So apple say that they wont transmit the biometric id. That they can control.
It doesn't matter so much if they do transmit the biometricc ID; it could be useful, to "authorize someone else to use your iphone" in advance --- or authorize someone to use a feature; such as the fingerprint-based ability to unlock your front door's biometric lock, by just picking an option on their ID in your contact list.
A biometric ID doesn't capture your fingerprint; the bio ID is specific to a kind of fingerprint reader, and it's more like a hash than a password.
For example: there is a chance that 300 or 400 people in the world may have the exact same or very similar biometric ID key, but totally different fingerprints.
That's because all the bits of data the fingerprint reader manufacturer has selected to authenticate a fingerprint has to be boiled down into a very short string of numeric values forming an ID key.
It's not like the reader will be storing a high-resolution capture of your fingerprint, that could be used to manufacture fake fingerprints -- or be capable of being used with other readers.
These are not cameras, that take an optical image; or collect data that can be used to reproduce your fingerprints.
The readers provide only enough data to authenticate the ridge pattern, by taking some simplified metrics that represent your pattern with a relatively high fraction of uniqueness.
See the citeworld article for more information about the iPhone's reader;
apparently, this reader will be harder to trick than most laptop readers from Authentec have been in the past.
If they were worthwhile; then this seems worthwhile.
It's certainly a better idea to have fingerprint + 4-digit passphrase than a 4-digit passphrase.
Long passphrases are inconvenient; more convenient security means the bar is raised: people's risk will go down.
Also, since the reader requires live skin, it cannot be faked easily ---- it may reduce thefts of these devices by pickpockets and the like.
The expansion of the universe causes distant galaxies to recede from us faster than the speed of light, if comoving distance and cosmological time are used to calculate the speeds of these galaxies. However, in general relativity, velocity is a local notion, so velocity calculated using comoving coordinates does not have any simple relation to velocity calculated locally[16] (see comoving distance for a discussion of different notions of 'velocity' in cosmology). Rules that apply to relative velocities in special relativity, such as the rule that relative velocities cannot increase past the speed of light, do not apply to relative velocities in comoving coordinates, which are often described in terms of the "expansion of space" between galaxies. [....]
There are many galaxies visible in telescopes with red shift numbers of 1.4 or higher. All of these are currently traveling away from us at speeds greater than the speed of light. Because the Hubble parameter is decreasing with time, there can actually be cases where a galaxy that is receding from us faster than light does manage to emit a signal which reaches us eventually.[18][19] However, because the expansion of the universe is accelerating, it is projected that most galaxies will eventually cross a type of cosmological event horizon where any light they emit past that point will never be able to reach us at any time in the infinite future,[20] because the light never reaches a point where its "peculiar velocity" towards us exceeds the expansion velocity away from us
Is it possible to enter the universe inside a black hole?
Arguably... to enter the universe inside a blackhole; you have only to enter the event horizon, and merge with it.
Once you merge with the event horizon; you can never leave the black hole or ever be visible to an outside observer again.
Also; you will get squashed into 2 dimensions, and your particles will be scrambled ---- so although the matter that comprises you merges with the universe inside the blackhole: your physical body does not survive.
Physicists cannot say what happens to your immortal soul --- whether it escapes the pull; or whether it too becomes entrapped in the event horizon of that featureless pocket universe for the rest of eternity.
By the way, there is already an idea floating around about how the edge of the visible universe seems be a bit like the event horizon of a black hole. Once something has passed the edge of the visible universe it is effectively lost to us
Because we can only see things that have sent light back towards us, AND that return light has already reached us. If something is further away from earth, than the distance that light could have possibly travelled back from the object towards earth from the time that the object was at that distance, then by induction: we cannot see the object yet.
Because near the rim of the universe.... the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light; so it's far enough, that light would take longer to travel back to where earth is, than the duration the universe has existed.
Furthemore: since the universe can continue to expand at a rate faster than the speed of light --- the light travelling back towards earth, can never overtake the rate of the universe's expansion, and find its way back to us.
It is kind of like an infinite treadmkill ---- very similar to the concept of a gravitational well that is so deep not even light can escape.
We have an outer rim of our universe expanding so quickly, that not even the very timespace; the spatial dimensions or the passage of time can escape it.
that water will vaporize into a cloud of 100 to 200 cubic meters--generating an explosive expansion that will blow away the phaser shooter in the area.
But that doesn't happen; so obviously it wouldn't go off that way ---- or perhaps the phaser temporarily encompasses the object hit with a force field, and compacts the object, so that there is no explosive expansion.
