There is storage, and then there is storage. 6TB drives are nice and all, and good for things like Pictures and Movies, where you don't need access speed. The moment you have databases, which need things like IOPS then size doesn't matter nearly as much. When you see the difference in IOPS between Spindle Drives and SSDs, you'll start to realize there is more to storage than size.
Your high end 15K spindle drive can do about 150 IOPS The only way to increase this is to go to RAID. A good High End Spindle RAID can do about 10,000 IOPS, or perhaps a little more.
On the other hand, the Samsung 3.2 TB Drive claims to do 750,000 IOPS, or 75 times more. So, while you can get all sorts of storage using RAID and Spindle drives, the money spent for IOPS is better spent getting SDD and RAM (yes) drives. Hard Drives are the new "Tape Backup System".
Western cultures are already doing this. Birth rates in many post industrial societies have stopped and is declining. It is having issues on on the entitlement programs that depend upon Ponzi like systems like Social Security.
The problem is countries like Mexico where large families are still social norms.
Pumping carbons isn't more dangerous. It is more dangerous to only animals. Plants love the stuff. You know, plants that took CO2 and sequestered it when there was a massive cooling period. The Earth used to be much much warmer than today and plants loved it.
I have a great attention span, and have a great memory to go along with it.
Here is a short list of "problems" I have with "global warming" zealots.
1) Every big natural disaster is met with "Global Warming" cries, yet when lulls occur (like hurricanes), nothing. Or worse, when it is very very cold, they cry "It is climate, not weather, know the difference".
2) CO2 is a miniscule amount of greenhouse gasses. Water Vapor is much much larger. Go ahead, and explain why we can swing between 1 and 4% average H2O without much effect, but small percentages of CO2 are disasterous!
because slow warming is a small problem, over centuries (when we have no idea what the tech landscape will be in 50 years much less 300.)
The problem is, we can't even prove global warming even a little bit. And that is not exactly what the Global Warming Alarmists were telling us a few years ago about how bad it was going to get very quickly (no ice in the arctic, super hurricanes, polar bears drowning)... ALL of which didn't happen, but didn't happen spectacularly.
How come Al Gore doesn't get labeled "Global Warming Left Wing Nut" by the same people calling people like me "Right Wing Nut"? Oh, because it is bad for business?
Look, I all for conservation and leaving small footprints, but you can't do that with almost 7 billion people to feed. The only way nature is going to survive is to kill us all off by our stupidity.
No, I meant rights. Governments were formed to protect rights. And you're correct, rights are immutable. But they can be stolen and abrogated in the name of the group, which is what the (D) and (R) parties are fighting over, which rights should we give up in the name of security, children, old people....
He said "Draft" is gone, you changed it to "Selective Service" which is simply a prerequisite of a Draft. Convenient distinction. There has been no draft since 1973, at the end of the Vietnam war. Suffice it to say, that we have had two full generations of draftable people never see a draft. It is effectively gone.
We don't need a Constitutional Amendment to stop the draft, we already have stopped the draft. A constitutional amendment would only make it harder to reinstate (via another Amendment). And since we are talking about likelihoods and possibilities, and haven't ever reached the point of 0% you are just trying to make an impossible point out of ignorance.
Interestingly, its Richard Nixon that campaigned on ending the draft and the Selective Service, and Carter that re-instituted the Selective Service in 1980. I know, I was alive back then, and someone under the age of 20 probably has no clue about. Liberals have indoctrinated young people so much they thing Democrats are champions of Civil Rights (while they opposed civil rights movement in the 60s) and opposition to the draft.
With age, comes wisdom that youth and exuberance is in need of. So, no, children cannot teach adults anything useful in general. A child may be wise, but adults tend to be wiser than children.
And paternity leave and maternity leave are two separate words, describing the same or similar period of time after the birth on one's child. Of course, if you count days missed comparison of maternity and paternity leave, you might find that women take more time off when kids are born (maternity leave) and men take less time off (paternity).
You make a lot of left wing assumptions, like "Rational Choices" are efficient, you know, centralized planning. Communism doesn't work, not because it isn't rational, it is because it makes sense... on paper. Or to put it the way my dad used to say it, "In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they are not".
