Simply: IOS is locked in. It has it's disadvantages, but also it's advantages. Presumably all software submitted is tested. It would be more difficult to get a virus through that. The disadvantages are discussed here enough.
It's harder to delete the files, but also harder to read them after "deletion". You can't easily remove the bits with a secure erase but since wear leveling scrambles the files into a lot of blocks you can't easily read them either. Unless you can convince the controller to hand over the data (and assuming it actually knows where the data is at) you are going to get a lot of blocks that could assemble into a file, but you don't know how they fit. Something like a sandcastle after a high tide. All the parts are there, but they are to small to use them to determine where they belonged and they don't give a clue of themselves. Only with an image of the castle you could recreate it, but then you wouldn't have to. Back to bits! The blocks are all there, but you have no clue as to in what order they should go. You could only set them back with a "map" of where they should be, but that's in the controller, or with the original file (which makes the operation kind of useless). Please correct me if I am wrong.
IANAEOTS (Expert On The Subject), but if the SSD doesn't know which sectors can be purged then how does it decide what sectors can be overwritten when the drive is full? Assume you have a 40 GB SSD. Write 60 1GB files to it, deleting each directly after it's creation. How is it going to know where to put the 41th file when it doesn't know which sectors can be purged? I presume the OS tells it "delete this file / unlink this file" and it can mark those sectors as "Can be purged". When it has time to spare it could start purging the sectors. Whether or not it does is an entirely different matter, but I think it has the required information. Assuming I am wrong: please enlighten me.
People keep reading my "something in between your HDD and your memory" as cache. It's not what I meant. I meant it is a separate device, not a cache for the disk. It should contain the OS and some software (as you do it). Caching is a less-than-perfect option, if you have the option to use the SSD for low-latency things directly.
No. I am talking about splitting the stuff we put on the harddisk now manually. Not as a cache, but the only version of the OS and the most important software. Having said that: Yes, I do think cache is a good use of SSD's. Just not the best use imaginable.
The SATA speed is 6Gb/s. The disk speed is 500MB/s. You can write to the disk itself at "only" 500MB/s. Since SATA doesn't have that exact speed they chose the next best thing: the 6Gb/s (=768 MB/s) SATA connection.
It depends: You could use a Raid 5/6 NAS and have high disk speeds again. Something like this. The max speed of a thunderbolt connection is 800MB/s so, assuming they are WD black 2TB 3GB/s drives, you can get an average of 109*5 (raid 5 with 6 disks) = 545 MB/s (host to disk speeds. Host to buffer doesn't matter). That's, effectively, 5 disks to go slightly over their read speed. Then again, you'd get 10 TB (=9.09 TiB) on the external enclosure, while the biggest of these will be 250 GB.
IMHO SSD's should be used as "something in between your HDD and your memory". As long as it's big enough to contain the OS of your choice and all the programs it's big enough. Your MP3's and movies do not require the high throughput. In a desktop this means there should be 2 disks: an ssd for speed and a hdd for capacity. In a laptop there should be an SSD on the mini-PCI-e and an HDD on sata OR, if you must (for space reasons), an SSD on the mobo and an HDD on sata.
This would optimize both capacity and speed, while keeping costs (relatively) down. The cost of an SSD is paid back by the speed, not the capacity. What I find strange is that shops list SSD's by EUR/GB instead of EUR * s/MB. The speed is the defining attribute, not the capacity.
Modern CFLs flicker at about 40 Khz. If you can see that you will go insane over a TV, cause they max out at below 1 KHz (and that's even if you believe the marketing claims. Truth is more like 200 Hz.). I believe you have a perception that is distorted with expectancy (as we all do). You may want to correct that.
In my bathroom I use a 2 watt LED light. It switches on FASTER than an incandescent light. (disclaimer: I know. It probably uses more than the 2 watts that were advertised on the wrapping. More like 5 watts. But it replaces a 30 watts incandescent).
I have been using CFL's for years. I practically grew up with them (I'm 27 with a very bad memory). Incandescent light looks a bit weird to me. Give me the sun or a CFL any time.
