As many a wag has pointed out, that a 16TB drive means that there is more of your data to lose in a crash. I also have to think that the latency for finding specific files on the drive - especially in a server - is going to be a concern.
If the choices are: 1} do not have anywhere to store data, and 2} have somewhere to store data but it might be lost, #2 is preferable. Also, how much data at risk of loss is an acceptable amount? Perhaps we should have stuck with 20MB hard drives because anymore more would just be more data to lose in a crash. I think this is a silly way of looking at things.
Also, as for performance, typically finding specific files on a drive, a.k.a. random seek time, is mostly a function of rotational speed and head traversal speed, not data density. The head traverses to the cylinder necessary, the drive rotates until the data blocks are under the head, and the data is read. If the drives stay 3.5", the head traversal won't change, and if the rotational speed remains the same (typically 7,200 RPM), the random seek times will remain roughly the same as smaller drives. Server or not. What is nice, is that as density increases, typically sequential transfer rates increase. So there's a net win as drives get bigger, typically.
You realize that spinning disks that size are "archive" only usage. Not actual usage. By that measure, tape is really cheap. There is a reason why you hardly see that any longer.
Typically "archive" hard drives mean that they have relatively poor performance, not that that they're bad. For instance, if you're looking to put together a NAS to store a bunch of media like TV shows or movies, they're just fine. You're going write infrequent changes, mostly when you're adding new content, and you're going to read sequential streams, both of which archival drives are just fine for. That's actual usage. They are not intended for, say, write once, then store in a closet offline for years. They're not like "archival" quality optical media, which is intended to not decompose for a longer time than non-archival media.
Just keep your high IOPS activities like databases off them and they're an excellent tool.
They'll get it back out of you somehow. Either by raising some other fee, or by reducing the quality of service.
If by reducing quality of service you mean increasing the quality of service, you're right. My notice from Teksavvy reduced my bill $9/month while simultaneously increasing my link speed 10%.
We don't know that. Every time there's a new chipset or screen that increases efficiency, the manufacturers reduce thickness and battery life at the same time. We stay at maybe four-hours of full-power usage. Nobody's made a phone that gets a next-generation efficient SoC but keeps its thickness and markets it as "last year this was thin enough, only now we've got 16 hours of battery life!"
Makes sense. A presenter generally boils down what they want to convey to four or five bullet points to make a slide. That slide get displayed, the audience reads it, and then the presenter reads it and talks for five minutes. Most of the time the audience got the message from the bullet points. Now they're slipping into a coma, waiting for the presenter to move on.
A good presenter can still use this, by engaging via interesting, useful, amusing anecdotes at each point. Problem is, if the presentation is about oh... product features, or sales projections... there's nothing interesting, useful, or amusing about it. So don't try. Just show us the slide and hit "next". If the presentation in on "ways to avoid getting mugged", or "how to tell if you're a raccoon", maybe you should talk about each point. Maybe.
So, before electronic storage, the police shouldn't have had access to paper storage? Why memorize a phone number if you can write it down?
The problem with encryption is not that the police shouldn't have access to the data (with a warrant), it's that there's no way to grant only the police access. Those who want strong encryption believe keeping the data private from third parties is the greater good.
No, the police shouldn't have access... if you scrambled/encrypted the data. Only your knowledge can decrypt that data on the paper. If it's in plain text... you haven't really made the data knowledge-dependent. Writing something down in plain-text is equivalent to saying what you know out loud.
I hear you, but I don't agree I consider my mind a sanctum that is mine alone. Period. Ever. Not the least... I know I've had had "don't think of the purple elephant" horrible thoughts. Thoughts that don't actually reflect my opinions, or that I would ever, ever act upon, but were more or less random. If taken out of context, they remain merely horrible, and misrepresent me. So mind is a thing I don't think anyone should have access to without permission, EVER. Which I feel applies to mind-extension technology.
I totally get it that law-enforcement may fail to get access to a perp's "Terrorist Buddies" contact list if they can't crack a phone. I accept that as a worthwhile price, but I also understand that's a personal judgment.
To a large degree, data storage is an extension of what a person knows. Why bother memorizing a phone number when you have hardware to do it? Why bother memorizing a hundred passwords when you have hardware to do it? Even our music collection is on hardware purely because our ability to memorize it is imperfect.
