The Obama administration chose to publish the ten-year cost number, because that makes them look better than any other choice. Too short and the startup costs aren't amortized much, too long and you get into the time period where we're scheduled to actually pay for much of it. Those 12 million people wil need insurance for the next ten years, so it's perfectly appropriate to talk about what it will cost to cover them for ten years. 12 million isn't a one-time number, as if they only needed coverage for one day. The number of previously uninsured people may covered may fluctuate a bit, but not by order of magnitude or anything like that.
No, that's not a mistake I made. I made a much simpler mistake, though - I lost track of the number of zeros ehile trying to calculate trillions in my head.
> A Family Court official ruled that Noel Biscocho could use Facebook to serve Anna Maria Antigua because other, more traditional methods to slap her with papers have not worked.
Historically, when the defendant absolutely cannot be reached any other way, the service of last resort was to put a classified ad in the "legal notices" section of the newspaper. In order for a judge to accept that, you had to show that you didn't know where the person lived or worked, and had no reasonable means of finding out. It seems to me that in case like this, delivery via the person's _active_ Facebook account is much better than a classified ad,and may well be the best available method of reaching the person.
I used the CBO estimate of $1.3 trillion. You linked to their revised estimate of $1.38 trillion. Yes, you're right, it'll be 6% more expensive than the estimate I used.:rolleyes:
My numbers don't work. Now I'm not sure how I got that number. Perhaps I should use paper and pencil when calculating Obama-sized costs. I'm going to show my work like this is fourth grade, so if I blew it again someone can easily point it out.
Direct federal cost: 1 300 000 000 000 people covered: 12 000 000 (roughly double the cost once you include premium increases, but let's start with just the cost we'll pay as federal taxes).
Cost:
1 300 000 000 000 _______________
12 000 000
Start dropping zeroes from both to get reasonable sized numbers for numerator and denominator:
1 300 000 000 000 dollars to cover _______________
12 000 000 people
1 300 000 000 dollars to cover ___________
12 000
1 300 000 dollars to cover ________
12 people
108 333 dollars to cover ______
1 person
With premium increases, maybe $200,000 per person. So that's expensive, but not nearly as expensive as I had first calculated.
> Your math doesn't work out. Care to show your work?
$1.3 trillion (US) federal tax cost / 12 million people = $11.3 million per person covered. Does that look right so far, or did I fat-finger the calculation? That's US trillion, which is different from UK trillion, I believe.
In addition to the $11.3 million indirect cost to the taxpayers, we have the the significant increase in premium costs since insurance companies now have to cover people who wait until something happens before they buy insurance, and the cost of generally moving away from INSURANCE (protection from catastrophic loss) to having a third- party payer for massage therapy. That cost increase could be anywhere from 25%-140%, depending on where you live and which study you use. One person could make a reasonable argument that the total premium increases minus out-of-pocket reductions is half a trillion, and someone else could make an argument just as strong that it's two trillion. My previous post guesstimated around a trillion. That number isn't solid, of course, but we can certainly say "$11.3 million per patient federal tax cost, plus a lot more in increased premiums".
> I can't help but noticing you left the duration out
That's the ten year cost, per the administration plan. So around $2 million per person per year, assuming cost reductions later as per the Obama administration's plan. The short term cost is much higher per year, of course. If we recognize that kicking the can down the road doesn't actually work - that a future Congress will kick it again, the actual costs are likely to be higher, but I wanted to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. It's bad enough based on accepting his numbers - we needn't bother trying to be more accurate and figure whether it'll actually be $30 million or $40 million per person.
Let's assume that 12 million estimate is correct, that due to Obamacare, 12 million people who weren't insured before are now insured. Of course, other people give different estimates, but let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
The net cost of Obamacare to the federal taxpayers is $1.3 trillion (CBO). $1.3 trillion / 12 million people covered = $11.3 million per person. I don't think we got a good deal.
