It's a contradiction to say that someone is both present in the conversation and also eavesdropping.
Persons A and B are having a conversation. Person C is present, secretly hiding in the closet with a tape recorder, unbeknownst to persons A and B. Please point out the contradiction.
Yeah. It's not as if cops have been known to lie to protect each other. Oh, that's right. There was that story last month about the cops who were caught on the police car camera fabricating a story and bending the truth a little to keep a fellow officer out of trouble.
I eavesdrop on myself all the time. I say things that I don't intend for myself to hear without realizing I'm secretly listening in and recording every word I say. Luckily, if I want it to be admissible in court, I'd need to get my own permission before doing the recording, and being that I'd never give myself permission to do such a thing, I have nothing to worry about.
Do you see anything wrong with the above paragraph? For argument's sake, let us assume I don't have multiple personality disorder. You might want to recheck the definition of eavesdrop now, then go back and reread the sculpture...I mean statue.
Unlike some old designs years ago where the memory had to be installed in pairs, Nehalem's triple channel system is designed so that it can also operate in single or dual channel mode. So the number of DIMMs isn't the issue. You can get away with a single DIMM if you wan't. So, installing 2 DIMMs on a Lynnfield system should be no less expensive than installing those 2 DIMMs on a Bloomfield system. The only thing Lynnfield will do to improve the cost is 1) Decrease the cost of the motherboard/chipset/cpu itself (less transistors, pinouts, and traces needed for 2 channels vs. 3 channels). 2) Drive down the cost of the more expensive DDR3 memory as it becomes more commonly used.
Intel's latest-generation microarchitecture, first exemplified as the Intel® Coreâ i7 processor, represents the next step in faster, multi-core technology that intelligently maximized performance to match your workload
It was first exemplified as the Core i7, and as we know the Core i7 debuted with 3 models...the 920, 940, and 965 (extreme), all 3 of which were Bloomfield designs. While I have no doubt some websites probably incorrectly reported it as the "Nehalem chip" before its release, that's all it was....incorrect reporting.
You say that like you are indicating we are brainwashed sheep or something. Let me ask...how much exactly does your pacemaker (or dialysis machine or whatever it is you work on) cost compared to a couple hundred dollar computer? If hundreds of millions of people were willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars on their computer for stability, you'd probably end up with computers that don't crash. Instead, I'd prefer to keep the money and spend a few minute now and then bitching while waiting for a reboot.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I even did my research and knew about the LGA-1156 socket coming down the line, but my understanding was that it would only be for the core i5 chips. I had no idea that the i7 line was going to switch too. However, at least we have >4 core models to look forward to sometime in the future. However, those will probably maintain a premium price. I was originally thinking that in 3 years there would be a lowend (but significantly faster that today's lowend) core i7 I could throw on there for $100 or so. Now I think there's a good chance that won't be the case.
Intel told me something interesting when I was out in LA earlier this summer: it takes at least 3 cores to fully saturate Lynnfield's dual-channel DDR3-1333 memory bus. That's three cores all working on memory bandwidth intensive threads at the same time. That's a pretty stiff requirement. In the vast, vast majority of situations Lynnfield's dual channel DDR3 memory controller won't hurt it.
Move up to 6 or 8 core designs and a third memory channel is necessary, and that's why we'll see those processors debut exclusively on LGA-1366 platforms. In fact, X58 motherboards will only need a BIOS update to work with the 6-core 32nm Gulftown processor next year. P55 looks like it'll be limited to four cores and below.
but when the results become clear they stopped arguing and there was a general agreement... some of us like to live in a world where different words mean different things
Are you referring to things like the difference between future tense and past tense?:-)
P.S. Please don't bother trying to pick apart any wording that I use in this post. I don't really give a crap about minor stuff like that, but if YOU are going to be a pedant, try not to be so hypocritical about it.
