And gay people want to only hire gay people, black people won't hire white people....
And the people who care about "Money" will hire the best person to make them the most amount of money. You cannot fix irrational people. Eventually they will fail or succeed.
I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed. - Michael Jordan on failure
If you don't try, you still fail. It is the worst kind of failure.
if women were a better value at 72 Cents on the dollar, any business would be foolish to hire men
I am pretty sure my point was clear. Capitalism doesn't care if you're man or woman, gay or straight, black or white, KKK or BLM. It only cares what your value is. It is the ONLY true colorblind system in the world.
You tell me why the birds are hatching early and then starving to death from a lack of insects, in historically unprecedented ways.
I don't have to. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of reasons why, including some very horrible man-made reasons (Monsanto).
And having looked at the dataset, I can conclude that it is incomplete (as shown) because there is no date ranges for each of the data points in the spread graph (fig 1). All it shows is that the heat band (grey box) is the danger zone. They haven't shown increasing temperatures as the cause for the datapoints in that range.
Lastly, I see that the grant was DP0881019 from the Australian Research Council to S.C.G which I could find no independent information on. I would love to look at the grant parameters to see if there was a built in bias that produced the desired outcome. My guess would be that the grant mentioned or otherwise was related to Global Warming (Climate Change), and not discovering the cause of mortality in birds. This would produce biased results (aka leading to the desired outcome).
Looking at median salaries among full-time, year-round employees, the Free Beacon concluded that women working in Clinton’s Senate office were paid 72 cents for each dollar paid to men.
I am sure that you'll be happy to make excuses or quote methodology (as did HuffPo), but when you're UNWILLING to do the same for studies you agree with then that too is Hypocrisy.
The fact is, if women were a better value at 72 Cents on the dollar, any business would be foolish to hire men.
If the bug population changes at all, they will blame "global warming" er... climate change. It doesn't matter what actually happens, they will blame one thing, and one thing only.
And there there is the problem, it creates sloppy science, and lazy record keeping. I am waiting for the Zika virus to be blamed on global warming.
It is actually more simple than that. All they need to do is require the PIN to apply updates to the OS, rather than allowing automatic updates being pushed by Apple (or whomever)
You cannot raise the economic standard of living by taxing everyone into oblivion. Taxes, all of them, are regressive. They are an assault (albeit necessary) on everyone.
But here is the rub, your argument is just pedantic, quibbling over the numbers, rather than the actual problem. At some point, socialism runs out of other peoples money. You can see the very real results in places like Greece. And now, you have Bernie promising another 18 Trillion dollars in "free" stuff (and the taxes needed to fund it). But hey, its "free" (except it isn't).
Actually, it pays more to "not work" in our socialistic economy than it does to work. The unmarried unemployed couple with two children can receive around $75,000 in benefits and credits. Why would anyone want to work?
It was a creative way to use commodity drives as a virtual SAN across physical boxes. The problem is, if a drive goes offline, the systems that depend on it get wonky. no data loss, just goofy not working virtual systems.
Your example of Laptop is interesting, as my #1 reason to go to SSD on a Laptop isn't size, it is battery life. Spinning drives suck juice, and SSD's offer up substantially longer life without needing a plug. I'm talking a couple extra hours. The second greatest benefit is that powering down and back on is much quicker, so that you're more likely to shut a machine off when not in use, saving even more power (than sleep), because boot to desktop is measured in seconds, not minutes.
While there may be applications where you need 3TB of data on a laptop, those applications are few and far between. And in many of those cases, having a boot drive be SSD and external HDD of the size you need might make more sense.
And as more of the FLASH tech improves, and competition and demand increase, (16 TB SSDs due this year) and the problems with spinning drive capacities (theoretical limits), you are going to be flat out wrong on when costs equalize. AND you're not counting the cost to run HDDs in power and cooling as part of the cost of ownership.
Lastly, you're not even considering the cost of actually waiting for spinning drives to deliver the data to the processor. Spinning drives have a best case of around 900 IOPs, while SSDs are masured in the 100,000 IOPs, Now if you don't value your time, that is fine. IMHO there is almost NO reason to have a spinning drive as a primary drive. If you're dickering over a couple hundred dollars, amortized over the life of the system, you're too stupid to realize you're being too cheap.