Or, to put it yet another way, in many types of jobs, to do a "work slowdown" all one has to do is go "by the book". Meaning that you do everything, exactly as prescribed by the rational people making the rules. This simply means that you're not as efficient as when you don't really follow all the rules.
Rational rules don't always work as expected. Yes, the market seams irrational, and often times isn't efficient. However, free markets tends towards efficiency and that in and of itself is a rational choice.
No, that is not what he said. That is how you twisted what he said, which only shows that some adults act more like kids who haven't learned anything.
For instance, What Adults Can Learn From Kids is a null point of view. ALL adults have been kids, so... kids offer nothing new to adults. We can be reminded of what we already know, but that isn't really "learning".
The concept of using kids to question Adults is a tactic used by people with an agenda of control. You see, it is easy to manipulate the young minds, and if you tell them something is so, they will believe it, and if you can convince adults that kids know more than they do, you can control the world. This doesn't mean kids cannot contribute. It also doesn't mean kids are less intelligent than adults. In fact, i know some kids who are smarter than many adults. Which says more about the adults than it does the kids.
That's Because the Rich White Men have given all the STEM jobs to people from India using H1B Visas working for half the salary US Citizens would expect. Please note, (R) and (D) are in on this almost equally.
How about voting for people who understand that rights are something governments were formed to protect, not steal? When you have (R) and (D) fighting over which rights to steal, and most people ignorant that they both are stealing our rights, at the same time. And then you have people who say they vote (D) or (R) because the other steals more rights, while ignoring the rights that their side is stealing...
Take for example the whole Amnesty thing Obama is going to do tonight. What I have not heard from either (D) or (R) is the fact that we have people who don't want to be Americans, coming to America, being given rights of Americans, to the detriment of all Americans.
Who I really feel sorry for are the Black Americans who will end up worse off because of this. They are Americans and deserve better from the people they keep electing to office. But rich white Americans who can hire cheap labor love this Amnesty crap. This is why you have an odd mix of Rich Republicans and Rich Democrats supporting this, while most Americans, including Black Americans, both (D) and (R) are opposed.
But Obama and those supporting him will continue to lie ("American People are Stupid" - Gruber) to get things passed that no informed American would vote for. But please, make this about (D) vs (R)
You can't think of ANY reason why women might cost a business more than a man. Not one? And you call me a dumbass.
How about Maternity Leave? How about "sick days" every month? How about "mommy days" when kids are sick? How about discrimination lawsuits (real or imagined)?
These things exist. They cost money. They cost productivity. They lower efficiency. If these things didn't exist, a business would be foolish to NOT hire women, since they cost less than men on salary alone. But salary is only part of the human costs associated with employees.
Its the world where people want to be treated the same for acting differently it is a problem. Superficial political correctness is lame, but too many people are beholden to it to actually change how we deal with REAL discrimination.
businesses would place a sign in their window stating "Irish/Jews need not apply."
The thing of it is, businesses still do this, they just don't advertise it. Guess what, it didn't make it any better. I would rather they did advertise it, so that I could enjoy not using them, and picking someone else. I don't drink Starbucks because the CEO is a Politically Correct Douche, and advertises it openly.
If Women make less money than men, then businesses should hire the women first, since it would lower costs.
The problem is, it might be more expensive to hire women, because of other reasons. But we dare not speak of those other reasons, for political correctness reasons.
Major Hurricane. The point. If hurricanes make landfall aren't of the type being hyped by global warming alarmists, in such a lull that is historic in nature, the claims are simply falsified. While you can be pendantic about verbiage and argue technicalities, those things do no support the thesis that "Global Warming is going to cause more and more severe hurricanes". Neither has actually happened.
We've lost the country the moment we gave government the power over the people, rather than making sure the people always had the power over government. The only thing that will fix this is another bloody revolution. But the government gives enough free bread and circuses to keep the people distracted and satiated in their slavery.
Tonight's Imperial Action is just another circus, designed to undermine Citizens rights while distracting people using the word "reform". Who can be against "reform"???