The $11 million per person covered is of course just the direct cost to the federal government. In 2013, we saw the following rate increases due to Obamacare: Connecticut: 37% average rate increase Florida: 42% average rate increase Illinois: 33% average rate increase Michigan: 39% average rate increase Minnesota: 35% average rate increase
The trend accelerates in 2014: Delaware 100% New Hampshire 90% Indiana 54% California 53% Connecticut 45% Michigan 36% Florida 37% Georgia 29% Kentucky 29% Pennsylvania 28%
So there's another trillion dollars it cost average Americans, in the form of much higher premiums. A couple TRILLION dollars to (maybe) cover $12 million people. At a cost of around $20 million per person covered, I don't think I'd trumpet that as a victory if I were a Democrat. (And in fact Democrat most candidates are distancing themselves from the mess.)
In response to Tail Hook, Congress passed laws preventing commanders from overturning jury conviction for sexual assault, requiring a civilian review when commanders decline to prosecute, requiring dishonorable discharge or dismissal for those convicted, eliminating the statute of limitations for courts-martial in rape and sexual assault cases and criminalizing retaliation against victims who report an assault. The President did nothing. So who, exactly, demonstrated the power to do something about it?
The Constitution is only a few pages . You ca read it, rather than making wild guesses about what it says. So far, all your guesses are wrong. Article 2 section 2 enumerates the powers of the president. They are: Make treaties Appoint certain officers, subject to Senate approval Serve as commander in chief of the armed forces Sign or veto bills passe by Congress
There may be one more I'm not thinking of off the top of my head, but "run everything " is not in the list. 99% of what the president does is at the direction of Congress. The Constitution vests most authority in Congress. If you don't believe me, like I said you can easily read it for yourself. It's short enough that I had it memorized at one point in time.
The Constitution grants CONGRESS the power to coin regulate money, not the executive. The exact wording is "Congress shall have the power..." The executive has only those powers that Congress grants it, except for a very, very few granted directly by the Constitution.
> that the government had the power to make unreasonable ones before.
The Constitution is the founding document that CREATED the federal government. It didn't exist "before". Before the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, we had only a loose coalition of states, with the confederation itself having virtually no power - not even the power to tax.
The fourth amendment, and the rest of the bill of rights, lists things the government shall not do. Separately, the enumerated powers clause lists what they are allowed to do, and says they may not do anything else oter than what is listed - all other powers are reserved to the states and the people, the Constitution says.
Nothing in the Bill of Rights or anywhere else in the Constitution gives the executive the right to perform searches, except that Congress has legislative power (limited to the enumerated powers) . It's Congress that grants the executive search power, by passing a law saying they can search _____ when _____. The fourth LIMITS that, saying Congress may not allow unreasonable searches. The Constitution does NOT say that all reasonable searches are allowed.
You asked "why does the boat (infrastructure) need to be in the ocean (internet). You said very specifically that you were talking about ALL commerce, NOT just about critical infrastructure. Would you like to flip-flop a third time and go back to critical infrastructure? If so, refer to my explanation of why public health services are connected.
Along with the longer articles mentioned, here's a one sentence summary of the ruling: Adding the words "on a computer" doesn't change the patentability of a supposed invention.
In Alice, someone basically tried to patent "do escrow on a computer". The court ruled that "do escrow" isn't new or patentable, and adding the words "on a computer" doesn't change anything.
Some in the Slashdot crowd may be tempted to, through wishful thinking, add meaning that the court rejected. The court did NOT rule that having that you can't patent anything that can be done on a computer. They ruled that: (not patentable) + (on a computer) = (not patentable)
The wording of the opinion also suggests that probably: (patentable) + (on a computer) = (patentable)
In other words: X + (on a computer) = X
They said that whether or not it's done on a computer doesn't change the patentability, if the computer part is standard, normal computing processes on a generic computer.