I use incandescent bulbs in only a few places. My beer incubator is one of them. The light is an unwanted by-product there, the real useful energy is heat.
While your point is entirely valid, the assumption that I had such a moronically simple view of things isn't. The fact that there is no price competition in blue rays doesn't mean there should be competition. The fact that I am currently not shot in the head doesn't mean I should be (there are other arguments for that, but that's beside the point). If there were price competition the cheap copy selling companies would out-compete the studio's that produce, because the main cost isn't in the producing of the disks. I meant, simply, that the blue-rays would not get cheaper, while my ISP's main selling point is it's price/speed performance and thus their price would lower in order to get more customers.
and the prices for the DVD/BlueRay movies lowering (as they - not actually being some greedy bloody b/tards but only innocent victims of piracy - will be getting now enough profit from the same title). Right?... C'mon, isn't it so?!
Damn, that's a good one! My ISP may lower prices due to another source of income (since price is a major selling point). However, there is no competition in the price of blu-rays.
While most of your items are true, we also have Geert Wilders. The appearance of that fucker is bad enough to compensate for a lot on your list and I hope we are smart enough to prevent him from getting power in the same way and extent Hitler did. My hope is slim, since people are stupid.
If the summary had pointed us to the correct website the few who read the article itself would have seen the lofar isn't simply in the UK. The LOFAR is to big for that. There is one substation in the UK, most are in the Netherlands (since the center is there), some are in Germany, one in France and one in Sweden. These substations are assembled in a giant phased array by means of a supercomputer. This array can look at multiple parts of the sky at the same time while having a great resolution in low frequencies.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn, just spend my modpoints. That is genius!
Simply: IOS is locked in. It has it's disadvantages, but also it's advantages. Presumably all software submitted is tested. It would be more difficult to get a virus through that.
The disadvantages are discussed here enough.
Wouldn't disassembling it and scanning it with an electron microscope set all bits to 0?
It's harder to delete the files, but also harder to read them after "deletion".
You can't easily remove the bits with a secure erase but since wear leveling scrambles the files into a lot of blocks you can't easily read them either. Unless you can convince the controller to hand over the data (and assuming it actually knows where the data is at) you are going to get a lot of blocks that could assemble into a file, but you don't know how they fit.
Something like a sandcastle after a high tide. All the parts are there, but they are to small to use them to determine where they belonged and they don't give a clue of themselves. Only with an image of the castle you could recreate it, but then you wouldn't have to.
Back to bits! The blocks are all there, but you have no clue as to in what order they should go. You could only set them back with a "map" of where they should be, but that's in the controller, or with the original file (which makes the operation kind of useless).
Please correct me if I am wrong.
IANAEOTS (Expert On The Subject), but if the SSD doesn't know which sectors can be purged then how does it decide what sectors can be overwritten when the drive is full?
Assume you have a 40 GB SSD. Write 60 1GB files to it, deleting each directly after it's creation. How is it going to know where to put the 41th file when it doesn't know which sectors can be purged?
I presume the OS tells it "delete this file / unlink this file" and it can mark those sectors as "Can be purged". When it has time to spare it could start purging the sectors. Whether or not it does is an entirely different matter, but I think it has the required information.
Assuming I am wrong: please enlighten me.
People keep reading my "something in between your HDD and your memory" as cache. It's not what I meant. I meant it is a separate device, not a cache for the disk. It should contain the OS and some software (as you do it). Caching is a less-than-perfect option, if you have the option to use the SSD for low-latency things directly.
No. I am talking about splitting the stuff we put on the harddisk now manually. Not as a cache, but the only version of the OS and the most important software.
Having said that: Yes, I do think cache is a good use of SSD's. Just not the best use imaginable.
The SATA speed is 6Gb/s. The disk speed is 500MB/s. You can write to the disk itself at "only" 500MB/s. Since SATA doesn't have that exact speed they chose the next best thing: the 6Gb/s (=768 MB/s) SATA connection.
With the limited write cycles for SSD DRAM will not go away. Could you imagine your RAM to crash permanently after a long weekend of gaming?