Well, you are here on Earth, you are one among millions, and you are going to die eventually. Why don't you just get the inevitable over and kill yourself right now. What's that? You value the experience of living too much? Oh, ok. Well, how do you think the guy that goes to mars is going to feel after doing very little day after day? Nowhere to go and nothing to do except sit in whatever tiny vessel he arrived in. The novelty is going to wear off pretty quick. He can't even do all that much exploring because he need to carry enough oxygen and food for a round trip. That kind of limits the range he can travel. And there isn't even much to see there. All and all, it's kind of like all of the downsides that Antarctica has, combined with all the downsides it doesn't have. At least the scientists down there can 1) go home, 2) breath air, 3) see animals.
Great, so now the astronaut gets there and discovers a vast wealth of economic resources. That's wonderful. Now he can use them to.....trade for things that the other astronauts on his ship brought with them? Oh wait, they've found the vast resources on Mars, too.
The contact of your rebar to the copper will setup an galvanic corrosion problems.
He's already said in the forum "Im going to separate the copper so that it is not touching the steel reinforcing bar." Of course, that won't protect him from the concrete (as others have pointed out) but the rebar won't be an issue.
We need special technical trials for things like this within which both the defence and prosecution are allowed to bring in technical witnesses to put the case into perspective for non-technical people
Huh? Special technical trials? Why? The current system already allows lawyers to bring in expert witnesses to explain stuff. And lawyers are allowed to do a bit of story telling during their opening and closing arguments, and they can use that opportunity to explain thing in other terms (including car analogies, if they choose).
A lot of us around here always complain about legislature creating special laws to make illegal things that are already illegal under an existing law. Let's not turn it around and start asking for special trials when the cases can already be accommodated by the existing court system.
I'm sorry. I must have been mistaken when the FIRST SENTENCE of your post was "You sir, have never been in court have you."
As for your stuff about a 3rd party to oversee it 1) I wouldn't want to think about it being a private entity (blackwater comes to mind) 2) The police are already overseen by the internal affairs department, as well as other, external, higher level agencies (I just read an article a few days ago about New Orleans police office being raided by the FBI). 3) In a specific circumstance, the FBI may take over the job and collect evidence at the scene. But in general, a lot of people of the scene can make it much easier to contaminate evidence.
Regarding the speeding ticket, I can name a number of things wrong with your paragraph, including 1) Cops generally give you the opportunity to see numbers on the radar gun if you would like. 2) There are logs kept, and you can subpeona both those logs and the maintenance logs for the device. 3) You appear very confused about some of the mechanics of using a radar gun. For instance...you need to adjust for timing errors in the unit? Huh? And adjust for angle? Perhaps you need to think about the geometry of a triangle and mathematics a bit, but you should eventually realize that the distance he measures give a lower bound on speed. If anything, you may be moving a bit faster than the radar measure, but they can't (and don't) take that into account.
LOL. You couldn't have picked a better time to make that assumption, since I served on a jury less than a week ago.
In our case it was pretty clear cut that the defendant was guilty based on the evidence. After hearing the testimony, I think we were all reasonably convinced. Yet, we took nearly an hour to come to a verdict. A number of the jurors wanted to look at the evidence, to see for themselves that the testimony seemed accurate, and whether what was testified about could reasonably be possible. We went over each element that defines the crime, to be sure we were in agreement that it was met. For one part, we discussed what the law meant exactly to see if the condition was satisfied. We asked the judge if she could provide further clarification on the law. In short, we did not just simply convict...we had a nice little discussion to see if we could come up with any way that reasonable doubt could be satisfied for any individual element.
It was actually a very interesting experience. I went in not expecting others to be very analytical about the process. In fact, my expectations weren't too far off from what you suggest, but I was wrong. I was pleasantly surprised by the character of the people I served with.
As far as everyone else involved, the prosecutor could not have been more professional, and the same for the handful of cops that testified in the case. At least based on my experience, your cynicism is highly misplaced.
No, that's not true. You START with the presumption of innocence. However, as the trial proceeds, the prosecution piles on more and more evidence. At some point during the trial, there may be enough evidence for the jury to remove all reasonable doubt from their mind and conclude that you did indeed commit the crime you are charged with. At this point in the trial, you are now guilty in their mind, and if you do nothing more, they will find you guilty. On the other hand, you can introduce evidence which creates reasonable doubt...or even better, proves your innocence.