That implies that a new invention which uses a computer in a new, different, and useful way may very well be patentable. So for example it leaves the door open to the idea that a method of doing calculus on the GPU instead of the CPU might have been patentable a few years ago - that was a new, inventive way of using the computer, different from how computers had been used before. Alice talks specifically about "wholly generic computer implementation" as not adding anything to the application.
> no court in the U.S. has the authority to order a specific change to a product.
Not that they'd actually order that a backdoor be developed, but most courts can order specific performance. In many states, small claims courts are limited to monetary damages, but any other court of general jurisdiction can issue a specific performance order. You see this used in custody cases where the father is ordered to provide health insurance, for example. It's also common to have specific performance ordering a government official to take some action, such as issuing a title for a car that didn't have the normal documentation. In general, a court can order whatever the court thinks is equitable, subject only to the prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment ".
I think I answered them quite clearly. If there are English words you're unfamiliar with in my answers, I'd be happy to explain those words to you.
Here are two questions for you: Why would you blame and punish the victim, rather than holding people accountable for what they do? The attacker committed a crime / act of war. The victim tried to provide important services to people and was attacked while doing so.
Do have any idea what level 4 preparedness costs, or even what it is? If not, perhaps you're not qualified to speak on the subject.
> TRIM does impact endurance in that it CAN reduce write amplification
Yes. Like I originally said. Trim, by avoiding write amplification in some cases, increases endurance. However, it only helps for otherwise unused blocks, so the impact of trim is application dependent, as I said right in the subject line of my original post.
> TRIM has nothing to do with endurance. TRIM erases cells that are scheduled for erasure anyways; all TRIM does is try to time that erasure such that it occurs at a time that will not effect performance.
I guess you now realize that's wrong. The main purpose of trim is to avoid reading and writing pages that are unused anyway. The SSD doesn't need to reallocate trimmed blocks, because the OS isn't using that data anyway. Less physical reading and writing == more endurance.
> to say that TRIM fixes write endurance problems is highly misleading.
Which is pretty much the subject line of my original post.
> Not to be harsh, but there is if you actually took the time to understand the tech.
Now that you've agreed with what I said (trim affects endurance, but in an application dependent way), are you ready to admit YOU had forgotten exactly what the tech does? Maybe YOU would like to read the wikipedia article to refresh your memory?
1> Why should the boat (infrastructure) be in the Ocean (attached to the Internet)? As previously stated, "profit" is not an answer.
A ship should be in the ocean to bring bananas to North America, and generally get things to people eho need them. Foreign governments should not fire missiles at those ships. The internet made up of infrastructure , and can itself be considered to be critical infrastructure. It makes no sense to ask why it should be connected to itself. I see now you must have read the phrase "critical infrastructure " a lot and forgot that the word "critical" is there for a reason. Kind if like "fighter jet" - most jets aren't fighters, and most infrastructure isn't critical, so if you mean to distinguish critical infrastructure from Sony's PlayStation infrastructure please do so. The stock exchange should be network- connected so you can save fir retirement without paying a broker $150 transaction fee every month. Public health systems should be connected for fast, effective response to a public health crisis.
> Someone breaks into your house and rapes everyone inside, then steals everything of value you have no recourse
If that happens, you should be imprisoned. You failed to protect your family from armed attack. If you disagree , there's your answer to #2. We hold people accountable for what they DO. We don't hold people accountable and imprison them for getting raped or otherwise attacked. We imprison (or kill) the rapist, not the victim.
The attacker is at fault, not the victim. (The victim may have been foolish in the case of some crimes, but no amount of street smarts will protect you against a hostile super power on the rise.) You cannot protect yourself against China. They have zero-days, they have moles, and no company has the resources to fight China single-handedly. In this, I know of what I speak.
> I don't restrict the argument to just infrastructure. It's commerce as well, where some person/company accepts responsibility for another person's wealth or property (as with the original post and their stock exchange comment). All of these things are the same, and the argument is the same.
