violence(which I view as a far larger problem than tax evasion).
I for one would not have been able to use a Tesla as a daily driver once in the last 15 years: between driving to work and travel during the day, 250 miles is not enough range.
Wow... What do you do, and do you realize that the average driving distance in the USA is only 15K miles a year? At 50 weeks/year 5 days a week*, that's 60 miles a day. Or the Roadster having 4x the needed 'average' range. By my calculation - you're driving an estimated 62k miles a year(250*50*5). Or four times the average.
Now, I'm going to flip this on you a bit: You've been hurting from the gasoline prices lately, yes? Pretty much everybody is. Do you realize that if we get like 50% of the city dwellers around the world to switch to something like an EV, that leaves more gasoline at lower prices for you and me? Basically, stop trying to insist that EVs aren't a solution until it's a 100% replacement. Big trucks are generally diesels for very good reasons. Cars are typically gasoline powered for their own reasons. A diesel lawn-mower or weed-eater isn't going to work all that well.
And if anyone tells me I can fully charge an electric car on 120v US standard household current in 30 minutes I will call you a liar at this time in their development.
I think you're arguing the absurd here, do you have any proof of any real EV supporter proposing quick charges off of standard outlets?
Assuming 15A out of a 20A circuit for proper overhead, that's 1.8kwh per hour. Most EVs get around 3 miles to the kwh in normal driving, and 'strong' EVs around 200 miles range. That means a battery size of ~67kwh. At 1.8 kwh/h, that's 37 hours for a full charge. Charging of a regular household outlet is for 'cripple charge' purposes - let it charge for an hour and that's 5 miles of range, hopefully enough to get you home to your dryer outlet (240V@30A) or even your electric range one (240V@50A). Yes, it's 'standard' for US households to be supplied with 240V power. It's just that we do a split phase thing that drops it to 120V for most outlets.
Translation: Electric cars will likely NEVER be routinely charged, much less quick charged, from standard household outlets. Retrofitting in higher power outlets in garages and parking areas is easier than you might think.
You don't have many professional illegal alcohol dealers because legal alcohol isn't that much more expensive in most areas, the teen market is satisfied with ad-hoc non-organized dealers, etc... It's not organized. They're not running around with submarines and automatic weapons.
Same with cigarettes. Taxes on them have gotten huge enough to create a black market - but these are mostly otherwise legal cigs that are illegally transported and sold without paying the taxes for the area they're sold in.
They will pursue whatever generates income. Even if that income is only enough to purchase weapons and ammo.
Unless they're fanatics, they're going to see a drop-off in recruits if that's all they can afford. For that matter, if that's all they can afford doing illegal things, maybe legal things are more profitable? Then maybe it's cheaper to work within the system for change/power, rather than outside it?
Less money = less 'cool' to enter a life of crime, lower benefit over legal lifestyles, less attraction all around. Not to mention less money for things like weapons.
Of course, of the items you list, I'd have gambling be mostly legal but regulated, if everything is legal there's probably not enough of a profit of margin to keep substantial smuggling lines open for the few things I'd keep illegal, etc...
I figure there might be a violence spike if we legalized everything, but then, we haven't legalized anything and we're still getting a violence spike.
First the pro drug crowd not only wants decriminalization but they also want a very special status in which product quality and purity is not examined or a path to taxation kept in view.
I'm pro-legalization of pretty much everything. I consider myself a 'moderate libertarian'.
My saying is 'legalize, tax, and regulate it'. Hell yes I'd be taxing and regulating it.
The thing about dropping the price is that they won't NEED to commit the crimes to get it, they won't be as messed up from contaminated drugs so they're more likely to be able to keep a regular job(and afford their habit), and since it's not illegal, it won't have the stigma to prevent people from getting treatment.
Man, I've tried to reply to this 3 times, been interrupted every time.