It depends: You could use a Raid 5/6 NAS and have high disk speeds again. Something like this. The max speed of a thunderbolt connection is 800MB/s so, assuming they are WD black 2TB 3GB/s drives, you can get an average of 109*5 (raid 5 with 6 disks) = 545 MB/s (host to disk speeds. Host to buffer doesn't matter).
That's, effectively, 5 disks to go slightly over their read speed. Then again, you'd get 10 TB (=9.09 TiB) on the external enclosure, while the biggest of these will be 250 GB.
The same piece of malware would destroy the contents of an HDD, since it overwrites all sectors. How often do you see that?
No there is no reason, as can be seen by the first card to appear in Google The PCI-e card simply needs a sata controller.
IMHO SSD's should be used as "something in between your HDD and your memory". As long as it's big enough to contain the OS of your choice and all the programs it's big enough. Your MP3's and movies do not require the high throughput. In a desktop this means there should be 2 disks: an ssd for speed and a hdd for capacity. In a laptop there should be an SSD on the mini-PCI-e and an HDD on sata OR, if you must (for space reasons), an SSD on the mobo and an HDD on sata. This would optimize both capacity and speed, while keeping costs (relatively) down.
The cost of an SSD is paid back by the speed, not the capacity. What I find strange is that shops list SSD's by EUR/GB instead of EUR * s/MB. The speed is the defining attribute, not the capacity.
I am sure there is a law of nature somewhere that individuals are smart, but the larger the number of them, the less smart they are.
"The intelligence of a group can be calculated by taking the lowest IQ in the group and dividing it by the number of people" - some guy, dunno who.
If they are serious about it they will require "heater bulbs" to have an opaque outer shell.
Modern CFLs flicker at about 40 Khz. If you can see that you will go insane over a TV, cause they max out at below 1 KHz (and that's even if you believe the marketing claims. Truth is more like 200 Hz.).
I believe you have a perception that is distorted with expectancy (as we all do). You may want to correct that.
In my bathroom I use a 2 watt LED light. It switches on FASTER than an incandescent light. (disclaimer: I know. It probably uses more than the 2 watts that were advertised on the wrapping. More like 5 watts. But it replaces a 30 watts incandescent).
I have been using CFL's for years. I practically grew up with them (I'm 27 with a very bad memory). Incandescent light looks a bit weird to me. Give me the sun or a CFL any time.
I use incandescent bulbs in only a few places. My beer incubator is one of them. The light is an unwanted by-product there, the real useful energy is heat.
While your point is entirely valid, the assumption that I had such a moronically simple view of things isn't. The fact that there is no price competition in blue rays doesn't mean there should be competition. The fact that I am currently not shot in the head doesn't mean I should be (there are other arguments for that, but that's beside the point). If there were price competition the cheap copy selling companies would out-compete the studio's that produce, because the main cost isn't in the producing of the disks.
I meant, simply, that the blue-rays would not get cheaper, while my ISP's main selling point is it's price/speed performance and thus their price would lower in order to get more customers.
and the prices for the DVD/BlueRay movies lowering (as they - not actually being some greedy bloody b/tards but only innocent victims of piracy - will be getting now enough profit from the same title). Right?... C'mon, isn't it so?!
Damn, that's a good one!
My ISP may lower prices due to another source of income (since price is a major selling point). However, there is no competition in the price of blu-rays.
While most of your items are true, we also have Geert Wilders. The appearance of that fucker is bad enough to compensate for a lot on your list and I hope we are smart enough to prevent him from getting power in the same way and extent Hitler did. My hope is slim, since people are stupid.
If the summary had pointed us to the correct website the few who read the article itself would have seen the lofar isn't simply in the UK. The LOFAR is to big for that. There is one substation in the UK, most are in the Netherlands (since the center is there), some are in Germany, one in France and one in Sweden. These substations are assembled in a giant phased array by means of a supercomputer. This array can look at multiple parts of the sky at the same time while having a great resolution in low frequencies.
We won, so we can claim our spies were nice and didn't harm anyone!
I propose Matter A and Matter One, or we will have the same problem with deciding which matter is matter B.