Okay, so the dry cleaner DOES need a private army to defend your clothes in case of attack by China. A minute ago you shifted to "society absolutely cannot function without", but now we're back to all commerce. I can go either way, I just wish you'd pick one and stick with it. It's kind of annoying when you change your position with each post as your previous post is shown,to be ridiculous.
So now we're at "anyone in commerce is negligent unless they have a private army capable of standing their ground agains attack by the Chinese government ", correct?
Infrared: below red Infrasound: below sound Infrastructure: below structure
> "Infrastructure" means that everyone relies on this, and society can not function without it.
Not in any way, shape or form, not even a litle bit close or related. Infrasound does not mean "sound that society cannot function without", and infrastructure does not mean "structure that society cannot function without".
Infrastructure means parts and pieces which are underneath structure. A wire is not itself a structure, but an underlying part of a structure, such as my home network. Wiring is therefore infrastructure. A building's infrastructure is it's wires, beams, etc - all of the stuff that underlies the structure.
You seem to be silently adding "nationally critical " to the word infrastructure. From there, you've decided it's okay for China to attack nationally critical infrastructure.
> For posterity, "the Ocean" is at least close to the function of the Internet, where "New York" is not.
Okay, let's go with that, then.
> If a person runs a boat on the ocean are they not required to have gear to operate safely? If a boat owner had no lifeboats, no radar, no radio, not enough people to staff the boat would they not be held accountable if the boat had an accident?
An attack is not an accident. The government of China is _attacking_ US resources via the internet. We're not talking about accidents - someone didn't trip over the power cord. It's an attack by a foreign force. Having enough people to staff the boat, and a radio etc doesn't do much good when your ship is attacked by a foreign government. Your argument is that the ship (or web site) should have armament capable of defeating an attacking state, a rising superpower no less. "If they can't defend themselves against an attack from China, they deserve to be attacked and it's okay for China to attack them." That's your thesis, right? In the case of shipping, that would mean that each cargo ship should have anti-aircraft missiles, a squadron of fighter jets escorting it, etc. That's what it takes to defend a ship against an attack.
Other people think that operating fighter jets and otherwise defending the citizens against attacks by foreign nations is the proper role of the national government. "To raise and support armies", as the constitution says. Your idea that each citizen should have a private army capable of defending them against China is an interesting one.
> In the corporate world no-one's manipulating huge spreadsheets or writing 500 page legal documents on an iPad.
I'm guessing that in your corporate world, nobody HAS huge spreadsheets because they're putting the huge stuff in the RDMS whre it belongs. iPads aren't the right tool for significant datasets, and neither is Excel. In my world, most people do not use the right tool for the job.
Did you read rhe article? Micron claims their write endurance isn't a problem because of the way they implemented trim. That could make sense, if they avoided erasing and writing at all sometimes.
The internet isn't safe, so it's all the victim's fault, and we should ignore the attackers. Hmmm. "Anyone in any business who doesn't realize that the internet^H^H^H^H^H^H New York isn't a safe playground..."
That's your theory, right? Because the internet / New York / the ocean isn't a safe place, anyone attacked on the internet or in New York had it coming. The government of China is attacking our internet infrastructure, but theyget a pass because the internet isn't perfectly safe, right? The high seas also are not perfectly safe, so it would be okay for China to attack our shios at sea?
> and then suddenly we completely ran out of IPv4 addresses, so everyone, even Microsoft, had no choice but to get moving on IPv6
Ftfy . Most computing devices sold in the last three years don't run Windows. Microsoft is now a minority player. Android is #1, iOS #2.
So which companies have influence? Android is the most popular operating system, so it's support of IPv6 is important. Most end points that need new addresses get those addresses assigned by one of the major mobile carriers, while older equipment is still using the same old IPs on Comcast and Time Warner. The equipment on the backbones is mostly Cisco gear, so it matters what Cisco supports the best, but they'll provide whatever Comcast and Level3 want to buy.