They have given us terrible artists for years, maybe they will finally go away...
The music companies are migrating towards the legal business, where revenue will be derived from suing various parties perceived to be infringing on their rights. For example, by singing the happy birthday song; which was craftilly switched from the public domain where it rightly belongs to private ownership with some clever low-key legal hackery.
Computers are expensive electronics, and have significant resale value.
Crooks will happily go after Televisions, Computers, Monitors, iPads, and other similar big-ticket items.
People have laptops stolen with loss of data all the time. This is especially common at airport security checkpoints, or, when a laptop has been left in a vehicle; or briefly left unattended in a public place such as a student union or a library. I know 2 different long time friends who had laptops stolen, and I know of some people who lost their hard drive data to water damage, when there was a flood; I also know of a case where a hot water leak, dripped water from a second floor onto a computer lab, and ruined a whole bunch of machines together..
Computer Theft and Computer Loss
15% of households annually experience burglary or theft according to the Bureau of Justice. While statistics are not available for what was stolen, when a home is burglarized, a computer is a likely target.
I'm going to hold to my theory that this is simply a cash-out for the original investors, and that there is no long-term value to secondary market investors.
In other words; you think the IPO will be a pump and dump scan?
Wouldn't it be wise to wait until they release the financials, before jumping to a conclusion?
Since matter is being converted into energy, E=mc^2 So for a 70kg human that works out to 6E18 Joules.
That's true, but the Energy also gets converted back into matter; which results in a drop in the energy state (negative energy consumed). So then the question is.... does the entire body convert to energy all at once; or does it get converted, at the same time as the person is rematerializing?
I guess it's buffered in some cases, so there may be a 6E18 Joules of temporary energy required, that a large percentage of gets returned to the system after the conversion back to matter.
If this reduces the energy requirement sufficiently; then the disintegrate setting on a phaser.... perhaps creates a reaction that changes matter to energy, and then changes the energy back into an inert form of matter; thus balancing the chemical equation, and resulting in little net energy loss.
They cannot distinguish fantasy or fiction from reality. --- We don't know at what time that game becomes reality.
Cannot conduct affairs appropriately due to psychosis or Subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior --- "You can't ignore it"
Impulsive reaction to fictional threats; therefore, the officials are a hazard to themselves and others --- "He said that he had no intentions of hurting anybody." "We have to take all threats seriously"
The solution is to either reduce the number of police, or to refocus them on community policing and crime reduction rather than "making arrests".
Of course... I would suggest concentrating the surplus officers in the higher crime areas, and have a higher density of patrols in those areas, wherever those happen to be statistically speaking; and promoting community policing.
Also.... some of those officers could be reassigned from policing the streets to Internal policing; that is monitoring their colleagues for possible wrongdoing; or standing by to assist colleagues, BUT doing other useful work for the people in the meantime --- other useful work such as gathering field data on the streets for research or government planning purposes; outreach programs -- just being present somewhere in uniform or with their car to be "visible" as a friendly reminder to the public to follow the law; in various places, such as around or visiting bars; not to make arrests, but to go around reminding potential patrons about the law; just either through friendly conversation, or by standing about in a place visible to as many people as possible.
They can also put surplus officers on a task of using their brain to think outside the box, and investigate the possible existence of more complicated criminal schemes; such as the fraud involved in Banks misstating the value of their mortgage bonds and credit default swaps leading up to the housing crisis.
Yawn, your posts are boring me because to some of us the math is too obvious to be bothered explaining to others.
You mean that it is too obviously wrong.
It is in fact *exactly* how insurance companies work. They know they need to plan ahead for N payouts of X dollars, that a specific insurer has an M percentage chance of making a claim of Y dollars, and charges them Z per year to cover that annualized cost of those possible payouts
The point is, "that a specific insurer has an M percentage chance of making" IS NOT THE SAME QUANTITY as the percentage of the insured that will make a certain claim; the two numbers are not interchangeable, that is to say: they cannot be substituted for one another.
Probability of a single member of group G failing not equal to The proportion of members of G expected to fail.
And when we have small number of SSDs..... well.... nobody buys "4TB" SSDs; and I never heard of anyone buying "4TB" HDDs, if they even make them. Both of those things are obviously so contrived.
I think most people would prefer to know that anything they buy has a minimum 2 year warranty (Europe), rather than having to check every single god-damned thing.