Couple thoughts... first that people need to quit blaming police for asset forfeiture, and start blaming the people who elect politicians that passed the stupid laws - and the only ones that can revoke them.
If it's a true statement to say that climate change and higher temperatures in general will cause more powerful hurricanes, does that necessarily mean that every year there will be a large number of very powerful hurricanes?
Okay, you may be right. But they also said increased number of and more powerful hurricanes. The problem is, scientifically speaking (facts) we actually don't know anything due to a historically long period without a hurricane making landfall. We're going on 10 years without a major hurricane making landfall.
Hard to tell if they are more powerful if they don't show up, don't you think? The problem is that they made predictions that are completely falsified at this point. How can anyone believe anything they say will happen moving forward? I don't believe they know anything other than CO2 is increasing.
I don't deny "climate results" because those be facts. Projections into the future, presented as "factual" are not actual facts, they are beliefs built upon "scientific" Estimations and models that have so far completely failed in every definitively stated way possible. Yet you still believe them to be accurate and factual, using appeal to authority as your logical reason. FYI, Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
You have ONE stated scientific fact in your response to me, about CO2 increases. What you don't do is explain how CO2 is not the ONLY green house gas and is a very small part of all greenhouse gases in the Atmosphere.The reason why CO2 doesn't have the effect that most people are led to believe (there's that word again) is because it the very small changes to the very small amount of CO2 cannot have the effect that people like Al Gore want to claim. It is simply not possible. Variance in Water Vapor is much higher and in higher quantities and effects than CO2, and that is why I do not, cannot believe CO2 is having the effect that Al Gore suggested.
There are naysayers that aren't technically illiterate. There are plenty of people who aren't buying the hype, they just aren't funded by the global elitists who think people are stupid and need to be lied to... for their own good of course.
Or as I say, Piltdown man was once consensus proof of Evolution.
You believe in Global Warming? What evidence have YOU personally seen to support Global Warming?
My guess, is that you don't believe in Global Warming at all, you believe what people have told you about global warming. For instance, can you explain why the polar caps grew last year (both of them) during "global warming" (or Climate Change)? Or Hurricanes lull in the Atlantic when the Global Warming Alarmists (like yourself) were spouting (especially after Sandy) all about how awful Global Warming was causing these horrible hurricanes? If you cannot explain it, without looking up Wikipedia or IPCC reports or whatever, you believe, without knowing.
And as a belief, it is something that has yet to be actually proven "beyond reasonable doubt". I have doubts, serious doubts, mainly because all the horrible predictions made by all the popular spokespeople have not come true. The polar caps, the hurricanes, the extreme HOT weather just hasn't occurred the way "science" predicted it would.
But go ahead, keep laughing at people who believe what others say, because you're in the same exact group. You're just too arrogant to realize it.
1) Indeed. And was a result of industrious people who were rewarded for their hard work and ingenuity. The Elite Ruling Class is opposed, and therefore regulates commerce to the point of killing the middle class, in the name of "social order" and "group rights" of course.
2) "Our Society" doesn't do any such thing. The ruling class does so only to gain economic control from those it rules. But then again, we are "too stupid" to know what is in our best interests, so we must all those smart MIT professor types to tell us what to think. Right?
3) Living in a society where the government takes under threat of government guns, also has its costs. But you seem willing to accept tyranny in the name of social justice. Government is taking opportunities every time it regulates something, and most regulations do not solve the issues they claim.
4) Nobody ever talks about the liberty lost in such systems. Trading Liberty for comfort is a fool's errand.
5) Work is not a burden. A burden is someone who can work, but chooses not to and imposes his lag on society, whose burden it becomes. People proposing such a system have NO IDEA what the consequences are, or how great or disastrous it will be. None. I don't, and I think I'm a fairly bright guy. What I do know, is the unintended consequences (unforeseen) will not be "good" for society, and yet the same people who propose these kinds of things will be called upon to "fix" them.
Slashdot Mirror
There is storage, and then there is storage. 6TB drives are nice and all, and good for things like Pictures and Movies, where you don't need access speed. The moment you have databases, which need things like IOPS then size doesn't matter nearly as much. When you see the difference in IOPS between Spindle Drives and SSDs, you'll start to realize there is more to storage than size.