Slashdot Mirror
The Obama administration chose to publish the ten-year cost number, because that makes them look better than any other choice. Too short and the startup costs aren't amortized much, too long and you get into the time period where we're scheduled to actually pay for much of it. Those 12 million people wil need insurance for the next ten years, so it's perfectly appropriate to talk about what it will cost to cover them for ten years. 12 million isn't a one-time number, as if they only needed coverage for one day. The number of previously uninsured people may covered may fluctuate a bit, but not by order of magnitude or anything like that.
No, that's not a mistake I made. I made a much simpler mistake, though - I lost track of the number of zeros ehile trying to calculate trillions in my head.
This is, I think, the key line in TFA:
> A Family Court official ruled that Noel Biscocho could use Facebook to serve Anna Maria Antigua because other, more traditional methods to slap her with papers have not worked.
Historically, when the defendant absolutely cannot be reached any other way, the service of last resort was to put a classified ad in the "legal notices" section of the newspaper. In order for a judge to accept that, you had to show that you didn't know where the person lived or worked, and had no reasonable means of finding out. It seems to me that in case like this, delivery via the person's _active_ Facebook account is much better than a classified ad,and may well be the best available method of reaching the person.
I used the CBO estimate of $1.3 trillion. You linked to their revised estimate of $1.38 trillion. Yes, you're right, it'll be 6% more expensive than the estimate I used. :rolleyes:
My numbers don't work. Now I'm not sure how I got that number. Perhaps I should use paper and pencil when calculating Obama-sized costs.
I'm going to show my work like this is fourth grade, so if I blew it again someone can easily point it out.
Direct federal cost: 1 300 000 000 000
people covered: 12 000 000
(roughly double the cost once you include premium increases, but let's start with just the cost we'll pay as federal taxes).
Cost:
1 300 000 000 000
_______________
12 000 000
Start dropping zeroes from both to get reasonable sized numbers for numerator and denominator:
1 300 000 000 000 dollars to cover
_______________
12 000 000 people
1 300 000 000 dollars to cover
___________
12 000
1 300 000 dollars to cover
________
12 people
108 333 dollars to cover
______
1 person
With premium increases, maybe $200,000 per person. So that's expensive, but not nearly as expensive as I had first calculated.
> Your math doesn't work out. Care to show your work?
$1.3 trillion (US) federal tax cost / 12 million people = $11.3 million per person covered.
Does that look right so far, or did I fat-finger the calculation? That's US trillion, which is different from UK trillion, I believe.
In addition to the $11.3 million indirect cost to the taxpayers, we have the the significant increase in premium costs since insurance companies now have to cover people who wait until something happens before they buy insurance, and the cost of generally moving away from INSURANCE (protection from catastrophic loss) to having a third- party payer for massage therapy. That cost increase could be anywhere from 25%-140%, depending on where you live and which study you use. One person could make a reasonable argument that the total premium increases minus out-of-pocket reductions is half a trillion, and someone else could make an argument just as strong that it's two trillion. My previous post guesstimated around a trillion. That number isn't solid, of course, but we can certainly say "$11.3 million per patient federal tax cost, plus a lot more in increased premiums".
> I can't help but noticing you left the duration out
That's the ten year cost, per the administration plan. So around $2 million per person per year, assuming cost reductions later as per the Obama administration's plan.
The short term cost is much higher per year, of course. If we recognize that kicking the can down the road doesn't actually work - that a future Congress will kick it again, the actual costs are likely to be higher, but I wanted to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. It's bad enough based on accepting his numbers - we needn't bother trying to be more accurate and figure whether it'll actually be $30 million or $40 million per person.
Let's assume that 12 million estimate is correct, that due to Obamacare, 12 million people who weren't insured before are now insured. Of course, other people give different estimates, but let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt.
The net cost of Obamacare to the federal taxpayers is $1.3 trillion (CBO). $1.3 trillion / 12 million people covered = $11.3 million per person.
I don't think we got a good deal.