The moment a law is passed that mandates law-enforcement access to our electronic devices, we are giving them access to what we know. Today that may or may not be reasonable. But tomorrow, the day after, or a hundred years from now we will have these devices integral to ourselves. Implants within us, most likely, that augment our memories. It's not unreasonable to predict a (likely distant) future where a device taps our optic nerve and provides us "augmented reality". Can't remember the name of the person you're looking at? The device will do that for you. But it will also be able to record what you see, or hear, for future perfect recall.
So what happens when the iPhone law is applied to internal storage? It's mind-reading. This legislation is one step shy of "police must be allowed to read your mind if it is possible". That disturbs me.
The four execution policies are no scripts (default), only scripts signed by trusted publishers, only scripts created locally or signed by trusted publishers, and all scripts. But in practice, most individual developers distributing scripts to the public through GitHub aren't going to be able to afford the CA racket. Nor will they be able to simultaneously satisfy CAs' private key nondisclosure requirements and GPLv3/LGPLv3 requirements for "Installation Information". Thus most scripts distributed through popular source code repository hosts will be unsigned, and effectively everybody will end up setting the policy to unrestricted to "just make it work, G.D. it".
So in practice, what protection does execution policy afford if most users of PCs not joined to a domain will end up setting it to unrestricted? Where if anywhere does Microsoft recommend which execution policy is appropriate for common situations?
First of all, given the choice between CMD.EXE which can only do file type activities and PowerShell which can perform those plus a massive number of other things, worrying about (default) script policy isn't worthwhile. With CMD.EXE you can do so much less that you might as well be running with a policy of "there are no scripts".
Secondly, most people - by far - will never have need to run a PowerShell script. If they do, they're the sort of people who can read "step 1: set your execution policy". Joe Average has no business running PowerShell scripts that they don't know what they are and how they work. Which is why a default policy preventing unsigned scripts from running is a good idea.
Third, the recommendation is "how we shipped it". You don't need to document that.
I'm not defending Samsung, nor the Note 7 product. Just pointing out that if you're counting failures, including Note 7 won't get you a percentage increase.
How would we know? Blannco Technology doesn't say a thing about how they get to there numbers. All we know is that they do it in a way so that the total failure rate for iOS devices is much higher than that for the iOS device model with the highest failure rate. So or all we know the Note 7 may raise the Android failure rate to 114%.
Because a failure rate of a few dozens of phones out of several millions shipped isn't a number that raises anything that isn't already effectively zero.
If by "anything", you mean unsigned scripts, well, sort of.
Then how do you sign a script without paying hundreds per year to the CA racket? Last I checked, code signing had no counterpart to Let's Encrypt or even an affordable Comodo reseller like SSLS.
1} You don't. I'm not a dev, but I'm pretty sure you pay to sign your code if you need it signed. It's interesting. On a platform I administer and the right and need to run scripts on, I have the ability to temporarily or permanently permit unsigned to code to run. On systems where I don't have the ability to set execution policy, what business do I have running arbitrary unsigned scripts?
2} More importantly, my point was that using interactive commands doesn't require changing execution policy.
20 failed? That must be the number for those "we found the problem, this phone will not explode , we promise" version of the Note 7.
Heck, even Samsung claimed 35 confirmed cases when they started the exchange program to that version. And that's how statistics are twisted
20. 35. Out of millions. The point I was making was that what actually failed was a tiny portion of the whole. That doesn't speak to how many would have failed given a few more months or years of being used. It just addresses actually failures.
I'm not defending Samsung, nor the Note 7 product. Just pointing out that if you're counting failures, including Note 7 won't get you a percentage increase.
The most important thing that happens when a presidental term expires is that the corporate interests are forced to purchase legislators again. Rest assured something like the TPP will appear after a couple years of "influence" changes hands.
Why should the majority be held captive by the majority of the minority?
I've had a more brutal thought; why should the nation be held captive to their own inability to decide?
What I mean is that it shouldn't be sufficient - for something this important - to win by one vote. 60,000,000 to 60,000,001 votes and one of those candidates gets declared the winner? That makes no sense to me. That's statistical noise. That's a pair of candidates who have failed to demonstrate to the people that they are worthy.
I'm of the opinion that there should be a margin required, not just a majority. Convince 60% of voters to pick you, or you're disqualified. I recognize that could mean an election with no winner. That could be designed around. Something like having the subordinate bodies (House & Senate, I think, in the US?) appoint an interim officer to fill the duties of the office for the... oh... 90 days permitted for the next election. Or hold your elections a couple years before the current term expires.