The people who don't should nevertheless have the right to buy, and not have to pay for such a long period of manufacture insurance against defects; just because most people may be loss averse, and like to spend the extra money for extra warranty, that they probably still won't get to use; does not mean manufacturers should be required to force this financially irresponsible choice on all their customers (the manufacturer has to add to the price of the product MORE than the expected average cost of this warranty, when extending it from say 30 days to 2 years: therefore, the longer warranty will never be in the customer's best interests -- unless they already knew in advance they'd get one of the defective units, OR the manufacturer was fiscally irresponsible and did not increase the product cost appropriately to cover the warranty costs PLUS risk premium).
Understanding *that* they fail at all means using RAID for high availability systems and backups for all systems.
RAID is not adequate for SSDs, because they have failure modes that are related to characteristics of drive longevity and created by the pattern of wear (interaction with wear-levelling on specific models) -- number of writes over time.
That is; correlated failures between RAID mirrored pairs are more likely than not with SSDs used over long periods of time.
Therefore: with SSDs, duplicate data makes sense, and RAID does not.
the valuation multiple to support what they're going after is fucking crazy.
Since the appropriate valuation multiple is determined by the expected growth rate; perhaps, it is premature to speculate on that, before they have formally disclosed their financials?
'Out of the lab' and 'affordable' are several years apart.
This is where the $1/GB barrier comes in. It's not an option to come to market with a new SSD tech that costs more than $1/GB, unless there is another significant benefit.
NO: whoever is in the lab working on it, will be rushing to get out a tech that they can corner the market with for $0.50/GB.
The storage market is huge, and there is plenty of financial incentive to push the research and development along expeditiously.
The phasers you remember were obviously set to Stun.
Even kill didn't do anything other than make the target drop dead.
That is what disruptors do.
At some point the Enterprise hand phasers got a Disrupt-B or Maximum setting besides overload,
that makes the target glow, and vanish.
You have to remember that star trek is a TV show; and the disintegration was clearly for dramatic affect.
They were essentially making the phaser like alien death rays that had appeared in other television shows.
The phaser is not a real thing ---- what people actually wind up creating is sure to be more interesting, possibly an energy-based weapon with AI, so it can never miss the target.
My suggestion would be that the phaser does not vaporize the target on disintegrate;
it just generates so much heat, that the target immediately catches on fire, and their entire body thermalizes.
Humans are basically made out of carbon materials that are highly combustible.
When the temperature rises to 80000 degrees kelvin in 0.01 seconds; the target collapses into a pile of ash,
in a bright light --- all the molecules are still there, or in the air; it's just that a chemical reaction has made them unrecognizable.
You need enough energy to turn them from a solid/colloid state to a gaseous state, not the energy required to reduce the person to elemental atoms.
I can't wait to see how much energy people say the transporter requires.
I assume it is a similar principle.... except the phaser set to disintegrate just has to scramble and disperse their molecules,
so that the person or thing no longer exists in a recognizable form; the transporter has to reassemble people.
The averaging is done because over time, it works out, just like insurance.
Insurance would not average in that manner.
My argument is average cost of capacity failing per year isn't a valid measurement, even if you could justify it.
Price and failure rates are not constant; therefore picking an arbitrarily extreme capacity doesn't have much validity. Failure rates are higher with larger capacity units; such as 4TB drives or theoretical 4TB SSDs. Prices per capacity unit are larger with larger capacities, beyond a certain point which is media-specific.
Prices and failure rates vary with time.
A SSD that costs $100 today probably costs about $50 a year from now.
The same HDD that costs $80 today probably costs about $80 a year from now.
Because most of the expensive HDD components are mechanical; there are manufacturing costs involved that won't go down.
SSDs on the other hand, have most of their costs concentrated in IC and board designs that are constantly being improved and shrunk into smaller and smaller forms.
If those numbers were valid, SSDs would be coming with a much shorter warranty, because the cost to the manufacturer is enormous, since the manufacturer essentially has to pay for all the failures within warranty, to give you the free replacement....
The fact is... you don't buy 4TB SSDs, you just don't.
With 40 100gb SSDs; you might expect to have a drive fail every 4 years, with a variability of 0 to 4 drives failing in any given year, but it's much better than having 1 4TB SSD, and 0 expected drives failing every 4 years, with a variability of 0 or 1 drives failing in any given year.
The other thing is capacity is not unit neutral; the fewer units you distribute capacity over, if you maintain the same failure rate, the less likely a failure, but the higher the variation --- in other words, with large capacity units, your failure is unpredictable, the more units you distribute the same capacity over, without changing the annual failure rate, the average capacity lost increases, but the variability narrows, because your failure rate is predictable.