The $11 million per person covered is of course just the direct cost to the federal government. In 2013, we saw the following rate increases due to Obamacare:
Connecticut: 37% average rate increase
Florida: 42% average rate increase
Illinois: 33% average rate increase
Michigan: 39% average rate increase
Minnesota: 35% average rate increase
The trend accelerates in 2014:
Delaware 100%
New Hampshire 90%
Indiana 54%
California 53%
Connecticut 45%
Michigan 36%
Florida 37%
Georgia 29%
Kentucky 29%
Pennsylvania 28%
So there's another trillion dollars it cost average Americans, in the form of much higher premiums. A couple TRILLION dollars to (maybe) cover $12 million people. At a cost of around $20 million per person covered, I don't think I'd trumpet that as a victory if I were a Democrat. (And in fact Democrat most candidates are distancing themselves from the mess.)
In response to Tail Hook, Congress passed laws preventing commanders from overturning jury conviction for sexual assault, requiring a civilian review when commanders decline to prosecute, requiring dishonorable discharge or dismissal for those convicted, eliminating the statute of limitations for courts-martial in rape and sexual assault cases and criminalizing retaliation against victims who report an assault. The President did nothing. So who, exactly, demonstrated the power to do something about it?
The Constitution is only a few pages . You ca read it, rather than making wild guesses about what it says. So far, all your guesses are wrong. Article 2 section 2 enumerates the powers of the president. They are:
Make treaties
Appoint certain officers, subject to Senate approval
Serve as commander in chief of the armed forces
Sign or veto bills passe by Congress
There may be one more I'm not thinking of off the top of my head, but "run everything " is not in the list. 99% of what the president does is at the direction of Congress. The Constitution vests most authority in Congress. If you don't believe me, like I said you can easily read it for yourself. It's short enough that I had it memorized at one point in time.
The Constitution grants CONGRESS the power to coin regulate money, not the executive. The exact wording is "Congress shall have the power..." The executive has only those powers that Congress grants it, except for a very, very few granted directly by the Constitution.
> that the government had the power to make unreasonable ones before.
The Constitution is the founding document that CREATED the federal government. It didn't exist "before". Before the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, we had only a loose coalition of states, with the confederation itself having virtually no power - not even the power to tax.
The fourth amendment, and the rest of the bill of rights, lists things the government shall not do.
Separately, the enumerated powers clause lists what they are allowed to do, and says they may not do anything else oter than what is listed - all other powers are reserved to the states and the people, the Constitution says.
Nothing in the Bill of Rights or anywhere else in the Constitution gives the executive the right to perform searches, except that Congress has legislative power (limited to the enumerated powers) . It's Congress that grants the executive search power, by passing a law saying they can search _____ when _____. The fourth LIMITS that, saying Congress may not allow unreasonable searches. The Constitution does NOT say that all reasonable searches are allowed.
Android has had this option since approximately forever.
You asked "why does the boat (infrastructure) need to be in the ocean (internet). You said very specifically that you were talking about ALL commerce, NOT just about critical infrastructure. Would you like to flip-flop a third time and go back to critical infrastructure? If so, refer to my explanation of why public health services are connected.
Along with the longer articles mentioned, here's a one sentence summary of the ruling:
Adding the words "on a computer" doesn't change the patentability of a supposed invention.
In Alice, someone basically tried to patent "do escrow on a computer". The court ruled that "do escrow" isn't new or patentable, and adding the words "on a computer" doesn't change anything.
Some in the Slashdot crowd may be tempted to, through wishful thinking, add meaning that the court rejected. The court did NOT rule that having that you can't patent anything that can be done on a computer. They ruled that:
(not patentable) + (on a computer) = (not patentable)
The wording of the opinion also suggests that probably:
(patentable) + (on a computer) = (patentable)
In other words:
X + (on a computer) = X
They said that whether or not it's done on a computer doesn't change the patentability, if the computer part is standard, normal computing processes on a generic computer.