Anyways, at my work we wouldn't though, our normal expense for a PC is $300, and a quick check shows the average utilization of the HD is 50G. Retail wise a 160G hard drive is ~$40. For sufficient headspace, 80Gigs is what I'd consider minimum, which means that nearly a third of the price of our PCs would be the SSD. We don't really upgrade over their lifetime. To be perfectly honest, I don't see them doing it for our shop unless an 80Gig SSD was cheaper than the cheapest HD available. That would translate to $.50 per gig.
One option for builds like for my work would be to build the SSD onto the motherboard to save costs. That would save a port, manufacturing costs, weight, cabling, etc...
Maybe $1/gig for laptops, where it makes more sense. $2 or more for SSDs in specific server applications. Replacing the consumer/standard business desktop machine HD is going to be a bit tougher.
I guess the question becomes one of 'how do you define mass acceptance'? Personally, I think being an option standard enough that you can get a computer with a SSD from Walmart/Best Buy/Staples/etc...
Consumers are having to decide between Flash and a hard drive, where the hd runs about 1/20th the cost per gig than even a MLC SSD. Yes, it's tough.
As for garbage collection and deletions, did you miss my point about using some of the savings to buy a bigger drive? That's where I get the extra performance from. Not to mention that in the GP I essentially mentioned using a 'smart' database that knows what it's using to help reduce the number of write cycles and wear leveling needed.
Look, I won't argue that, given the right circumstances, SLC doesn't make sense. The problem is that Intel has apparently decided that that market isn't big enough to go for. My point was that this is because MLC has come pretty far - such that for many consumers it works sufficiently well for their purpose. The number of users who flog a SLC drive hard enough and long enough for it to make sense, even in a server environment, is limited.
35MB write speed, 40GB. 1,143 seconds to write completely. 19 minutes. Research gives a number of write cycles of ~10k. 132 days, about 4 months.
I'll note that this is pretty much writing 100% of the time, which should make up for 'write amplification'.
Get the 160GB model and you get 100MB/s over 160GB. 1,600 seconds for an overwrite.
I guess it depends on the duty cycle. A 32GB SLC runs about the same price as a 160GB MLC. Around 5 times the price per gig. If you need the duty cycle, you need the duty cycle. It lists the write performance as the same as a 80GB MLC model. So around 2.5 times the write performance per gig.
So, unless you're somehow flogging it enough to make the wear matter, you actually get MORE performance for the dollar simply by buying a disk or disks five times the size for the same price. Double the write, approximately. The extra space would lead to 5X the wear - taking 4 months to 20 months.
It's not enough to eliminate the call for SLC completely, but it might be enough to marginalize the SLC market enough to make it not worth it for Intel to stay in it.
I know that random writes is a problem - which is why I mentioned things like 'enough cache' and 'right database system' to turn those random writes into sequential ones. It's expensive in terms of storage capacity(your DB will have to be bigger), but if MLC is 'enough' cheaper than SLC, you just buy the additional storage. Plus, with modern MLC and wear-leveling you're looking at years at the drive's maximum write speed to start wearing out the cells. If MLC is around an order of magnitude cheaper than SLC, it's cheaper just to replace the drive more often - especially with prices for a given size dropping all the time.
With the availability of a relatively cheap 40 GB option I can see the start of widespread adoption in the corporate world. In my experience 40 GB is plenty for OS and applications for the vast majority of office drones (myself included), with pretty much all data staying on the server these days.
I see several adoption points - and the biggest one isn't performance related, but when the cheapest SSD that 'works' is cheaper than the equivalent cheapest HD.
What does this mean? When the cheapest available HD costs the manufacturer $20 and the equivalent SSD costs $19. It might be a 500GB HD for $20 and $19 for 40GB, but it'll be cheaper. HDs offer 'enough' performance today, and their vastly cheaper cost per GB still outweighs that SSDs scale 'down' better than HDs. The cheapest HD at the moment for newegg is the 160GB model - $35. $.22 per gig. The cheapest per gig? 2TB for $75. $.04 per gig.
A 40Gig SSD still runs ~$95 and up. It's got to get to around 1/3rd that price. Probably 1/4, because HD price and size isn't staying static either, and demand for size is still rising.