I would argue most people do not buy enough SSDs or HDDs for it to work out, especially not in those capacities.
It's not like you go to the store -- and buy a new SSD at the full price you paid at the beginning of the year for a brand new one;
their price is not constant but a function of time, AND under warranty, the manufacturer pays this.
The valuation of capacity for the consumer is wrong, when the manufacturer bears this particular cost.
Again... your cost is the lost data and lost productivity.
These costs are maximized using units that are 4TB in capacity, if the smaller units have the same failure rate.
No he's doing the math right -- At an annual failure rate of 1%, you need to replace 1% of your total capacity every year. With an annualized failure rate of 5%, you need to replace 5% of that capacity overall.
No you don't. The figures pertain to SSDs and HDDs under warranty. So you get to send 1% of your SSDs back to the manufacturer to be replaced for $0.
The figure also does not mean that 1% of your SSDs will fail
You might have forgotton the point about most people don't take adequate backups, and many people have personal photos with intangible value.
I read this instead.... if there were 1 milllion of a model of SSDs manufactured in the world in a particular year, and you bought 1, then you have 1 out of 1 million SSDs.
If the annual failure rate of that model is 1%; then 10000 of those 1 million SSDs will go bad in year 1.
You don't have a chance of losing 1% of your data from your one SSD.
You have on average a 10000 in 1 million chance of losing all your data in one year.
Now in year 2.... since the annual failure rate is 1%
You will have had a 10000 in 1 million chance of losing the SSD in year 1; and then a
9990 in 999000 chance of losing the data on the SSD in year 2..
Are you going to say you lose twice the cost after the end of year 2?
It's nonsensical. You will return the SSD under warranty, and receive your replacement
What you lose is the data, not the SSD unit
The entire idea of an "exit strategy" exemplifies what's wrong with startup culture. An entrepreneur should be focused on building a great product and a lasting company
The point of having a startup is to build a lasting business... Although 9 out of 10 startups fail, according to information I have been quoted; exit strategy means success; it means your investment pays off, and you get to reap the rewards.
It's not that the business is done; it's that it is no longer a "startup" --- and now, more traditional folks should takeover the roles of allocating capital to it, because it's lower-payout, lower-risk now, and: perhaps you would like to do another startup?
The people who do startups are different, and will get bored, once it's an established boring business, with low risks.
If the patent was for using some piece of hardware in a new and inventive way that the original manufacturer hadn't thought of, then maybe it would be valid. But using Cisco networking gear to set up a network in exactly the way described in the manual or training materials doesn't come into that category.
Brilliant... new patent
Theory and Method for setting up a router
Claim 1. A method of configuring a router in which a serial port, default IP address, DHCP provided IP address, multicast DNS, dynamically registered DNS, or IPv6 stateless autoconfigured address is used to facilitate gaining initial access to the router.
Claim 2. A method in which the response to a DHCP or BOOTP request is used to discover a file server, such as a FTP or TFTP server, containing initial configuration data or instructions.
Claim 3. A method of configuring a router, in which a broadcast-based discovery protocol is used to discover a IP or MAC address to access an unconfigured router.
Claim 4. A method of configuring an IP-based router in which a non-IP protocol such as Ethernet is used with special purpose software to facilitate configuration of a device.
Claim 5. A method of configuring a router, in which special software is provided to install on a server, to establish communication with unconfigured devices.
Claim 6. A method where a wireless, USB, Serial port, or other dedicated interface is used to configure a router.
Claim 7. A method of configuring a router, in which media containing software or a download link for software is used to install software on a PC, for performing initial configuration of a router.
Claim 8. The method of configuring a router in which a book, manual, poster, card, piece of paper, or other written material accompanying the router is read, disseminated, and then steps from the document are followed.
Claim 9. The above, where steps are taken from digital media distributed with the router instead.
Claim 10. The above, where configuration steps are taken from an internet website whose URL was provided with the router instead.
Claim 11. The above, where configuration steps are taken from an internet website whose URL is the manufacturer of the device.
Claim 12. The above, where configuration steps are taken from an internet website whose location can be discovered using a search engine such as Bing, Yahoo, or Google search for the make, model number, or type of router.
Claim 13. The above, where some steps are skipped in the configuration process.
Claim 14. The above, where some pertinent details are collected from the documentation or website; such as default IP address, default username, default password, administration URL.
Claim 15. The above, where software is downloaded to automatically configure the device, instead of documentation.
Claim 16. The above, where a phone call is placed to a contact or support line provided the manufacturer.