So, while it is not necessary to prove the defendant innocent, it is necessary to defend him/her against evidence which would otherwise suggest guilt. You know the old saying...the best defense is a good offense.
Everything which you distribute which is GPL licensed puts an obligation on you to distribute the source code.
If I sell a computer with ubuntu installed I have offer ubuntu sources to the customer.
I'm just asking here, but 1) Does that apply if the customer only leases the cable box? The actual purchaser of the box would be the cable company. 2) Does it apply if the customer doesn't even lease it, but merely uses a loaner cable box (for free)? If so, does that mean that if I let other people use my linux based computer, I'm obligated to let them know it uses linux and that they can get the source code from me?
Why are Mac's So Expensive? - Yahoo! Answers why so expensive?. - Games for Windows Live Why are vinyl windows so expensive? who provides them cheapest... Why are windows hosting providers so expensive? - Community Server Why are Macbooks so expensive? - Yahoo! Answers WikiAnswers - Why are Apple Macs so expensive Windows Embedded Blog : Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive? Why are Macs so expensive? - TechSpot Troubleshooting Why are Macs so expensive? Why fish is so expensive! - Windows Live
OK, perhaps you have a valid point in all of this, but now you've totally changed the topic. This whole thread was about the OS, it's improvements, and whether faster shutdown was a noteworthy feature. Now you are talking about what applications should do, not the OS. If you can demonstrate the linux apps and OSX apps all serialize their state when the OS shutsdown, then maybe you've got a valid and relevant point. But the point is, most apps for any OS do not do that at present, and nothing the OS itself can do will change that. Well, nothing other than serializing the entire app, but when you consider how many dependencies it could have on other things in the OS, you've essentially got to serialize the entire OS, and every OS (including windows) already has that feature.
So now the point is, you've got a computer where the user has requested an actual shutdown (rather than hibernate), and an app is refusing to close. What do you do? Do you just kill it and not care about the data loss? In some cases that may be desirable, but for most users, I think the right thing to do is leave it up to them to decide. So a faster shutdown is a noteworthy feature since it means less time they have to wait to see if they forgot to close something.
Just compare the time it takes you to copy a file via the old Windows COPY command versus selecting the file in Windows Explorer, right clicking to copy, then paste, then rename the copy
Opening explorer is as fast as opening the command line. Navigating the folder tree is about as fast as typing your way there, but faster if you don't recall the exact location and need to browse a bit. Copying the file is just as quick too: click, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, click new file (or just hit the End key since the new file will be at the bottom of the list), F2, type new filename, enter.
I take issue whatever study showed that waiting until the last minute is more efficient. You've got 1 lane of traffic, and for any given speed that lane travels at, you can only get a certain flow rate of cars through that bottleneck, no matter if it's 1 lane feeding it, 2 lanes, or 100 lanes. Well, if you wait until the last minute to merge, you end up with cars tighter together, which means the tolerance for merging is a lot smaller. This would be perfectly fine if everything were computer controlled, but since we've got human with emotions involved, you end up with people having to slow down to merge more carefully. But see, by slowing down, you've just decreased the speed of the lane, so fewer cars are going to make it through in a given time. On the other hand, if you merge early, vehicles will not yet have moved into a tighter formation, so you can more comfortably merge into a single lane without having to slow down as much. You can maintain a higher overall speed, and thus get a higher flow rate through the bottleneck. However, even if you can merge together at the last minute without slowing down, at best you get the same flow rate as if everyone had merged early, so in what way is merging late better?
Of course, we are talking theoretically here. As soon as the one idiot gets greedy and waits until the end, you lose that benefit as everyone has to slow down anyway. However, that's where proper enforcement can come into play. Start ticketing people and they'll learn. Then again, you start ticketing people and that just compounds the problem as people start slowing down..."oh my god, it's a police officer....and he's writing a ticket....slow...down...I've...never...seen...that...before". I guess the only way to make it work right is to go vigilante and start blocking the lane, but then that opens up a whole different can of worms. I guess you can't win.