Personally, I think one trick would be integrating the SSD chips directly onto the motherboard for savings that way.
Well, they DO mention that they tripled the sequential write speed, so it could be that the MLC is now competitive, speed wise, with SLC.
High-transaction databases are the devil's bane of storage devices as it is, you're probably best going with a high amount of RAM cache - both read and write, if that's what you're doing. Enough cache and the right database system and you can turn random writes into what are effectively sequential writes, improving performance that way.
in that the price per gig needs to hit $1 before you start seeing acceptance for mass storage solutions from consumers.
Hmm... Hard to say, hard to say. Personally, I'm thinking more like $.10 per gig. As you mention, HDs are currently around $.05 per gig.
I bought a 60gig SSD a while back, it's just not big enough - it constantly forces me to shift stuff to the HD(I LOVE symbolic links!). I can keep the OS, a few applications, and maybe a couple games on it. Performance improvements, at this point, are almost unnoticable.
Personally, I think that a hybrid SSD/HD solution is currently the best idea, at least for the common user. Though I think I'd prefer 8-20 Gigs of flash cache, not 4.
From my understanding, it's mostly a 'crap-shoot' at this point, but there's a distinct possibility that it would indeed be more efficient to do DC to DC.
While you can use a plain old transformer to alter the voltage of AC, their sizing and efficiency depends on the frequency of the AC. 50/60HZ AC doesn't lead to very efficient or compact voltage converters, so they often use a switchmode power supply.
The trick? The first thing most switchmode powersupplies do is rectify the AC to DC before using a 'chopper' to turn it back into a sort of high frequency AC - often with a frequency in the Mhz.
Given that a rectifier circuit might take ~1-2% of the power going over it, DC to DC might indeed be more efficient.
I'd rate his statement as more incomplete than incorrect. No, voltage doesn't dictate necessary wire thickness, but the combination of amps, wire resistance, and heat dissipation/efficiency DOES.
Thing is, the easiest way to decrease the required thickness of wire when you have a given wattage requirement for the equipment is to increase the voltage. So, from a layman's standpoint, voltage DOES matter for the required thickness when you're looking at a circuit to power a given piece of equipment, whether it's a metro train or a computer. If you need 12 gauge wire @ 120V for an application, you might only need 14 gauge@240V.
Because then you have to run bus bars around the house to deliver those low voltages efficiently
I know it's nitpicking, but DC doesn't automatically equal 'low voltage'. There's nothing preventing us from running 120VDC lines within a house, and they'd actually be a smidge more efficient than 120VAC lines.
Heck, go with the 48VDC telephone standard - plenty of volts for your LCD TV, still capable of carrying enough amps to power most things that like DC. 48VDC@20A = 960watts, after all. A quick check shows even huge plasma screens not breaking 600. Though some 'performance' computers might need more.
Personally, I'd deal with the ISM bands about the same as they are now, except I'd double the amount of spectrum dedicated to them. You have XYZ set of rules to comply with. If you want higher power, fewer rules, you need to buy some spectrum.
There's not many rules about you pitching a tent in a park somewhere. They get a lot more complicated if you're looking to build a house.
Claiming that HTML in anyway at all creates consistency of UI is so wrong as to be bizarre.
I think that your taking my point further than I intended it to. To go back to my original point, you don't necessarily want to go with a different protocol because moving away from html costs resources from somewhere. Likely costs include the users, programmers, and designers. This cost increase wouldn't be justified by the extra security allowed by outright tossing of HTTPS, HTML, and web browser, as specified in the original post that I responded to.
You clearly don't understand the difference between HTTP, HTML, and web browsers.
Or maybe I just didn't sufficiently discriminate between them in my original 1 paragraph post. Users experience the application. Designers use HTML(primarily for the web). Programmers deal with the actual HTTP part. There is some crossover, of course.
Of course, going back to torrent - right now it's a seperate program, much like 'download accelerators'/assurers*. Integrating it into a web browser would require more programming resources in exchange for lowering the user cost in dealing with a different interface for those downloads.