Claim 17. The above, where a phone call is placed to a contact or support line provided by a reseller, retailer, consultant, or other third party contact instead.
Claim 18. The above claims, where an e-mail, IRC Chat, Instant messenger, Skype, VoIP service, Pastebin, or "Blog" is used instead of a telephone.
Claim 19. The above claims, where a written, visual or audio communication on a private or public social networking website such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, or Google plus is used instead.
Claim 20. The above claims, where any letters containing configuration instructions or details are sent or received using postal mail.
Slashdot Mirror
Amplify was the low bidder of those responding to Guilford's Race-to-the-Top RFP,
So being the low bidder is all that matters?
That's easy... put Linux on it; or make it out of paper
So apple say that they wont transmit the biometric id. That they can control.
It doesn't matter so much if they do transmit the biometricc ID; it could be useful, to "authorize someone else to use your iphone" in advance --- or authorize someone to use a feature; such as the fingerprint-based ability to unlock your front door's biometric lock, by just picking an option on their ID in your contact list.
A biometric ID doesn't capture your fingerprint; the bio ID is specific to a kind of fingerprint reader, and it's more like a hash than a password.
For example: there is a chance that 300 or 400 people in the world may have the exact same or very similar biometric ID key, but totally different fingerprints.
That's because all the bits of data the fingerprint reader manufacturer has selected to authenticate a fingerprint has to be boiled down into a very short string of numeric values forming an ID key.
It's not like the reader will be storing a high-resolution capture of your fingerprint, that could be used to manufacture fake fingerprints -- or be capable of being used with other readers.
They capture metrics based on your fingerprints
These are not cameras, that take an optical image; or collect data that can be used to reproduce your fingerprints.
The readers provide only enough data to authenticate the ridge pattern, by taking some simplified metrics that represent your pattern with a relatively high fraction of uniqueness.
See the citeworld article for more information about the iPhone's reader; apparently, this reader will be harder to trick than most laptop readers from Authentec have been in the past.
If they were worthwhile; then this seems worthwhile.
It's certainly a better idea to have fingerprint + 4-digit passphrase than a 4-digit passphrase.
Long passphrases are inconvenient; more convenient security means the bar is raised: people's risk will go down.
Also, since the reader requires live skin, it cannot be faked easily ---- it may reduce thefts of these devices by pickpockets and the like.
Yes. universal expansion occurs at a speed faster than the speed of light.
Is it possible to enter the universe inside a black hole?
Arguably... to enter the universe inside a blackhole; you have only to enter the event horizon, and merge with it.
Once you merge with the event horizon; you can never leave the black hole or ever be visible to an outside observer again. Also; you will get squashed into 2 dimensions, and your particles will be scrambled ---- so although the matter that comprises you merges with the universe inside the blackhole: your physical body does not survive.
Physicists cannot say what happens to your immortal soul --- whether it escapes the pull; or whether it too becomes entrapped in the event horizon of that featureless pocket universe for the rest of eternity.
By the way, there is already an idea floating around about how the edge of the visible universe seems be a bit like the event horizon of a black hole. Once something has passed the edge of the visible universe it is effectively lost to us
Because we can only see things that have sent light back towards us, AND that return light has already reached us. If something is further away from earth, than the distance that light could have possibly travelled back from the object towards earth from the time that the object was at that distance, then by induction: we cannot see the object yet.
Because near the rim of the universe.... the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light; so it's far enough, that light would take longer to travel back to where earth is, than the duration the universe has existed.
Furthemore: since the universe can continue to expand at a rate faster than the speed of light --- the light travelling back towards earth, can never overtake the rate of the universe's expansion, and find its way back to us.
It is kind of like an infinite treadmkill ---- very similar to the concept of a gravitational well that is so deep not even light can escape.
We have an outer rim of our universe expanding so quickly, that not even the very timespace; the spatial dimensions or the passage of time can escape it.
that water will vaporize into a cloud of 100 to 200 cubic meters--generating an explosive expansion that will blow away the phaser shooter in the area.
But that doesn't happen; so obviously it wouldn't go off that way ---- or perhaps the phaser temporarily encompasses the object hit with a force field, and compacts the object, so that there is no explosive expansion.
They have given us terrible artists for years, maybe they will finally go away...
The music companies are migrating towards the legal business, where revenue will be derived from suing various parties perceived to be infringing on their rights. For example, by singing the happy birthday song; which was craftilly switched from the public domain where it rightly belongs to private ownership with some clever low-key legal hackery.