It is very disturbing to me how close some of these major elections have been in the last few cycles. It's a coin-toss. Put another way: very nearly half of a country does not want its leader.
I've got money burning a hole in my pocket, but between this and the piece of shit MacBook Pro that was announced recently, I don't know what to do.
I'm no fan of some of the behavior recently, but this latest one requires you to be using Edge. You'd be doing that why? Use Firefox like a normal person and you're okay. Or Chrome, if you must.
There's much to get riled up about, but this one isn't one.
My latest purchase was a Surface Book, and after setting things my way (ClassicShell, etc), it's very reasonable.
Not that Comey isn't trying to fix that. Interesting tweetstorm from former DOJ spokesman Matthew Miller:
Nice rant but... what?
Look. If a presidential candidate is being investigated for criminal misconduct, that's absolutely, positively, something the voting populace should know about, before they vote. That's only rational. Voters should have the best information available at the time it is available. That's now, even if the information is partial.
Also, bringing up "Trump/Russia" is weird. Since when is there anything resembling a shred of evidence that Trump has caused Russia to do anything? Assuming the Russian government has a preference for him over Hillary, why invent a narrative where Trump colludes with them? There's no need. It's redundant. So what - precisely - is there to investigate? Even if Russian spies have literally broken into Hillary's home and stole all her home porno tapes, that's on them, not Trump.
OBDisclosure: I am a non-American who thinks Trump is a sleaze and Hillary is a crook. Both candidates are horrible choices in my eye. The only way I am biased is against both of them as options. Couldn't you have convinced Oprah to run for office, or Ted Nugent or something?
Yes, Ling-ling was born a biological lesbian male panda, then transitioned to an asexual post-operative female panda, but he/she/it currently identifies mentally as a pan-sexual hermaphroditic alligator.
All joking aside, somewhere along the line I stopped caring what's between anyone else's legs and between their ears, and what they do with either, sexually-speaking as long as it's consensual. Maybe that makes me insensitive. Maybe that makes me enlightened. I can't tell anymore.
apple needs to have real pro hardware and not this have to make it thinner shit.
Exactly. At the root, his answer is "To put more than 16GB of fast RAM into a notebook design at this time would require we make it an angstrom thicker and we'd rather chew off our own testicles than do that so fuck you very much and please keep sending us money."
Even a big family streaming half a dozen UHD monsters shouldn't be able to saturate a 1 Gbps link.
His huge downloads are probably hogging the whole bandwidth because of poor QoS, so 10 Gbps solves the problem with brute excess capacity.
Agreed. There is something very, very wrong with this story, and you've pointed out half of it.
The other half which struck me is the oddity of "yada yada residential Internet" followed by this lengthy diatribe about how massive XRays, PET scans, and 3D mammography files are. Well, uh, why is this doctor taking medical records home? It strikes me as odd and disturbing. He's a radiologist, so a lot of what he does is interpretation, but shouldn't medical records be confined to "controlled" networks at a hospital, not permitted to be flung onto a personal, uncontrolled network? See, I gather it's uncontrolled because of the point you brought up... there clearly isn't anything resembling sensible QoS going on if a few kids (how many does he HAVE?) Netflix usage is blocking out yet another kid's FaceTime session on 1Gbps.
I suspect a} someone's doing something shady but maybe technically legal with medical records and b} someone's got a bigger-dick-than-you syndrome, buying Internet capacity he doesn't need, because he can, and because someone will interview him about it and - more importantly - tell everyone else about the size of his pipe.
Slashdot Mirror
As many a wag has pointed out, that a 16TB drive means that there is more of your data to lose in a crash. I also have to think that the latency for finding specific files on the drive - especially in a server - is going to be a concern.
If the choices are: 1} do not have anywhere to store data, and 2} have somewhere to store data but it might be lost, #2 is preferable. Also, how much data at risk of loss is an acceptable amount? Perhaps we should have stuck with 20MB hard drives because anymore more would just be more data to lose in a crash. I think this is a silly way of looking at things.
Also, as for performance, typically finding specific files on a drive, a.k.a. random seek time, is mostly a function of rotational speed and head traversal speed, not data density. The head traverses to the cylinder necessary, the drive rotates until the data blocks are under the head, and the data is read. If the drives stay 3.5", the head traversal won't change, and if the rotational speed remains the same (typically 7,200 RPM), the random seek times will remain roughly the same as smaller drives. Server or not. What is nice, is that as density increases, typically sequential transfer rates increase. So there's a net win as drives get bigger, typically.