*I use such programs more for their ability to get a complete download, then to speed it up.
Except, of course, that I'm not claiming any magical knowledge. I'm simply pointing out experience - there's a cost to changing systems. Other examples I thought of was gasoline engine vs electric. Same task, different methods. Or even MS Office vs OpenOffice. The interfaces are different, and there's a learning curve.
Basically, the commonality of knowledge between HTTP and HTTPS(HTTP over SSL), is such that it lowers development costs and makes the user experience more uniform. Especially if you're banning HTML while you're at it, which means you really need a different application.
Take downloading using a torrent vs just downloading from a site - you have an additional application with it's own interface and configuration. Now, yes, right now it happens to be that it's worth it for many people, but it's still an additional cost(options are sometimes worth it though). If it was integrated into the browser via plugin so it 'looks' like it downloads like normal, that'd be even better. Though I'll also note that I'd prefer if web browsers had better resume functions anyways.
don't use HTML or HTTP at all. Use a real protocol, one designed for security, and don't use a web browser.
Web browsers have had a fairly massive amount of development to allow more efficient access of information. You go to using a different app you're looking at losing the user's base of knowledge on how to use the system, the programmer and designer's base of knowledge, etc...
Debit card protection has indeed risen to almost the same level as credit cards here in the USA. Still, until you do those actions the money is still gone from your account, which means you can't pay bills with it.
Personally, I tend to put everything on the CC, but I treat it like a debit. Then I reconcile once a month.
I want the "off" button to be as easy to press as possible.
In the case of the reactors, the 'off' button was so easy that the earthquake tripped it, no human intervention necessary. It was designed that way.
I like the lid lift button press - you don't want accidental pushes for some thing as important as a nuclear reactor, but it only takes a second more and seconds don't normally count. Where they do, they have automatic processes, not human hands, doing the shutdown.
Slashdot Mirror
whose one-letter summary required less effort to train parents.
Thing is, except for maybe less than 1% of parents, they're STILL ignoring it. It's just that some segment of that <1% crowd is very, very vocal.
For example, as a kid my parents didn't really give a hoot about drugs, sexual violence, etc... I got a waiver letter every year to let me rent whatever I wanted from the video store(yes, I'm dating myself). I was watching R rated films while still in the single digits. Only thing they didn't want me watching was horror films.
GTA? They'd of had no problem with it. I think most parents don't care. The whole reason for the rating system is to give them cover when the occasional butt-hurt 'What is my child playing?!?!' parent tries to sue.
Well, ever used 'icy-hot'? Various heat balms? Same idea, I'm thinking.
On another note, Cocaine has been used as an analgesic for the eyes, if my memory is working.
So, unless the cost of petrol gets very significantly higher (by x3-4) or the cost of batteries drops considerably the fuel cost of an electric vehicle is significantly higher than a petrol driven one. I wish that were not the case but sadly, for now, it is.
You make a very good point, and it's part of the reason I haven't bought one yet. Heck, it's part of the spreadsheet I built for determining the costs and break even points for various alternate and multi-fuel vehicles.
Of course, part of the cost of the Tesla's battery is because it's a premium LiIon pack. It's actually only 53-56 kwh, but the roadster is light for a EV. At 200 miles a charge, 100k miles is 500 charges. Cell phone batteries typically last for more charges, and they're the same technology. The 100k is 'worst case' - it's what they guarantee, not how long it can last in reality. Then there's that they're offering to sell you a replacement battery in the future for $12k now. That would indeed make an EV's per mile cost including battery depreciation about that as a gasoline vehicle, assuming that gas goes up a tad more. They're hoping to produce LFP(lithium iron phosphate) cells that have lifespans in the decades and half the cost compared to LiIon cells- they just start out with ~10% less capacity, but after year 3-4 they end up having more due to the slower degradation.
I'll note that there are separate reasons for buying an EV in an inner city type environment - local emissions, for example. Heck, my understanding today is that many low-emission vehicles are still fairly dirty until they warm up - and in many cases they're getting warmed up about the time the drivers are shutting them off, for inner city trips, at least.
