And take a close look at that graph. Last time lending peaked, there was the Great Depression; lending fell drastically, while government borrowing rose considerably. A notable fact about the depression is that we came out of it (and then experienced the greatest expansion of standard of living in history; if you credit WWII for pulling the U.S. out of the depression this won't carry much weight, but that is far from a universal interpretation). So "things are like they were then" doesn't particularly imply doom.
I don't mean to suggest that the next decade is going to be awesome, but the numbers, especially right now, really do not suggest that the U.S., and the U.S. economy are going to fall apart.
Not really. At least, not all that much (for instance, many people seem to be happy to finance the purchase of a house using compounds interest, and a not inconsequential number of those people manage to end up owning a home).
If you assume that my first figures didn't include servicing the debt and assume that all of the U.S. debt is financed at 10% (it is actually much lower than this), you are only (which may be a poor word here) talking about another trillion dollars in pain. That still leaves $13 trillion for the running of the country. In reality, it would probably be a maximum of around 0.4 trillion in additional money down the hole.
And I do think that this sucks, but we are still pretty far away from unsustainable (with hints of going for it over the next few years, but why hope for the worst?).
The situations are only comparable in the cutest sort of way.
Anyway, the U.S. has the problem that we want to spend ~$15 trillion, but only produce ~$14 trillion (or so, there is lots of room for those numbers to be different depending on the year and a bunch of other stuff, but those two numbers are a reasonable representation of the situation, at least for this decade). Not having the extra trillion would certainly be very noticeable, but it would merely be painful, not catastrophic.
I would certainly prefer less spending, being solvent and not doing as much as might be possible seems preferable to trying to do too much and going broke.
Yeah, okay, I was aware of the die-readable behavior but completely failed to consider it, thanks for the quick explanation.
I guess the upside is that storage is cheap enough that by the time it is decommissioned, destroying it doesn't destroy all that much value (at least, in comparison to the market for new storage, there is still waste).
Recent U.S. debt auctions have been well subscribed, you apparently hold the minority view, or, at least, there are plenty of people with money to lend who disagree with you.
I would think that if you wrote 0s to every block of an SSD, that there wouldn't be anything recoverable left on the SSD (I am also probably naive enough to believe this about HDDs). Are there rumors of tools that can tell the firmware to ignore remapping and such?
What would Microsoft get out of it? They are pretty happy letting other companies do all the low margin work involved in making and selling hardware and then collecting a bounty on each of those dollars. And Java doesn't really buy them anything; on Windows platforms,.NET is at least as good a platform, and they aren't really at the point where they need to abandon the 'use our stuff on our stuff' strategy.
Solaris is available under a rather liberal license. If Cisco thinks they can get away with buying a few hundred million dollars of expertise, no way are they going to spend billions.
So allocate some conservative number of sectors for the index (conservative in the sense that it should outlast the rest of the drive) and look through those sectors in the opposite order that they are used until you find the most recently used sector, which is the up to date index.
If I can come up with that in 10 minutes (the only flaws would be that it might take some milliseconds at start-up, and it is subject to poor estimation), Intel can come up with something that works just fine.
Up to date controllers write heavily used logical sectors to new physical locations, so repeatedly writing a single sector isn't all that different from repeatedly writing other stuff.
What? You are implying that crime is geographically average, which is a pretty big assumption. There are whole classes of crime that are geographically concentrated, and all sorts of crimes that are residential instead of commercial, and so forth.
This is why I send paper. The IRS already figures my taxes, there is no good reason that they can't send me their figures, at which point I either agree with them and sign off on them, or I file my own calculations. Using the third party services just panders to stupid idea that they are providing something worthwhile.
Basically, anybody who took the standard deduction last year might as well get pre-filled forms, but the tax industry has better lobbyists than taxpayers do.
Slashdot Mirror
They are. That doesn't help you much if I give you a forgery.
Including the endzones, 2,054,096 football fields. Excluding the endzones, 2,464,915.5 football fields.
Buy it from a reputable dealer and make sure it says "Intel" on the box.
AnandTech also seems to have a pretty good handle on things.
The vast majority of mortgages are fine.
And take a close look at that graph. Last time lending peaked, there was the Great Depression; lending fell drastically, while government borrowing rose considerably. A notable fact about the depression is that we came out of it (and then experienced the greatest expansion of standard of living in history; if you credit WWII for pulling the U.S. out of the depression this won't carry much weight, but that is far from a universal interpretation). So "things are like they were then" doesn't particularly imply doom.