Also, on this topic, I find it interesting to see how people in different areas behave. Here in Michigan, you will almost always see people waiting until the last minute to merge. A few years ago we went down the the Smokies/Blue Ridge Parkway. On the way back, we were in Virginia (or maybe West Virginia). There was construction at a tunnel, and we were merged into one lane. There was nobody waiting until the last minute to merge. I looked back in the mirror, and for as far as I could see (at least a half mile), there was just a single line of cars and an empty lane.
Well, your 800tb figure would be based on a perfect distribution of writes...essentially like treating the entire 80GB as a gigantic ring buffer. Factors that could modify that figure:
1) First, your very basic figure should be slightly higher, because these 80GB drives actually contain something like 6GB additional capacity that is unavailable for use. It's there so that the wear leveling has some extra room to work with.
2) You have to write in pages at a time, but there are going to be many times when you don't need to write a full page, so that's the first thing to cut into the theoretical amount.
3) Wear leveling isn't going to be perfect. There are going to be pages that are written to "unnecessarily" as part of the erase process. With SSDs, you can write in pages but you have to erase in blocks, so to modify a used page, you copy the entire block to cache, modify the page in cache, erase the entire block, and write back the modified block. How many writes are "wasted" like this depends on both how you write data and how intelligent the wear leveling algorithms are.
Slashdot Mirror
Persons A and B are having a conversation. Person C is present, secretly hiding in the closet with a tape recorder, unbeknownst to persons A and B. Please point out the contradiction.
Yeah. It's not as if cops have been known to lie to protect each other. Oh, that's right. There was that story last month about the cops who were caught on the police car camera fabricating a story and bending the truth a little to keep a fellow officer out of trouble.
I eavesdrop on myself all the time. I say things that I don't intend for myself to hear without realizing I'm secretly listening in and recording every word I say. Luckily, if I want it to be admissible in court, I'd need to get my own permission before doing the recording, and being that I'd never give myself permission to do such a thing, I have nothing to worry about.
Do you see anything wrong with the above paragraph? For argument's sake, let us assume I don't have multiple personality disorder. You might want to recheck the definition of eavesdrop now, then go back and reread the sculpture...I mean statue.
Unlike some old designs years ago where the memory had to be installed in pairs, Nehalem's triple channel system is designed so that it can also operate in single or dual channel mode. So the number of DIMMs isn't the issue. You can get away with a single DIMM if you wan't. So, installing 2 DIMMs on a Lynnfield system should be no less expensive than installing those 2 DIMMs on a Bloomfield system. The only thing Lynnfield will do to improve the cost is
1) Decrease the cost of the motherboard/chipset/cpu itself (less transistors, pinouts, and traces needed for 2 channels vs. 3 channels).
2) Drive down the cost of the more expensive DDR3 memory as it becomes more commonly used.
No, they aren't both right. Nehalem is an arcitecture and nothing more. There is no Nehalem chip.
http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture-silicon/next-gen/
It was first exemplified as the Core i7, and as we know the Core i7 debuted with 3 models...the 920, 940, and 965 (extreme), all 3 of which were Bloomfield designs. While I have no doubt some websites probably incorrectly reported it as the "Nehalem chip" before its release, that's all it was....incorrect reporting.
You say that like you are indicating we are brainwashed sheep or something. Let me ask...how much exactly does your pacemaker (or dialysis machine or whatever it is you work on) cost compared to a couple hundred dollar computer? If hundreds of millions of people were willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars on their computer for stability, you'd probably end up with computers that don't crash. Instead, I'd prefer to keep the money and spend a few minute now and then bitching while waiting for a reboot.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I even did my research and knew about the LGA-1156 socket coming down the line, but my understanding was that it would only be for the core i5 chips. I had no idea that the i7 line was going to switch too. However, at least we have >4 core models to look forward to sometime in the future. However, those will probably maintain a premium price. I was originally thinking that in 3 years there would be a lowend (but significantly faster that today's lowend) core i7 I could throw on there for $100 or so. Now I think there's a good chance that won't be the case.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3634&p=7
Are you referring to things like the difference between future tense and past tense? :-)
P.S. Please don't bother trying to pick apart any wording that I use in this post. I don't really give a crap about minor stuff like that, but if YOU are going to be a pedant, try not to be so hypocritical about it.