I don't know anyone that uses tape anymore. Too much data, too much time to backup. We stopped using tape 10 years ago because the backups took longer than the day was long. Are they used still? I am sure someone somewhere still uses tapes, but have you even looked at tape drives these days?
For example, if you're going to be writing to a particular sector over and over and over, SSD wears out. You no doubt will bring up that all the wear evening that SSDs use but remember those only work if the drive isn't near capacity.
For example, your example makes no sense. Wear Leveling does change it so that you CAN'T do what your initial postulation suggested. AND if you're at "near capacity" AND doing that many "writes", might I suggest that you're using the wrong size. EVEN if you were writing video streams, you'd be better off using larger capacity.
Under almost no conditions, short of "archiving" would standard HDDs perform better. And having pulled an archival HDD out of storage to have it NOT function (bearings seized do to not being used) I can assure you that even THAT application has its own problems. My suggestion is to have your data archived on a system that is always on and monitored, rather than "guessing" that it works and finding out that it doesn't.
I've said for a while now, that Spinning Hard Drives are dying breed. This is just another nail in the coffin, as SSD sizes start to surpass traditional HDD. The last remaining bit that HDDs have over SSD is cost per MB. However if you include OTHER costs associated with HDDs (Watts per drive) even those advantages shrink (or go away).
IMHO once these higher density SSD drives arrive, there will be little or nothing for me to recommend standard HDD, for any application. None. There is barely any reason to have spinning drives right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like someone who is scared to failure and therefore doesn't even bother to try.
“I can accept failure, everyone fails at something. But I can't accept not trying.” Michael Jordan
Ask me how I know you're a whiny Liberal?
And gay people want to only hire gay people, black people won't hire white people ....
And the people who care about "Money" will hire the best person to make them the most amount of money. You cannot fix irrational people. Eventually they will fail or succeed.
I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed. - Michael Jordan on failure
If you don't try, you still fail. It is the worst kind of failure.
war on drugs, we have more drugs.
war on terrorists, we have more terrorist
war on poverty, we have more poverty
You are suggesting war on carbon will reduce carbon?
"Ignore the facts" meaning "healthy skepticism".
Like when the CRU at UEA was caught manipulating the numbers (and then conveniently "lost" them) ? Those facts?
or the fact that the Polar Cap has more ice now than it should given Global Warming? (should be gone according to Al Gore!) Those facts?
Or the "starving polar bear" facts ?
Or any of the other 97.4% of the predictions gone wrong. Those facts?
http://www.westernjournalism.c...
especially "earthquakes" and the spin of the earth.
And your point would be?
if women were a better value at 72 Cents on the dollar, any business would be foolish to hire men
I am pretty sure my point was clear. Capitalism doesn't care if you're man or woman, gay or straight, black or white, KKK or BLM. It only cares what your value is. It is the ONLY true colorblind system in the world.
You tell me why the birds are hatching early and then starving to death from a lack of insects, in historically unprecedented ways.
I don't have to. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of reasons why, including some very horrible man-made reasons (Monsanto).
And having looked at the dataset, I can conclude that it is incomplete (as shown) because there is no date ranges for each of the data points in the spread graph (fig 1). All it shows is that the heat band (grey box) is the danger zone. They haven't shown increasing temperatures as the cause for the datapoints in that range.
Lastly, I see that the grant was DP0881019 from the Australian Research Council to S.C.G which I could find no independent information on. I would love to look at the grant parameters to see if there was a built in bias that produced the desired outcome. My guess would be that the grant mentioned or otherwise was related to Global Warming (Climate Change), and not discovering the cause of mortality in birds. This would produce biased results (aka leading to the desired outcome).
But what do I know about science?
Hillary pays her male staff more than her female staff. Or does hypocrisy count?
From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Looking at median salaries among full-time, year-round employees, the Free Beacon concluded that women working in Clinton’s Senate office were paid 72 cents for each dollar paid to men.
I am sure that you'll be happy to make excuses or quote methodology (as did HuffPo), but when you're UNWILLING to do the same for studies you agree with then that too is Hypocrisy.
The fact is, if women were a better value at 72 Cents on the dollar, any business would be foolish to hire men.
If the bug population changes at all, they will blame "global warming" er... climate change. It doesn't matter what actually happens, they will blame one thing, and one thing only.