That implies that a new invention which uses a computer in a new, different, and useful way may very well be patentable. So for example it leaves the door open to the idea that a method of doing calculus on the GPU instead of the CPU might have been patentable a few years ago - that was a new, inventive way of using the computer, different from how computers had been used before. Alice talks specifically about "wholly generic computer implementation" as not adding anything to the application.
> no court in the U.S. has the authority to order a specific change to a product.
Not that they'd actually order that a backdoor be developed, but most courts can order specific performance. In many states, small claims courts are limited to monetary damages, but any other court of general jurisdiction can issue a specific performance order. You see this used in custody cases where the father is ordered to provide health insurance, for example. It's also common to have specific performance ordering a government official to take some action, such as issuing a title for a car that didn't have the normal documentation. In general, a court can order whatever the court thinks is equitable, subject only to the prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment ".
I think I answered them quite clearly. If there are English words you're unfamiliar with in my answers, I'd be happy to explain those words to you.
Here are two questions for you:
Why would you blame and punish the victim, rather than holding people accountable for what they do?
The attacker committed a crime / act of war. The victim tried to provide important services to people and was attacked while doing so.
Do have any idea what level 4 preparedness costs, or even what it is? If not, perhaps you're not qualified to speak on the subject.
> TRIM does impact endurance in that it CAN reduce write amplification
Yes. Like I originally said. Trim, by avoiding write amplification in some cases, increases endurance. However, it only helps for otherwise unused blocks, so the impact of trim is application dependent, as I said right in the subject line of my original post.
> TRIM has nothing to do with endurance. TRIM erases cells that are scheduled for erasure anyways; all TRIM does is try to time that erasure such that it occurs at a time that will not effect performance.
I guess you now realize that's wrong. The main purpose of trim is to avoid reading and writing pages that are unused anyway. The SSD doesn't need to reallocate trimmed blocks, because the OS isn't using that data anyway. Less physical reading and writing == more endurance.
> to say that TRIM fixes write endurance problems is highly misleading.
Which is pretty much the subject line of my original post.
> Not to be harsh, but there is if you actually took the time to understand the tech.
Now that you've agreed with what I said (trim affects endurance, but in an application dependent way), are you ready to admit YOU had forgotten exactly what the tech does? Maybe YOU would like to read the wikipedia article to refresh your memory?
1> Why should the boat (infrastructure) be in the Ocean (attached to the Internet)? As previously stated, "profit" is not an answer.
A ship should be in the ocean to bring bananas to North America, and generally get things to people eho need them. Foreign governments should not fire missiles at those ships. The internet made up of infrastructure , and can itself be considered to be critical infrastructure. It makes no sense to ask why it should be connected to itself. I see now you must have read the phrase "critical infrastructure " a lot and forgot that the word "critical" is there for a reason. Kind if like "fighter jet" - most jets aren't fighters, and most infrastructure isn't critical, so if you mean to distinguish critical infrastructure from Sony's PlayStation infrastructure please do so. The stock exchange should be network- connected so you can save fir retirement without paying a broker $150 transaction fee every month. Public health systems should be connected for fast, effective response to a public health crisis.
> Someone breaks into your house and rapes everyone inside, then steals everything of value you have no recourse
If that happens, you should be imprisoned. You failed to protect your family from armed attack. If you disagree , there's your answer to #2. We hold people accountable for what they DO. We don't hold people accountable and imprison them for getting raped or otherwise attacked. We imprison (or kill) the rapist, not the victim.
The attacker is at fault, not the victim. (The victim may have been foolish in the case of some crimes, but no amount of street smarts will protect you against a hostile super power on the rise.) You cannot protect yourself against China. They have zero-days, they have moles, and no company has the resources to fight China single-handedly. In this, I know of what I speak.
> I don't restrict the argument to just infrastructure. It's commerce as well, where some person/company accepts responsibility for another person's wealth or property (as with the original post and their stock exchange comment). All of these things are the same, and the argument is the same.
Okay, so the dry cleaner DOES need a private army to defend your clothes in case of attack by China.