You realize that spinning disks that size are "archive" only usage. Not actual usage. By that measure, tape is really cheap. There is a reason why you hardly see that any longer.
Typically "archive" hard drives mean that they have relatively poor performance, not that that they're bad. For instance, if you're looking to put together a NAS to store a bunch of media like TV shows or movies, they're just fine. You're going write infrequent changes, mostly when you're adding new content, and you're going to read sequential streams, both of which archival drives are just fine for. That's actual usage. They are not intended for, say, write once, then store in a closet offline for years. They're not like "archival" quality optical media, which is intended to not decompose for a longer time than non-archival media.
Just keep your high IOPS activities like databases off them and they're an excellent tool.
How do you custom Memory if you can't write to it?
Do you even Member what ROM means?
No. Nobody here (except you) knows anything about anything. Thank you for your educational post.
Unless... you're just unaware of this minor technology invented nearly 50 years ago, in which case... troll.
They'll get it back out of you somehow. Either by raising some other fee, or by reducing the quality of service.
If by reducing quality of service you mean increasing the quality of service, you're right. My notice from Teksavvy reduced my bill $9/month while simultaneously increasing my link speed 10%.
big thick phones don't sell well.
We don't know that. Every time there's a new chipset or screen that increases efficiency, the manufacturers reduce thickness and battery life at the same time. We stay at maybe four-hours of full-power usage. Nobody's made a phone that gets a next-generation efficient SoC but keeps its thickness and markets it as "last year this was thin enough, only now we've got 16 hours of battery life!"
Don't use it. People's eyes glaze over as soon as they see the first slide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Makes sense. A presenter generally boils down what they want to convey to four or five bullet points to make a slide. That slide get displayed, the audience reads it, and then the presenter reads it and talks for five minutes. Most of the time the audience got the message from the bullet points. Now they're slipping into a coma, waiting for the presenter to move on.
A good presenter can still use this, by engaging via interesting, useful, amusing anecdotes at each point. Problem is, if the presentation is about oh... product features, or sales projections... there's nothing interesting, useful, or amusing about it. So don't try. Just show us the slide and hit "next". If the presentation in on "ways to avoid getting mugged", or "how to tell if you're a raccoon", maybe you should talk about each point. Maybe.
Canada announced this three days ago... here on Slashdot.
Maybe Finland will be doing it earlier in 2030 than Canada. Don't know. Now I'm wondering how many other countries are going to be first.
So, before electronic storage, the police shouldn't have had access to paper storage? Why memorize a phone number if you can write it down?
The problem with encryption is not that the police shouldn't have access to the data (with a warrant), it's that there's no way to grant only the police access. Those who want strong encryption believe keeping the data private from third parties is the greater good.
No, the police shouldn't have access... if you scrambled/encrypted the data. Only your knowledge can decrypt that data on the paper. If it's in plain text... you haven't really made the data knowledge-dependent. Writing something down in plain-text is equivalent to saying what you know out loud.
I hear you, but I don't agree I consider my mind a sanctum that is mine alone. Period. Ever. Not the least... I know I've had had "don't think of the purple elephant" horrible thoughts. Thoughts that don't actually reflect my opinions, or that I would ever, ever act upon, but were more or less random. If taken out of context, they remain merely horrible, and misrepresent me. So mind is a thing I don't think anyone should have access to without permission, EVER. Which I feel applies to mind-extension technology.
I totally get it that law-enforcement may fail to get access to a perp's "Terrorist Buddies" contact list if they can't crack a phone. I accept that as a worthwhile price, but I also understand that's a personal judgment.
To a large degree, data storage is an extension of what a person knows. Why bother memorizing a phone number when you have hardware to do it? Why bother memorizing a hundred passwords when you have hardware to do it? Even our music collection is on hardware purely because our ability to memorize it is imperfect.
The moment a law is passed that mandates law-enforcement access to our electronic devices, we are giving them access to what we know. Today that may or may not be reasonable. But tomorrow, the day after, or a hundred years from now we will have these devices integral to ourselves. Implants within us, most likely, that augment our memories. It's not unreasonable to predict a (likely distant) future where a device taps our optic nerve and provides us "augmented reality". Can't remember the name of the person you're looking at? The device will do that for you. But it will also be able to record what you see, or hear, for future perfect recall.