Vac65 - most charging for EVs is anticipated to be 'off-peak' - which puts less strain on the electrical grid than you'd think. The grid has to be built to handle the peak, after all.
Oh, and very rough figuring - on average, a family that replaces it's gasoline vehicles with electric ones will see a 50% increase in their electricity usage. Probably more than 50% for people like me without AC and non-electric water heating, less than 50% for those with electric water heating and heavy usage of AC.
As for hurting from gas prices- nobody except the sellers of petroleum products LIKES high fuel costs, but hurting?
Even the producers of petroleum products don't like high fuel costs, because that spurs conservation, IE they sell less.
My point about a standard 120v outlet is that if a Tesla owner DOES get stuck with a low charge light in the middle of their travels they are not likely to find a place where it is possible to easily connect to a 240v outlet. 120v is likely all the y would have available and it is not good enough.
It was the way you put it. 'TELL ME 120V IS ENOUGH SO I CAN CALL YOU A LIAR!!!' was how I took it.
I'll fully admit - 120V@15-20A isn't ever going to be enough for more than a cripple charge system to get you just far enough to hook up to a proper charger. Thing is, if EV usage spreads, you'll have more and more spots where you can get said proper charge, especially in an EV's natural home: the City.
Which brings me back to the other point. There will ALWAYS be a segment that cannot participate in the established system due to some reason. These people WILL attempt to establish themselves as the head of their own government. Even if they can only manage "warlordism" and "rule" through violence in their segment.
Perhaps, but look at the USA, Canada, Europe, hell, most of the developed world. So many people work from within the system that those that don't are reduced to ineffective 'kooks' and are of marginal impact, assuming that it's even noticed at anything more than a local level. That's what I'm talking about.
Actually, you do. The mafia runs alcohol from cheap states/cities to expensive states/cities. That's why part of the local government's alcohol control board investigates where the local bars are buying their alcohol from. If they don't have legitimate receipts, they are fined.
I mentioned this with cigarettes, didn't I? And while they're organized, for a given level of organization, they aren't, in the USA, engaging in excessive acts of violence(which I view as a far larger problem than tax evasion).
I for one would not have been able to use a Tesla as a daily driver once in the last 15 years: between driving to work and travel during the day, 250 miles is not enough range.
Wow... What do you do, and do you realize that the average driving distance in the USA is only 15K miles a year? At 50 weeks/year 5 days a week*, that's 60 miles a day. Or the Roadster having 4x the needed 'average' range. By my calculation - you're driving an estimated 62k miles a year(250*50*5). Or four times the average.
Now, I'm going to flip this on you a bit: You've been hurting from the gasoline prices lately, yes? Pretty much everybody is. Do you realize that if we get like 50% of the city dwellers around the world to switch to something like an EV, that leaves more gasoline at lower prices for you and me? Basically, stop trying to insist that EVs aren't a solution until it's a 100% replacement. Big trucks are generally diesels for very good reasons. Cars are typically gasoline powered for their own reasons. A diesel lawn-mower or weed-eater isn't going to work all that well.
And if anyone tells me I can fully charge an electric car on 120v US standard household current in 30 minutes I will call you a liar at this time in their development.
I think you're arguing the absurd here, do you have any proof of any real EV supporter proposing quick charges off of standard outlets?
Assuming 15A out of a 20A circuit for proper overhead, that's 1.8kwh per hour. Most EVs get around 3 miles to the kwh in normal driving, and 'strong' EVs around 200 miles range. That means a battery size of ~67kwh. At 1.8 kwh/h, that's 37 hours for a full charge. Charging of a regular household outlet is for 'cripple charge' purposes - let it charge for an hour and that's 5 miles of range, hopefully enough to get you home to your dryer outlet (240V@30A) or even your electric range one (240V@50A). Yes, it's 'standard' for US households to be supplied with 240V power. It's just that we do a split phase thing that drops it to 120V for most outlets.