A minute ago you shifted to "society absolutely cannot function without", but now we're back to all commerce. I can go either way, I just wish you'd pick one and stick with it. It's kind of annoying when you change your position with each post as your previous post is shown,to be ridiculous.
So now we're at "anyone in commerce is negligent unless they have a private army capable of standing their ground agains attack by the Chinese government ", correct?
Well we're kind of getting somewhere.
Infrared: below red
Infrasound: below sound
Infrastructure: below structure
> "Infrastructure" means that everyone relies on this, and society can not function without it.
Not in any way, shape or form, not even a litle bit close or related.
Infrasound does not mean "sound that society cannot function without", and infrastructure does not mean "structure that society cannot function without".
Infrastructure means parts and pieces which are underneath structure. A wire is not itself a structure, but an underlying part of a structure, such as my home network. Wiring is therefore infrastructure. A building's infrastructure is it's wires, beams, etc - all of the stuff that underlies the structure.
You seem to be silently adding "nationally critical " to the word infrastructure. From there, you've decided it's okay for China to attack nationally critical infrastructure.
> For posterity, "the Ocean" is at least close to the function of the Internet, where "New York" is not.
Okay, let's go with that, then.
> If a person runs a boat on the ocean are they not required to have gear to operate safely? If a boat owner had no lifeboats, no radar, no radio, not enough people to staff the boat would they not be held accountable if the boat had an accident?
An attack is not an accident. The government of China is _attacking_ US resources via the internet. We're not talking about accidents - someone didn't trip over the power cord. It's an attack by a foreign force. Having enough people to staff the boat, and a radio etc doesn't do much good when your ship is attacked by a foreign government. Your argument is that the ship (or web site) should have armament capable of defeating an attacking state, a rising superpower no less. "If they can't defend themselves against an attack from China, they deserve to be attacked and it's okay for China to attack them." That's your thesis, right? In the case of shipping, that would mean that each cargo ship should have anti-aircraft missiles, a squadron of fighter jets escorting it, etc. That's what it takes to defend a ship against an attack.
Other people think that operating fighter jets and otherwise defending the citizens against attacks by foreign nations is the proper role of the national government. "To raise and support armies", as the constitution says. Your idea that each citizen should have a private army capable of defending them against China is an interesting one.
> In the corporate world no-one's manipulating huge spreadsheets or writing 500 page legal documents on an iPad.
I'm guessing that in your corporate world, nobody HAS huge spreadsheets because they're putting the huge stuff in the RDMS whre it belongs. iPads aren't the right tool for significant datasets, and neither is Excel. In my world, most people do not use the right tool for the job.
Did you read rhe article? Micron claims their write endurance isn't a problem because of the way they implemented trim. That could make sense, if they avoided erasing and writing at all sometimes.
The internet isn't safe, so it's all the victim's fault, and we should ignore the attackers. Hmmm. .."
"Anyone in any business who doesn't realize that the internet^H^H^H^H^H^H New York isn't a safe playground.
That's your theory, right? Because the internet / New York / the ocean isn't a safe place, anyone attacked on the internet or in New York had it coming. The government of China is attacking our internet infrastructure, but theyget a pass because the internet isn't perfectly safe, right? The high seas also are not perfectly safe, so it would be okay for China to attack our shios at sea?
> and then suddenly we completely ran out of IPv4 addresses, so everyone, even Microsoft, had no choice but to get moving on IPv6
Ftfy . Most computing devices sold in the last three years don't run Windows. Microsoft is now a minority player. Android is #1, iOS #2.
So which companies have influence? Android is the most popular operating system, so it's support of IPv6 is important. Most end points that need new addresses get those addresses assigned by one of the major mobile carriers, while older equipment is still using the same old IPs on Comcast and Time Warner. The equipment on the backbones is mostly Cisco gear, so it matters what Cisco supports the best, but they'll provide whatever Comcast and Level3 want to buy.