So what happens when the iPhone law is applied to internal storage? It's mind-reading. This legislation is one step shy of "police must be allowed to read your mind if it is possible". That disturbs me.
Third, the recommendation is "how we shipped it". You don't need to document that.
Then why did Microsoft ship PowerShell with scripts off and Edge with scripts on?
Theory: because they're different products that do different things and run different kinds of scripts?
The four execution policies are no scripts (default), only scripts signed by trusted publishers, only scripts created locally or signed by trusted publishers, and all scripts. But in practice, most individual developers distributing scripts to the public through GitHub aren't going to be able to afford the CA racket. Nor will they be able to simultaneously satisfy CAs' private key nondisclosure requirements and GPLv3/LGPLv3 requirements for "Installation Information". Thus most scripts distributed through popular source code repository hosts will be unsigned, and effectively everybody will end up setting the policy to unrestricted to "just make it work, G.D. it".
So in practice, what protection does execution policy afford if most users of PCs not joined to a domain will end up setting it to unrestricted? Where if anywhere does Microsoft recommend which execution policy is appropriate for common situations?
First of all, given the choice between CMD.EXE which can only do file type activities and PowerShell which can perform those plus a massive number of other things, worrying about (default) script policy isn't worthwhile. With CMD.EXE you can do so much less that you might as well be running with a policy of "there are no scripts".
Secondly, most people - by far - will never have need to run a PowerShell script. If they do, they're the sort of people who can read "step 1: set your execution policy". Joe Average has no business running PowerShell scripts that they don't know what they are and how they work. Which is why a default policy preventing unsigned scripts from running is a good idea.
Third, the recommendation is "how we shipped it". You don't need to document that.
I'm not defending Samsung, nor the Note 7 product. Just pointing out that if you're counting failures, including Note 7 won't get you a percentage increase.
How would we know? Blannco Technology doesn't say a thing about how they get to there numbers. All we know is that they do it in a way so that the total failure rate for iOS devices is much higher than that for the iOS device model with the highest failure rate. So or all we know the Note 7 may raise the Android failure rate to 114%.
Because a failure rate of a few dozens of phones out of several millions shipped isn't a number that raises anything that isn't already effectively zero.
If by "anything", you mean unsigned scripts, well, sort of.
Then how do you sign a script without paying hundreds per year to the CA racket? Last I checked, code signing had no counterpart to Let's Encrypt or even an affordable Comodo reseller like SSLS.
1} You don't. I'm not a dev, but I'm pretty sure you pay to sign your code if you need it signed. It's interesting. On a platform I administer and the right and need to run scripts on, I have the ability to temporarily or permanently permit unsigned to code to run. On systems where I don't have the ability to set execution policy, what business do I have running arbitrary unsigned scripts?
2} More importantly, my point was that using interactive commands doesn't require changing execution policy.
Every time you open a command prompt, don't forget you have to enter "set-executionpolicy unrestricted" before you can actually run anything.
If by "anything", you mean unsigned scripts, well, sort of. Just running commands interactively doesn't require this at all.
As has been explained elsewhere, it's a one-time thing per account, and can be administered globally in multiple ways.
>> set it through Group Policy nope, that won't won't be allowed either.
Right. Of course it won't. Because... reasons.
20 failed? That must be the number for those "we found the problem, this phone will not explode , we promise" version of the Note 7.
Heck, even Samsung claimed 35 confirmed cases when they started the exchange program to that version. And that's how statistics are twisted
20. 35. Out of millions. The point I was making was that what actually failed was a tiny portion of the whole. That doesn't speak to how many would have failed given a few more months or years of being used. It just addresses actually failures.
I'm not defending Samsung, nor the Note 7 product. Just pointing out that if you're counting failures, including Note 7 won't get you a percentage increase.
Samsung Galaxy 7 line of products will soon rebalance the percentage.
Depends on how you look at it. Something like... 20 of them failed, right? And millions were sold. That makes a really, really low failure rate.
And this is how statistics are twisted.
Maybe this Trump thing could be a good thing.
Dream on.
The most important thing that happens when a presidental term expires is that the corporate interests are forced to purchase legislators again. Rest assured something like the TPP will appear after a couple years of "influence" changes hands.
Bubble wrap is sure to win next year. It's the definitive safe-space toy for ages to come. Well, except for that choking hazard problem.