Computers are expensive electronics, and have significant resale value. Crooks will happily go after Televisions, Computers, Monitors, iPads, and other similar big-ticket items.
People have laptops stolen with loss of data all the time. This is especially common at airport security checkpoints, or, when a laptop has been left in a vehicle; or briefly left unattended in a public place such as a student union or a library. I know 2 different long time friends who had laptops stolen, and I know of some people who lost their hard drive data to water damage, when there was a flood; I also know of a case where a hot water leak, dripped water from a second floor onto a computer lab, and ruined a whole bunch of machines together..
See this article
Computer Theft and Computer Loss 15% of households annually experience burglary or theft according to the Bureau of Justice. While statistics are not available for what was stolen, when a home is burglarized, a computer is a likely target.
I'm going to hold to my theory that this is simply a cash-out for the original investors, and that there is no long-term value to secondary market investors.
In other words; you think the IPO will be a pump and dump scan? Wouldn't it be wise to wait until they release the financials, before jumping to a conclusion?
Since matter is being converted into energy, E=mc^2 So for a 70kg human that works out to 6E18 Joules.
That's true, but the Energy also gets converted back into matter; which results in a drop in the energy state (negative energy consumed). So then the question is.... does the entire body convert to energy all at once; or does it get converted, at the same time as the person is rematerializing?
I guess it's buffered in some cases, so there may be a 6E18 Joules of temporary energy required, that a large percentage of gets returned to the system after the conversion back to matter.
If this reduces the energy requirement sufficiently; then the disintegrate setting on a phaser.... perhaps creates a reaction that changes matter to energy, and then changes the energy back into an inert form of matter; thus balancing the chemical equation, and resulting in little net energy loss.
The solution is to either reduce the number of police, or to refocus them on community policing and crime reduction rather than "making arrests".
Of course... I would suggest concentrating the surplus officers in the higher crime areas, and have a higher density of patrols in those areas, wherever those happen to be statistically speaking; and promoting community policing.
Also.... some of those officers could be reassigned from policing the streets to Internal policing; that is monitoring their colleagues for possible wrongdoing; or standing by to assist colleagues, BUT doing other useful work for the people in the meantime --- other useful work such as gathering field data on the streets for research or government planning purposes; outreach programs -- just being present somewhere in uniform or with their car to be "visible" as a friendly reminder to the public to follow the law; in various places, such as around or visiting bars; not to make arrests, but to go around reminding potential patrons about the law; just either through friendly conversation, or by standing about in a place visible to as many people as possible.
They can also put surplus officers on a task of using their brain to think outside the box, and investigate the possible existence of more complicated criminal schemes; such as the fraud involved in Banks misstating the value of their mortgage bonds and credit default swaps leading up to the housing crisis.
Yawn, your posts are boring me because to some of us the math is too obvious to be bothered explaining to others.
You mean that it is too obviously wrong.
It is in fact *exactly* how insurance companies work. They know they need to plan ahead for N payouts of X dollars, that a specific insurer has an M percentage chance of making a claim of Y dollars, and charges them Z per year to cover that annualized cost of those possible payouts
The point is, "that a specific insurer has an M percentage chance of making" IS NOT THE SAME QUANTITY as the percentage of the insured that will make a certain claim; the two numbers are not interchangeable, that is to say: they cannot be substituted for one another.
Probability of a single member of group G failing not equal to The proportion of members of G expected to fail.
And when we have small number of SSDs..... well.... nobody buys "4TB" SSDs; and I never heard of anyone buying "4TB" HDDs, if they even make them. Both of those things are obviously so contrived.
I think most people would prefer to know that anything they buy has a minimum 2 year warranty (Europe), rather than having to check every single god-damned thing.
The people who don't should nevertheless have the right to buy, and not have to pay for such a long period of manufacture insurance against defects; just because most people may be loss averse, and like to spend the extra money for extra warranty, that they probably still won't get to use; does not mean manufacturers should be required to force this financially irresponsible choice on all their customers (the manufacturer has to add to the price of the product MORE than the expected average cost of this warranty, when extending it from say 30 days to 2 years: therefore, the longer warranty will never be in the customer's best interests -- unless they already knew in advance they'd get one of the defective units, OR the manufacturer was fiscally irresponsible and did not increase the product cost appropriately to cover the warranty costs PLUS risk premium).
Understanding *that* they fail at all means using RAID for high availability systems and backups for all systems.
RAID is not adequate for SSDs, because they have failure modes that are related to characteristics of drive longevity and created by the pattern of wear (interaction with wear-levelling on specific models) -- number of writes over time.