I don't mean to suggest that the next decade is going to be awesome, but the numbers, especially right now, really do not suggest that the U.S., and the U.S. economy are going to fall apart.
Not really. At least, not all that much (for instance, many people seem to be happy to finance the purchase of a house using compounds interest, and a not inconsequential number of those people manage to end up owning a home).
If you assume that my first figures didn't include servicing the debt and assume that all of the U.S. debt is financed at 10% (it is actually much lower than this), you are only (which may be a poor word here) talking about another trillion dollars in pain. That still leaves $13 trillion for the running of the country. In reality, it would probably be a maximum of around 0.4 trillion in additional money down the hole.
And I do think that this sucks, but we are still pretty far away from unsustainable (with hints of going for it over the next few years, but why hope for the worst?).
Seren days?
The situations are only comparable in the cutest sort of way.
Anyway, the U.S. has the problem that we want to spend ~$15 trillion, but only produce ~$14 trillion (or so, there is lots of room for those numbers to be different depending on the year and a bunch of other stuff, but those two numbers are a reasonable representation of the situation, at least for this decade). Not having the extra trillion would certainly be very noticeable, but it would merely be painful, not catastrophic.
I would certainly prefer less spending, being solvent and not doing as much as might be possible seems preferable to trying to do too much and going broke.
Yeah, okay, I was aware of the die-readable behavior but completely failed to consider it, thanks for the quick explanation.
I guess the upside is that storage is cheap enough that by the time it is decommissioned, destroying it doesn't destroy all that much value (at least, in comparison to the market for new storage, there is still waste).
Recent U.S. debt auctions have been well subscribed, you apparently hold the minority view, or, at least, there are plenty of people with money to lend who disagree with you.
Pasteboard incorporating recycled stock may well be more advanced than an AK-47, but it isn't actually more useful during an international conflict.
The trick is knowing which block of flash is current (while not wearing out that block of flash).
AIG?
Of course, 'completely unregulated framework' and 'corporation' are pretty incompatible.
I would think that if you wrote 0s to every block of an SSD, that there wouldn't be anything recoverable left on the SSD (I am also probably naive enough to believe this about HDDs). Are there rumors of tools that can tell the firmware to ignore remapping and such?
What would Microsoft get out of it? They are pretty happy letting other companies do all the low margin work involved in making and selling hardware and then collecting a bounty on each of those dollars. And Java doesn't really buy them anything; on Windows platforms, .NET is at least as good a platform, and they aren't really at the point where they need to abandon the 'use our stuff on our stuff' strategy.
Solaris is available under a rather liberal license. If Cisco thinks they can get away with buying a few hundred million dollars of expertise, no way are they going to spend billions.
Do you think it would be like when Flickr bought Yahoo!?
Sure, but you also sort of hope that locating the police station there has some impact on the crime rates.
(neither of our comments are particularly relevant here, the story is about a data entry problem, not about concentrated crime)
So allocate some conservative number of sectors for the index (conservative in the sense that it should outlast the rest of the drive) and look through those sectors in the opposite order that they are used until you find the most recently used sector, which is the up to date index.
If I can come up with that in 10 minutes (the only flaws would be that it might take some milliseconds at start-up, and it is subject to poor estimation), Intel can come up with something that works just fine.
Please explain how RAID1 puts less stress on the remaining drive in the case of a failure.
But where are all the zombies?
Up to date controllers write heavily used logical sectors to new physical locations, so repeatedly writing a single sector isn't all that different from repeatedly writing other stuff.
What? You are implying that crime is geographically average, which is a pretty big assumption. There are whole classes of crime that are geographically concentrated, and all sorts of crimes that are residential instead of commercial, and so forth.
The rapture will come on a Sunday.
Your snark would be way more awesome if AC had made a ridiculous absolute statement, rather than the tempered statement that they did make.
This is why I send paper. The IRS already figures my taxes, there is no good reason that they can't send me their figures, at which point I either agree with them and sign off on them, or I file my own calculations. Using the third party services just panders to stupid idea that they are providing something worthwhile.
Basically, anybody who took the standard deduction last year might as well get pre-filled forms, but the tax industry has better lobbyists than taxpayers do.