I'm waiting for "envelope", "cardboard box", "wrapping tape", "styofoam peanuts" and "shipping container" to make the list.
Why should the majority be held captive by the majority of the minority?
I've had a more brutal thought; why should the nation be held captive to their own inability to decide?
What I mean is that it shouldn't be sufficient - for something this important - to win by one vote. 60,000,000 to 60,000,001 votes and one of those candidates gets declared the winner? That makes no sense to me. That's statistical noise. That's a pair of candidates who have failed to demonstrate to the people that they are worthy.
I'm of the opinion that there should be a margin required, not just a majority. Convince 60% of voters to pick you, or you're disqualified. I recognize that could mean an election with no winner. That could be designed around. Something like having the subordinate bodies (House & Senate, I think, in the US?) appoint an interim officer to fill the duties of the office for the... oh... 90 days permitted for the next election. Or hold your elections a couple years before the current term expires.
It is very disturbing to me how close some of these major elections have been in the last few cycles. It's a coin-toss. Put another way: very nearly half of a country does not want its leader.
I've got money burning a hole in my pocket, but between this and the piece of shit MacBook Pro that was announced recently, I don't know what to do.
I'm no fan of some of the behavior recently, but this latest one requires you to be using Edge. You'd be doing that why? Use Firefox like a normal person and you're okay. Or Chrome, if you must.
There's much to get riled up about, but this one isn't one.
My latest purchase was a Surface Book, and after setting things my way (ClassicShell, etc), it's very reasonable.
Not that Comey isn't trying to fix that. Interesting tweetstorm from former DOJ spokesman Matthew Miller:
Nice rant but... what?
Look. If a presidential candidate is being investigated for criminal misconduct, that's absolutely, positively, something the voting populace should know about, before they vote. That's only rational. Voters should have the best information available at the time it is available. That's now, even if the information is partial.
Also, bringing up "Trump/Russia" is weird. Since when is there anything resembling a shred of evidence that Trump has caused Russia to do anything? Assuming the Russian government has a preference for him over Hillary, why invent a narrative where Trump colludes with them? There's no need. It's redundant. So what - precisely - is there to investigate? Even if Russian spies have literally broken into Hillary's home and stole all her home porno tapes, that's on them, not Trump.
OBDisclosure: I am a non-American who thinks Trump is a sleaze and Hillary is a crook. Both candidates are horrible choices in my eye. The only way I am biased is against both of them as options. Couldn't you have convinced Oprah to run for office, or Ted Nugent or something?
Transgendered panda?
Yes, Ling-ling was born a biological lesbian male panda, then transitioned to an asexual post-operative female panda, but he/she/it currently identifies mentally as a pan-sexual hermaphroditic alligator.
All joking aside, somewhere along the line I stopped caring what's between anyone else's legs and between their ears, and what they do with either, sexually-speaking as long as it's consensual. Maybe that makes me insensitive. Maybe that makes me enlightened. I can't tell anymore.
apple needs to have real pro hardware and not this have to make it thinner shit.
Exactly. At the root, his answer is "To put more than 16GB of fast RAM into a notebook design at this time would require we make it an angstrom thicker and we'd rather chew off our own testicles than do that so fuck you very much and please keep sending us money."
Even a big family streaming half a dozen UHD monsters shouldn't be able to saturate a 1 Gbps link.
His huge downloads are probably hogging the whole bandwidth because of poor QoS, so 10 Gbps solves the problem with brute excess capacity.
Agreed. There is something very, very wrong with this story, and you've pointed out half of it.
The other half which struck me is the oddity of "yada yada residential Internet" followed by this lengthy diatribe about how massive XRays, PET scans, and 3D mammography files are. Well, uh, why is this doctor taking medical records home? It strikes me as odd and disturbing. He's a radiologist, so a lot of what he does is interpretation, but shouldn't medical records be confined to "controlled" networks at a hospital, not permitted to be flung onto a personal, uncontrolled network? See, I gather it's uncontrolled because of the point you brought up... there clearly isn't anything resembling sensible QoS going on if a few kids (how many does he HAVE?) Netflix usage is blocking out yet another kid's FaceTime session on 1Gbps.
I suspect a} someone's doing something shady but maybe technically legal with medical records and b} someone's got a bigger-dick-than-you syndrome, buying Internet capacity he doesn't need, because he can, and because someone will interview him about it and - more importantly - tell everyone else about the size of his pipe.