That is; correlated failures between RAID mirrored pairs are more likely than not with SSDs used over long periods of time.
Therefore: with SSDs, duplicate data makes sense, and RAID does not.
the valuation multiple to support what they're going after is fucking crazy.
Since the appropriate valuation multiple is determined by the expected growth rate; perhaps, it is premature to speculate on that, before they have formally disclosed their financials?
'Out of the lab' and 'affordable' are several years apart.
This is where the $1/GB barrier comes in. It's not an option to come to market with a new SSD tech that costs more than $1/GB, unless there is another significant benefit.
NO: whoever is in the lab working on it, will be rushing to get out a tech that they can corner the market with for $0.50/GB.
The storage market is huge, and there is plenty of financial incentive to push the research and development along expeditiously.
The phasers you remember were obviously set to Stun.
Even kill didn't do anything other than make the target drop dead.
That is what disruptors do.
At some point the Enterprise hand phasers got a Disrupt-B or Maximum setting besides overload, that makes the target glow, and vanish.
You have to remember that star trek is a TV show; and the disintegration was clearly for dramatic affect. They were essentially making the phaser like alien death rays that had appeared in other television shows.
The phaser is not a real thing ---- what people actually wind up creating is sure to be more interesting, possibly an energy-based weapon with AI, so it can never miss the target.
My suggestion would be that the phaser does not vaporize the target on disintegrate; it just generates so much heat, that the target immediately catches on fire, and their entire body thermalizes.
Humans are basically made out of carbon materials that are highly combustible. When the temperature rises to 80000 degrees kelvin in 0.01 seconds; the target collapses into a pile of ash, in a bright light --- all the molecules are still there, or in the air; it's just that a chemical reaction has made them unrecognizable.
You need enough energy to turn them from a solid/colloid state to a gaseous state, not the energy required to reduce the person to elemental atoms.
I can't wait to see how much energy people say the transporter requires.
I assume it is a similar principle.... except the phaser set to disintegrate just has to scramble and disperse their molecules, so that the person or thing no longer exists in a recognizable form; the transporter has to reassemble people.
The averaging is done because over time, it works out, just like insurance.
Insurance would not average in that manner.
My argument is average cost of capacity failing per year isn't a valid measurement, even if you could justify it. Price and failure rates are not constant; therefore picking an arbitrarily extreme capacity doesn't have much validity. Failure rates are higher with larger capacity units; such as 4TB drives or theoretical 4TB SSDs. Prices per capacity unit are larger with larger capacities, beyond a certain point which is media-specific.
Prices and failure rates vary with time. A SSD that costs $100 today probably costs about $50 a year from now.
The same HDD that costs $80 today probably costs about $80 a year from now.
Because most of the expensive HDD components are mechanical; there are manufacturing costs involved that won't go down. SSDs on the other hand, have most of their costs concentrated in IC and board designs that are constantly being improved and shrunk into smaller and smaller forms.
If those numbers were valid, SSDs would be coming with a much shorter warranty, because the cost to the manufacturer is enormous, since the manufacturer essentially has to pay for all the failures within warranty, to give you the free replacement....
The fact is... you don't buy 4TB SSDs, you just don't.
With 40 100gb SSDs; you might expect to have a drive fail every 4 years, with a variability of 0 to 4 drives failing in any given year, but it's much better than having 1 4TB SSD, and 0 expected drives failing every 4 years, with a variability of 0 or 1 drives failing in any given year.
The other thing is capacity is not unit neutral; the fewer units you distribute capacity over, if you maintain the same failure rate, the less likely a failure, but the higher the variation --- in other words, with large capacity units, your failure is unpredictable, the more units you distribute the same capacity over, without changing the annual failure rate, the average capacity lost increases, but the variability narrows, because your failure rate is predictable.
I would argue most people do not buy enough SSDs or HDDs for it to work out, especially not in those capacities.
It's not like you go to the store -- and buy a new SSD at the full price you paid at the beginning of the year for a brand new one; their price is not constant but a function of time, AND under warranty, the manufacturer pays this.
The valuation of capacity for the consumer is wrong, when the manufacturer bears this particular cost.
Again... your cost is the lost data and lost productivity.
These costs are maximized using units that are 4TB in capacity, if the smaller units have the same failure rate.
No he's doing the math right -- At an annual failure rate of 1%, you need to replace 1% of your total capacity every year. With an annualized failure rate of 5%, you need to replace 5% of that capacity overall.
No you don't. The figures pertain to SSDs and HDDs under warranty. So you get to send 1% of your SSDs back to the manufacturer to be replaced for $0.