Translation: Electric cars will likely NEVER be routinely charged, much less quick charged, from standard household outlets. Retrofitting in higher power outlets in garages and parking areas is easier than you might think.
*IE they never drive during vacation or weekends
It's an issue of economics of scale in my mind.
You don't have many professional illegal alcohol dealers because legal alcohol isn't that much more expensive in most areas, the teen market is satisfied with ad-hoc non-organized dealers, etc... It's not organized. They're not running around with submarines and automatic weapons.
Same with cigarettes. Taxes on them have gotten huge enough to create a black market - but these are mostly otherwise legal cigs that are illegally transported and sold without paying the taxes for the area they're sold in.
They will pursue whatever generates income. Even if that income is only enough to purchase weapons and ammo.
Unless they're fanatics, they're going to see a drop-off in recruits if that's all they can afford. For that matter, if that's all they can afford doing illegal things, maybe legal things are more profitable? Then maybe it's cheaper to work within the system for change/power, rather than outside it?
They just won't make much money.
Less money = less 'cool' to enter a life of crime, lower benefit over legal lifestyles, less attraction all around. Not to mention less money for things like weapons.
Of course, of the items you list, I'd have gambling be mostly legal but regulated, if everything is legal there's probably not enough of a profit of margin to keep substantial smuggling lines open for the few things I'd keep illegal, etc...
I figure there might be a violence spike if we legalized everything, but then, we haven't legalized anything and we're still getting a violence spike.
First the pro drug crowd not only wants decriminalization but they also want a very special status in which product quality and purity is not examined or a path to taxation kept in view.
I'm pro-legalization of pretty much everything. I consider myself a 'moderate libertarian'.
My saying is 'legalize, tax, and regulate it'. Hell yes I'd be taxing and regulating it.
The thing about dropping the price is that they won't NEED to commit the crimes to get it, they won't be as messed up from contaminated drugs so they're more likely to be able to keep a regular job(and afford their habit), and since it's not illegal, it won't have the stigma to prevent people from getting treatment.
Man, I've tried to reply to this 3 times, been interrupted every time. Anyways, at my work we wouldn't though, our normal expense for a PC is $300, and a quick check shows the average utilization of the HD is 50G. Retail wise a 160G hard drive is ~$40. For sufficient headspace, 80Gigs is what I'd consider minimum, which means that nearly a third of the price of our PCs would be the SSD. We don't really upgrade over their lifetime. To be perfectly honest, I don't see them doing it for our shop unless an 80Gig SSD was cheaper than the cheapest HD available. That would translate to $.50 per gig. One option for builds like for my work would be to build the SSD onto the motherboard to save costs. That would save a port, manufacturing costs, weight, cabling, etc... Maybe $1/gig for laptops, where it makes more sense. $2 or more for SSDs in specific server applications. Replacing the consumer/standard business desktop machine HD is going to be a bit tougher. I guess the question becomes one of 'how do you define mass acceptance'? Personally, I think being an option standard enough that you can get a computer with a SSD from Walmart/Best Buy/Staples/etc...
Consumers are having to decide between Flash and a hard drive, where the hd runs about 1/20th the cost per gig than even a MLC SSD. Yes, it's tough.
As for garbage collection and deletions, did you miss my point about using some of the savings to buy a bigger drive? That's where I get the extra performance from. Not to mention that in the GP I essentially mentioned using a 'smart' database that knows what it's using to help reduce the number of write cycles and wear leveling needed.
Look, I won't argue that, given the right circumstances, SLC doesn't make sense. The problem is that Intel has apparently decided that that market isn't big enough to go for. My point was that this is because MLC has come pretty far - such that for many consumers it works sufficiently well for their purpose. The number of users who flog a SLC drive hard enough and long enough for it to make sense, even in a server environment, is limited.
35MB write speed, 40GB. 1,143 seconds to write completely. 19 minutes. Research gives a number of write cycles of ~10k. 132 days, about 4 months. I'll note that this is pretty much writing 100% of the time, which should make up for 'write amplification'.