Well, you are here on Earth, you are one among millions, and you are going to die eventually. Why don't you just get the inevitable over and kill yourself right now. What's that? You value the experience of living too much? Oh, ok. Well, how do you think the guy that goes to mars is going to feel after doing very little day after day? Nowhere to go and nothing to do except sit in whatever tiny vessel he arrived in. The novelty is going to wear off pretty quick. He can't even do all that much exploring because he need to carry enough oxygen and food for a round trip. That kind of limits the range he can travel. And there isn't even much to see there. All and all, it's kind of like all of the downsides that Antarctica has, combined with all the downsides it doesn't have. At least the scientists down there can 1) go home, 2) breath air, 3) see animals.
Great, so now the astronaut gets there and discovers a vast wealth of economic resources. That's wonderful. Now he can use them to.....trade for things that the other astronauts on his ship brought with them? Oh wait, they've found the vast resources on Mars, too.
Of course, once you insulate it, i suspect that will have a bit of an effect on the cooling properties of the design.
The contact of your rebar to the copper will setup an galvanic corrosion problems.
He's already said in the forum "Im going to separate the copper so that it is not touching the steel reinforcing bar." Of course, that won't protect him from the concrete (as others have pointed out) but the rebar won't be an issue.
Depends on who you've contracted the work out to.
If you mean who the general contractor is, I think it's him. He said in the forum "I'm doing the house as owner builder".
Huh? Special technical trials? Why? The current system already allows lawyers to bring in expert witnesses to explain stuff. And lawyers are allowed to do a bit of story telling during their opening and closing arguments, and they can use that opportunity to explain thing in other terms (including car analogies, if they choose).
A lot of us around here always complain about legislature creating special laws to make illegal things that are already illegal under an existing law. Let's not turn it around and start asking for special trials when the cases can already be accommodated by the existing court system.
I'm sorry. I must have been mistaken when the FIRST SENTENCE of your post was "You sir, have never been in court have you."
As for your stuff about a 3rd party to oversee it
1) I wouldn't want to think about it being a private entity (blackwater comes to mind)
2) The police are already overseen by the internal affairs department, as well as other, external, higher level agencies (I just read an article a few days ago about New Orleans police office being raided by the FBI).
3) In a specific circumstance, the FBI may take over the job and collect evidence at the scene. But in general, a lot of people of the scene can make it much easier to contaminate evidence.
Regarding the speeding ticket, I can name a number of things wrong with your paragraph, including
1) Cops generally give you the opportunity to see numbers on the radar gun if you would like.
2) There are logs kept, and you can subpeona both those logs and the maintenance logs for the device.
3) You appear very confused about some of the mechanics of using a radar gun. For instance...you need to adjust for timing errors in the unit? Huh? And adjust for angle? Perhaps you need to think about the geometry of a triangle and mathematics a bit, but you should eventually realize that the distance he measures give a lower bound on speed. If anything, you may be moving a bit faster than the radar measure, but they can't (and don't) take that into account.
How can you be commenting on the article when you didn't read the summary?
LOL. You couldn't have picked a better time to make that assumption, since I served on a jury less than a week ago.
In our case it was pretty clear cut that the defendant was guilty based on the evidence. After hearing the testimony, I think we were all reasonably convinced. Yet, we took nearly an hour to come to a verdict. A number of the jurors wanted to look at the evidence, to see for themselves that the testimony seemed accurate, and whether what was testified about could reasonably be possible. We went over each element that defines the crime, to be sure we were in agreement that it was met. For one part, we discussed what the law meant exactly to see if the condition was satisfied. We asked the judge if she could provide further clarification on the law. In short, we did not just simply convict...we had a nice little discussion to see if we could come up with any way that reasonable doubt could be satisfied for any individual element.
It was actually a very interesting experience. I went in not expecting others to be very analytical about the process. In fact, my expectations weren't too far off from what you suggest, but I was wrong. I was pleasantly surprised by the character of the people I served with.