Your high end 15K spindle drive can do about 150 IOPS The only way to increase this is to go to RAID. A good High End Spindle RAID can do about 10,000 IOPS, or perhaps a little more.
On the other hand, the Samsung 3.2 TB Drive claims to do 750,000 IOPS, or 75 times more. So, while you can get all sorts of storage using RAID and Spindle drives, the money spent for IOPS is better spent getting SDD and RAM (yes) drives. Hard Drives are the new "Tape Backup System".
Western cultures are already doing this. Birth rates in many post industrial societies have stopped and is declining. It is having issues on on the entitlement programs that depend upon Ponzi like systems like Social Security.
The problem is countries like Mexico where large families are still social norms.
Pumping carbons isn't more dangerous. It is more dangerous to only animals. Plants love the stuff. You know, plants that took CO2 and sequestered it when there was a massive cooling period. The Earth used to be much much warmer than today and plants loved it.
Nuclear is dangerous to every living thing.
All that means is that we haven't had an opportunity to use one.
Not having one, and not needing one are two different things.
Unless we've fully banned the very concept of a draft, we could still have one.
You cannot ban an idea. Nice try though.
adults tend to be wiser than children.
Actually, that's not necessarily true.
You're right, some children have better comprehension skills than some adults
http://www.thenewamerican.com/...
I have a great attention span, and have a great memory to go along with it.
Here is a short list of "problems" I have with "global warming" zealots.
1) Every big natural disaster is met with "Global Warming" cries, yet when lulls occur (like hurricanes), nothing. Or worse, when it is very very cold, they cry "It is climate, not weather, know the difference".
2) CO2 is a miniscule amount of greenhouse gasses. Water Vapor is much much larger. Go ahead, and explain why we can swing between 1 and 4% average H2O without much effect, but small percentages of CO2 are disasterous!
because slow warming is a small problem, over centuries (when we have no idea what the tech landscape will be in 50 years much less 300.)
The problem is, we can't even prove global warming even a little bit. And that is not exactly what the Global Warming Alarmists were telling us a few years ago about how bad it was going to get very quickly (no ice in the arctic, super hurricanes, polar bears drowning) ... ALL of which didn't happen, but didn't happen spectacularly.
How come Al Gore doesn't get labeled "Global Warming Left Wing Nut" by the same people calling people like me "Right Wing Nut"? Oh, because it is bad for business?
Look, I all for conservation and leaving small footprints, but you can't do that with almost 7 billion people to feed. The only way nature is going to survive is to kill us all off by our stupidity.
No, I meant rights. Governments were formed to protect rights. And you're correct, rights are immutable. But they can be stolen and abrogated in the name of the group, which is what the (D) and (R) parties are fighting over, which rights should we give up in the name of security, children, old people ....
He said "Draft" is gone, you changed it to "Selective Service" which is simply a prerequisite of a Draft. Convenient distinction. There has been no draft since 1973, at the end of the Vietnam war. Suffice it to say, that we have had two full generations of draftable people never see a draft. It is effectively gone.
We don't need a Constitutional Amendment to stop the draft, we already have stopped the draft. A constitutional amendment would only make it harder to reinstate (via another Amendment). And since we are talking about likelihoods and possibilities, and haven't ever reached the point of 0% you are just trying to make an impossible point out of ignorance.
Interestingly, its Richard Nixon that campaigned on ending the draft and the Selective Service, and Carter that re-instituted the Selective Service in 1980. I know, I was alive back then, and someone under the age of 20 probably has no clue about. Liberals have indoctrinated young people so much they thing Democrats are champions of Civil Rights (while they opposed civil rights movement in the 60s) and opposition to the draft.
With age, comes wisdom that youth and exuberance is in need of. So, no, children cannot teach adults anything useful in general. A child may be wise, but adults tend to be wiser than children.
And paternity leave and maternity leave are two separate words, describing the same or similar period of time after the birth on one's child. Of course, if you count days missed comparison of maternity and paternity leave, you might find that women take more time off when kids are born (maternity leave) and men take less time off (paternity).