The figure also does not mean that 1% of your SSDs will fail
You might have forgotton the point about most people don't take adequate backups, and many people have personal photos with intangible value.
I read this instead.... if there were 1 milllion of a model of SSDs manufactured in the world in a particular year, and you bought 1, then you have 1 out of 1 million SSDs.
If the annual failure rate of that model is 1%; then 10000 of those 1 million SSDs will go bad in year 1.
You don't have a chance of losing 1% of your data from your one SSD. You have on average a 10000 in 1 million chance of losing all your data in one year.
Now in year 2.... since the annual failure rate is 1% You will have had a 10000 in 1 million chance of losing the SSD in year 1; and then a 9990 in 999000 chance of losing the data on the SSD in year 2..
Are you going to say you lose twice the cost after the end of year 2?
It's nonsensical. You will return the SSD under warranty, and receive your replacement What you lose is the data, not the SSD unit
The entire idea of an "exit strategy" exemplifies what's wrong with startup culture. An entrepreneur should be focused on building a great product and a lasting company
The point of having a startup is to build a lasting business... Although 9 out of 10 startups fail, according to information I have been quoted; exit strategy means success; it means your investment pays off, and you get to reap the rewards.
It's not that the business is done; it's that it is no longer a "startup" --- and now, more traditional folks should takeover the roles of allocating capital to it, because it's lower-payout, lower-risk now, and: perhaps you would like to do another startup?
The people who do startups are different, and will get bored, once it's an established boring business, with low risks.
If the patent was for using some piece of hardware in a new and inventive way that the original manufacturer hadn't thought of, then maybe it would be valid. But using Cisco networking gear to set up a network in exactly the way described in the manual or training materials doesn't come into that category.
Brilliant... new patent
Theory and Method for setting up a router
Claim 1. A method of configuring a router in which a serial port, default IP address, DHCP provided IP address, multicast DNS, dynamically registered DNS, or IPv6 stateless autoconfigured address is used to facilitate gaining initial access to the router.
Claim 2. A method in which the response to a DHCP or BOOTP request is used to discover a file server, such as a FTP or TFTP server, containing initial configuration data or instructions.
Claim 3. A method of configuring a router, in which a broadcast-based discovery protocol is used to discover a IP or MAC address to access an unconfigured router.
Claim 4. A method of configuring an IP-based router in which a non-IP protocol such as Ethernet is used with special purpose software to facilitate configuration of a device.
Claim 5. A method of configuring a router, in which special software is provided to install on a server, to establish communication with unconfigured devices.
Claim 6. A method where a wireless, USB, Serial port, or other dedicated interface is used to configure a router.
Claim 7. A method of configuring a router, in which media containing software or a download link for software is used to install software on a PC, for performing initial configuration of a router.
Claim 8. The method of configuring a router in which a book, manual, poster, card, piece of paper, or other written material accompanying the router is read, disseminated, and then steps from the document are followed.
Claim 9. The above, where steps are taken from digital media distributed with the router instead.
Claim 10. The above, where configuration steps are taken from an internet website whose URL was provided with the router instead.
Claim 11. The above, where configuration steps are taken from an internet website whose URL is the manufacturer of the device.
Claim 12. The above, where configuration steps are taken from an internet website whose location can be discovered using a search engine such as Bing, Yahoo, or Google search for the make, model number, or type of router.
Claim 13. The above, where some steps are skipped in the configuration process.
Claim 14. The above, where some pertinent details are collected from the documentation or website; such as default IP address, default username, default password, administration URL.
Claim 15. The above, where software is downloaded to automatically configure the device, instead of documentation.
Claim 16. The above, where a phone call is placed to a contact or support line provided the manufacturer.
Claim 17. The above, where a phone call is placed to a contact or support line provided by a reseller, retailer, consultant, or other third party contact instead.
Claim 18. The above claims, where an e-mail, IRC Chat, Instant messenger, Skype, VoIP service, Pastebin, or "Blog" is used instead of a telephone.
Claim 19. The above claims, where a written, visual or audio communication on a private or public social networking website such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, or Google plus is used instead.
Claim 20. The above claims, where any letters containing configuration instructions or details are sent or received using postal mail.
I don't understand this new trend in making new hard drives with only 1-2 years warranty. The same goes for SSD.
If it shaves cost off the unit; there are people who will buy it, and take the chance.
I would say that the manufacturers have a right to offer them this option.
In fact; I would say manufacturers have a right to provide options with less than a 1 year warranty.