And there there is the problem, it creates sloppy science, and lazy record keeping. I am waiting for the Zika virus to be blamed on global warming.
It is actually more simple than that. All they need to do is require the PIN to apply updates to the OS, rather than allowing automatic updates being pushed by Apple (or whomever)
You cannot raise the economic standard of living by taxing everyone into oblivion. Taxes, all of them, are regressive. They are an assault (albeit necessary) on everyone.
why hit a "drum" when you can simply program a computer and fully synthesize it?
http://www.rncmall.com/2015/04...
Granted it is an RNC piece.
But here is the rub, your argument is just pedantic, quibbling over the numbers, rather than the actual problem. At some point, socialism runs out of other peoples money. You can see the very real results in places like Greece. And now, you have Bernie promising another 18 Trillion dollars in "free" stuff (and the taxes needed to fund it). But hey, its "free" (except it isn't).
Actually, it pays more to "not work" in our socialistic economy than it does to work. The unmarried unemployed couple with two children can receive around $75,000 in benefits and credits. Why would anyone want to work?
Envy is such an ugly color on you.
When Tax rates (combined all government taxes/fees) exceeds 50%, I would suggest to you that we have indentured servitude. Just saying
It was a creative way to use commodity drives as a virtual SAN across physical boxes. The problem is, if a drive goes offline, the systems that depend on it get wonky. no data loss, just goofy not working virtual systems.
Our view is that vSAN is "beta" quality. If we could get our money back, we would. What a waste.
How about David Koresh
I'm sorry, it was the FBI that kill the women and children. Blame the government for over reacting.
Your example of Laptop is interesting, as my #1 reason to go to SSD on a Laptop isn't size, it is battery life. Spinning drives suck juice, and SSD's offer up substantially longer life without needing a plug. I'm talking a couple extra hours. The second greatest benefit is that powering down and back on is much quicker, so that you're more likely to shut a machine off when not in use, saving even more power (than sleep), because boot to desktop is measured in seconds, not minutes.
While there may be applications where you need 3TB of data on a laptop, those applications are few and far between. And in many of those cases, having a boot drive be SSD and external HDD of the size you need might make more sense.
And as more of the FLASH tech improves, and competition and demand increase, (16 TB SSDs due this year) and the problems with spinning drive capacities (theoretical limits), you are going to be flat out wrong on when costs equalize. AND you're not counting the cost to run HDDs in power and cooling as part of the cost of ownership.
Lastly, you're not even considering the cost of actually waiting for spinning drives to deliver the data to the processor. Spinning drives have a best case of around 900 IOPs, while SSDs are masured in the 100,000 IOPs, Now if you don't value your time, that is fine. IMHO there is almost NO reason to have a spinning drive as a primary drive. If you're dickering over a couple hundred dollars, amortized over the life of the system, you're too stupid to realize you're being too cheap.
I don't know anyone that uses tape anymore. Too much data, too much time to backup. We stopped using tape 10 years ago because the backups took longer than the day was long. Are they used still? I am sure someone somewhere still uses tapes, but have you even looked at tape drives these days?
For example, if you're going to be writing to a particular sector over and over and over, SSD wears out. You no doubt will bring up that all the wear evening that SSDs use but remember those only work if the drive isn't near capacity.
For example, your example makes no sense. Wear Leveling does change it so that you CAN'T do what your initial postulation suggested. AND if you're at "near capacity" AND doing that many "writes", might I suggest that you're using the wrong size. EVEN if you were writing video streams, you'd be better off using larger capacity.
Under almost no conditions, short of "archiving" would standard HDDs perform better. And having pulled an archival HDD out of storage to have it NOT function (bearings seized do to not being used) I can assure you that even THAT application has its own problems. My suggestion is to have your data archived on a system that is always on and monitored, rather than "guessing" that it works and finding out that it doesn't.
I've said for a while now, that Spinning Hard Drives are dying breed. This is just another nail in the coffin, as SSD sizes start to surpass traditional HDD. The last remaining bit that HDDs have over SSD is cost per MB. However if you include OTHER costs associated with HDDs (Watts per drive) even those advantages shrink (or go away).
IMHO once these higher density SSD drives arrive, there will be little or nothing for me to recommend standard HDD, for any application. None. There is barely any reason to have spinning drives right now.