You make a lot of left wing assumptions, like "Rational Choices" are efficient, you know, centralized planning. Communism doesn't work, not because it isn't rational, it is because it makes sense ... on paper. Or to put it the way my dad used to say it, "In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they are not".
Or, to put it yet another way, in many types of jobs, to do a "work slowdown" all one has to do is go "by the book". Meaning that you do everything, exactly as prescribed by the rational people making the rules. This simply means that you're not as efficient as when you don't really follow all the rules.
Rational rules don't always work as expected. Yes, the market seams irrational, and often times isn't efficient. However, free markets tends towards efficiency and that in and of itself is a rational choice.
No, that is not what he said. That is how you twisted what he said, which only shows that some adults act more like kids who haven't learned anything.
For instance, What Adults Can Learn From Kids is a null point of view. ALL adults have been kids, so ... kids offer nothing new to adults. We can be reminded of what we already know, but that isn't really "learning".
The concept of using kids to question Adults is a tactic used by people with an agenda of control. You see, it is easy to manipulate the young minds, and if you tell them something is so, they will believe it, and if you can convince adults that kids know more than they do, you can control the world. This doesn't mean kids cannot contribute. It also doesn't mean kids are less intelligent than adults. In fact, i know some kids who are smarter than many adults. Which says more about the adults than it does the kids.
That's Because the Rich White Men have given all the STEM jobs to people from India using H1B Visas working for half the salary US Citizens would expect. Please note, (R) and (D) are in on this almost equally.
How about voting for people who understand that rights are something governments were formed to protect, not steal? When you have (R) and (D) fighting over which rights to steal, and most people ignorant that they both are stealing our rights, at the same time. And then you have people who say they vote (D) or (R) because the other steals more rights, while ignoring the rights that their side is stealing ...
Take for example the whole Amnesty thing Obama is going to do tonight. What I have not heard from either (D) or (R) is the fact that we have people who don't want to be Americans, coming to America, being given rights of Americans, to the detriment of all Americans.
Who I really feel sorry for are the Black Americans who will end up worse off because of this. They are Americans and deserve better from the people they keep electing to office. But rich white Americans who can hire cheap labor love this Amnesty crap. This is why you have an odd mix of Rich Republicans and Rich Democrats supporting this, while most Americans, including Black Americans, both (D) and (R) are opposed.
But Obama and those supporting him will continue to lie ("American People are Stupid" - Gruber) to get things passed that no informed American would vote for. But please, make this about (D) vs (R)
You can't think of ANY reason why women might cost a business more than a man. Not one? And you call me a dumbass.
How about Maternity Leave?
How about "sick days" every month?
How about "mommy days" when kids are sick?
How about discrimination lawsuits (real or imagined)?
These things exist. They cost money. They cost productivity. They lower efficiency. If these things didn't exist, a business would be foolish to NOT hire women, since they cost less than men on salary alone. But salary is only part of the human costs associated with employees.
Its the world where people want to be treated the same for acting differently it is a problem. Superficial political correctness is lame, but too many people are beholden to it to actually change how we deal with REAL discrimination.
businesses would place a sign in their window stating "Irish/Jews need not apply."
The thing of it is, businesses still do this, they just don't advertise it. Guess what, it didn't make it any better. I would rather they did advertise it, so that I could enjoy not using them, and picking someone else. I don't drink Starbucks because the CEO is a Politically Correct Douche, and advertises it openly.
If Women make less money than men, then businesses should hire the women first, since it would lower costs.
The problem is, it might be more expensive to hire women, because of other reasons. But we dare not speak of those other reasons, for political correctness reasons.
Major Hurricane. The point. If hurricanes make landfall aren't of the type being hyped by global warming alarmists, in such a lull that is historic in nature, the claims are simply falsified. While you can be pendantic about verbiage and argue technicalities, those things do no support the thesis that "Global Warming is going to cause more and more severe hurricanes". Neither has actually happened.
We've lost the country the moment we gave government the power over the people, rather than making sure the people always had the power over government. The only thing that will fix this is another bloody revolution. But the government gives enough free bread and circuses to keep the people distracted and satiated in their slavery.