Get the 160GB model and you get 100MB/s over 160GB. 1,600 seconds for an overwrite.
I guess it depends on the duty cycle. A 32GB SLC runs about the same price as a 160GB MLC. Around 5 times the price per gig. If you need the duty cycle, you need the duty cycle. It lists the write performance as the same as a 80GB MLC model. So around 2.5 times the write performance per gig.
So, unless you're somehow flogging it enough to make the wear matter, you actually get MORE performance for the dollar simply by buying a disk or disks five times the size for the same price. Double the write, approximately. The extra space would lead to 5X the wear - taking 4 months to 20 months.
It's not enough to eliminate the call for SLC completely, but it might be enough to marginalize the SLC market enough to make it not worth it for Intel to stay in it.
I know that random writes is a problem - which is why I mentioned things like 'enough cache' and 'right database system' to turn those random writes into sequential ones. It's expensive in terms of storage capacity(your DB will have to be bigger), but if MLC is 'enough' cheaper than SLC, you just buy the additional storage. Plus, with modern MLC and wear-leveling you're looking at years at the drive's maximum write speed to start wearing out the cells. If MLC is around an order of magnitude cheaper than SLC, it's cheaper just to replace the drive more often - especially with prices for a given size dropping all the time.
With the availability of a relatively cheap 40 GB option I can see the start of widespread adoption in the corporate world. In my experience 40 GB is plenty for OS and applications for the vast majority of office drones (myself included), with pretty much all data staying on the server these days.
I see several adoption points - and the biggest one isn't performance related, but when the cheapest SSD that 'works' is cheaper than the equivalent cheapest HD.
What does this mean? When the cheapest available HD costs the manufacturer $20 and the equivalent SSD costs $19. It might be a 500GB HD for $20 and $19 for 40GB, but it'll be cheaper. HDs offer 'enough' performance today, and their vastly cheaper cost per GB still outweighs that SSDs scale 'down' better than HDs. The cheapest HD at the moment for newegg is the 160GB model - $35. $.22 per gig. The cheapest per gig? 2TB for $75. $.04 per gig.
A 40Gig SSD still runs ~$95 and up. It's got to get to around 1/3rd that price. Probably 1/4, because HD price and size isn't staying static either, and demand for size is still rising.
Personally, I think one trick would be integrating the SSD chips directly onto the motherboard for savings that way.
Well, they DO mention that they tripled the sequential write speed, so it could be that the MLC is now competitive, speed wise, with SLC. High-transaction databases are the devil's bane of storage devices as it is, you're probably best going with a high amount of RAM cache - both read and write, if that's what you're doing. Enough cache and the right database system and you can turn random writes into what are effectively sequential writes, improving performance that way.
in that the price per gig needs to hit $1 before you start seeing acceptance for mass storage solutions from consumers.
Hmm... Hard to say, hard to say. Personally, I'm thinking more like $.10 per gig. As you mention, HDs are currently around $.05 per gig. I bought a 60gig SSD a while back, it's just not big enough - it constantly forces me to shift stuff to the HD(I LOVE symbolic links!). I can keep the OS, a few applications, and maybe a couple games on it. Performance improvements, at this point, are almost unnoticable. Personally, I think that a hybrid SSD/HD solution is currently the best idea, at least for the common user. Though I think I'd prefer 8-20 Gigs of flash cache, not 4.
From my understanding, it's mostly a 'crap-shoot' at this point, but there's a distinct possibility that it would indeed be more efficient to do DC to DC. While you can use a plain old transformer to alter the voltage of AC, their sizing and efficiency depends on the frequency of the AC. 50/60HZ AC doesn't lead to very efficient or compact voltage converters, so they often use a switchmode power supply. The trick? The first thing most switchmode powersupplies do is rectify the AC to DC before using a 'chopper' to turn it back into a sort of high frequency AC - often with a frequency in the Mhz. Given that a rectifier circuit might take ~1-2% of the power going over it, DC to DC might indeed be more efficient.