Tonight's Imperial Action is just another circus, designed to undermine Citizens rights while distracting people using the word "reform". Who can be against "reform"???
Couple thoughts... first that people need to quit blaming police for asset forfeiture, and start blaming the people who elect politicians that passed the stupid laws - and the only ones that can revoke them.
TL;DNR
However, I'll just pick one point.
If it's a true statement to say that climate change and higher temperatures in general will cause more powerful hurricanes, does that necessarily mean that every year there will be a large number of very powerful hurricanes?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetw...
Okay, you may be right. But they also said increased number of and more powerful hurricanes. The problem is, scientifically speaking (facts) we actually don't know anything due to a historically long period without a hurricane making landfall. We're going on 10 years without a major hurricane making landfall.
Hard to tell if they are more powerful if they don't show up, don't you think? The problem is that they made predictions that are completely falsified at this point. How can anyone believe anything they say will happen moving forward? I don't believe they know anything other than CO2 is increasing.
I don't deny "climate results" because those be facts. Projections into the future, presented as "factual" are not actual facts, they are beliefs built upon "scientific" Estimations and models that have so far completely failed in every definitively stated way possible. Yet you still believe them to be accurate and factual, using appeal to authority as your logical reason. FYI, Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
You have ONE stated scientific fact in your response to me, about CO2 increases. What you don't do is explain how CO2 is not the ONLY green house gas and is a very small part of all greenhouse gases in the Atmosphere.The reason why CO2 doesn't have the effect that most people are led to believe (there's that word again) is because it the very small changes to the very small amount of CO2 cannot have the effect that people like Al Gore want to claim. It is simply not possible. Variance in Water Vapor is much higher and in higher quantities and effects than CO2, and that is why I do not, cannot believe CO2 is having the effect that Al Gore suggested.
There are naysayers that aren't technically illiterate. There are plenty of people who aren't buying the hype, they just aren't funded by the global elitists who think people are stupid and need to be lied to ... for their own good of course.
Or as I say, Piltdown man was once consensus proof of Evolution.
You believe in Global Warming? What evidence have YOU personally seen to support Global Warming?
My guess, is that you don't believe in Global Warming at all, you believe what people have told you about global warming. For instance, can you explain why the polar caps grew last year (both of them) during "global warming" (or Climate Change)? Or Hurricanes lull in the Atlantic when the Global Warming Alarmists (like yourself) were spouting (especially after Sandy) all about how awful Global Warming was causing these horrible hurricanes? If you cannot explain it, without looking up Wikipedia or IPCC reports or whatever, you believe, without knowing.
And as a belief, it is something that has yet to be actually proven "beyond reasonable doubt". I have doubts, serious doubts, mainly because all the horrible predictions made by all the popular spokespeople have not come true. The polar caps, the hurricanes, the extreme HOT weather just hasn't occurred the way "science" predicted it would.
But go ahead, keep laughing at people who believe what others say, because you're in the same exact group. You're just too arrogant to realize it.
Worked for Microsoft!
Broken clock???? ROFL
1) Indeed. And was a result of industrious people who were rewarded for their hard work and ingenuity. The Elite Ruling Class is opposed, and therefore regulates commerce to the point of killing the middle class, in the name of "social order" and "group rights" of course.
2) "Our Society" doesn't do any such thing. The ruling class does so only to gain economic control from those it rules. But then again, we are "too stupid" to know what is in our best interests, so we must all those smart MIT professor types to tell us what to think. Right?
3) Living in a society where the government takes under threat of government guns, also has its costs. But you seem willing to accept tyranny in the name of social justice. Government is taking opportunities every time it regulates something, and most regulations do not solve the issues they claim.
4) Nobody ever talks about the liberty lost in such systems. Trading Liberty for comfort is a fool's errand.
5) Work is not a burden. A burden is someone who can work, but chooses not to and imposes his lag on society, whose burden it becomes. People proposing such a system have NO IDEA what the consequences are, or how great or disastrous it will be. None. I don't, and I think I'm a fairly bright guy. What I do know, is the unintended consequences (unforeseen) will not be "good" for society, and yet the same people who propose these kinds of things will be called upon to "fix" them.