I'd rate his statement as more incomplete than incorrect. No, voltage doesn't dictate necessary wire thickness, but the combination of amps, wire resistance, and heat dissipation/efficiency DOES. Thing is, the easiest way to decrease the required thickness of wire when you have a given wattage requirement for the equipment is to increase the voltage. So, from a layman's standpoint, voltage DOES matter for the required thickness when you're looking at a circuit to power a given piece of equipment, whether it's a metro train or a computer. If you need 12 gauge wire @ 120V for an application, you might only need 14 gauge@240V.
Because then you have to run bus bars around the house to deliver those low voltages efficiently
I know it's nitpicking, but DC doesn't automatically equal 'low voltage'. There's nothing preventing us from running 120VDC lines within a house, and they'd actually be a smidge more efficient than 120VAC lines. Heck, go with the 48VDC telephone standard - plenty of volts for your LCD TV, still capable of carrying enough amps to power most things that like DC. 48VDC@20A = 960watts, after all. A quick check shows even huge plasma screens not breaking 600. Though some 'performance' computers might need more.
Personally, I'd deal with the ISM bands about the same as they are now, except I'd double the amount of spectrum dedicated to them. You have XYZ set of rules to comply with. If you want higher power, fewer rules, you need to buy some spectrum. There's not many rules about you pitching a tent in a park somewhere. They get a lot more complicated if you're looking to build a house.
Claiming that HTML in anyway at all creates consistency of UI is so wrong as to be bizarre.
I think that your taking my point further than I intended it to. To go back to my original point, you don't necessarily want to go with a different protocol because moving away from html costs resources from somewhere. Likely costs include the users, programmers, and designers. This cost increase wouldn't be justified by the extra security allowed by outright tossing of HTTPS, HTML, and web browser, as specified in the original post that I responded to.
You clearly don't understand the difference between HTTP, HTML, and web browsers.
Or maybe I just didn't sufficiently discriminate between them in my original 1 paragraph post. Users experience the application. Designers use HTML(primarily for the web). Programmers deal with the actual HTTP part. There is some crossover, of course. Of course, going back to torrent - right now it's a seperate program, much like 'download accelerators'/assurers*. Integrating it into a web browser would require more programming resources in exchange for lowering the user cost in dealing with a different interface for those downloads. *I use such programs more for their ability to get a complete download, then to speed it up.
Except, of course, that I'm not claiming any magical knowledge. I'm simply pointing out experience - there's a cost to changing systems. Other examples I thought of was gasoline engine vs electric. Same task, different methods. Or even MS Office vs OpenOffice. The interfaces are different, and there's a learning curve. Basically, the commonality of knowledge between HTTP and HTTPS(HTTP over SSL), is such that it lowers development costs and makes the user experience more uniform. Especially if you're banning HTML while you're at it, which means you really need a different application. Take downloading using a torrent vs just downloading from a site - you have an additional application with it's own interface and configuration. Now, yes, right now it happens to be that it's worth it for many people, but it's still an additional cost(options are sometimes worth it though). If it was integrated into the browser via plugin so it 'looks' like it downloads like normal, that'd be even better. Though I'll also note that I'd prefer if web browsers had better resume functions anyways.
don't use HTML or HTTP at all. Use a real protocol, one designed for security, and don't use a web browser.
Web browsers have had a fairly massive amount of development to allow more efficient access of information. You go to using a different app you're looking at losing the user's base of knowledge on how to use the system, the programmer and designer's base of knowledge, etc...
Debit card protection has indeed risen to almost the same level as credit cards here in the USA. Still, until you do those actions the money is still gone from your account, which means you can't pay bills with it. Personally, I tend to put everything on the CC, but I treat it like a debit. Then I reconcile once a month.
I want the "off" button to be as easy to press as possible.
In the case of the reactors, the 'off' button was so easy that the earthquake tripped it, no human intervention necessary. It was designed that way. I like the lid lift button press - you don't want accidental pushes for some thing as important as a nuclear reactor, but it only takes a second more and seconds don't normally count. Where they do, they have automatic processes, not human hands, doing the shutdown.