As far as everyone else involved, the prosecutor could not have been more professional, and the same for the handful of cops that testified in the case. At least based on my experience, your cynicism is highly misplaced.
No, that's not true. You START with the presumption of innocence. However, as the trial proceeds, the prosecution piles on more and more evidence. At some point during the trial, there may be enough evidence for the jury to remove all reasonable doubt from their mind and conclude that you did indeed commit the crime you are charged with. At this point in the trial, you are now guilty in their mind, and if you do nothing more, they will find you guilty. On the other hand, you can introduce evidence which creates reasonable doubt...or even better, proves your innocence.
So, while it is not necessary to prove the defendant innocent, it is necessary to defend him/her against evidence which would otherwise suggest guilt. You know the old saying...the best defense is a good offense.
Everything which you distribute which is GPL licensed puts an obligation on you to distribute the source code.
If I sell a computer with ubuntu installed I have offer ubuntu sources to the customer.
I'm just asking here, but
1) Does that apply if the customer only leases the cable box? The actual purchaser of the box would be the cable company.
2) Does it apply if the customer doesn't even lease it, but merely uses a loaner cable box (for free)? If so, does that mean that if I let other people use my linux based computer, I'm obligated to let them know it uses linux and that they can get the source code from me?
I did it. My top 10 results were
Why are Mac's So Expensive? - Yahoo! Answers ...
why so expensive?. - Games for Windows Live
Why are vinyl windows so expensive? who provides them cheapest
Why are windows hosting providers so expensive? - Community Server
Why are Macbooks so expensive? - Yahoo! Answers
WikiAnswers - Why are Apple Macs so expensive
Windows Embedded Blog : Why is OSS Commercial Software So Expensive?
Why are Macs so expensive? - TechSpot Troubleshooting
Why are Macs so expensive?
Why fish is so expensive! - Windows Live
OK, perhaps you have a valid point in all of this, but now you've totally changed the topic. This whole thread was about the OS, it's improvements, and whether faster shutdown was a noteworthy feature. Now you are talking about what applications should do, not the OS. If you can demonstrate the linux apps and OSX apps all serialize their state when the OS shutsdown, then maybe you've got a valid and relevant point. But the point is, most apps for any OS do not do that at present, and nothing the OS itself can do will change that. Well, nothing other than serializing the entire app, but when you consider how many dependencies it could have on other things in the OS, you've essentially got to serialize the entire OS, and every OS (including windows) already has that feature.
So now the point is, you've got a computer where the user has requested an actual shutdown (rather than hibernate), and an app is refusing to close. What do you do? Do you just kill it and not care about the data loss? In some cases that may be desirable, but for most users, I think the right thing to do is leave it up to them to decide. So a faster shutdown is a noteworthy feature since it means less time they have to wait to see if they forgot to close something.
Opening explorer is as fast as opening the command line. Navigating the folder tree is about as fast as typing your way there, but faster if you don't recall the exact location and need to browse a bit. Copying the file is just as quick too: click, Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, click new file (or just hit the End key since the new file will be at the bottom of the list), F2, type new filename, enter.
I take issue whatever study showed that waiting until the last minute is more efficient. You've got 1 lane of traffic, and for any given speed that lane travels at, you can only get a certain flow rate of cars through that bottleneck, no matter if it's 1 lane feeding it, 2 lanes, or 100 lanes. Well, if you wait until the last minute to merge, you end up with cars tighter together, which means the tolerance for merging is a lot smaller. This would be perfectly fine if everything were computer controlled, but since we've got human with emotions involved, you end up with people having to slow down to merge more carefully. But see, by slowing down, you've just decreased the speed of the lane, so fewer cars are going to make it through in a given time. On the other hand, if you merge early, vehicles will not yet have moved into a tighter formation, so you can more comfortably merge into a single lane without having to slow down as much. You can maintain a higher overall speed, and thus get a higher flow rate through the bottleneck. However, even if you can merge together at the last minute without slowing down, at best you get the same flow rate as if everyone had merged early, so in what way is merging late better?
Of course, we are talking theoretically here. As soon as the one idiot gets greedy and waits until the end, you lose that benefit as everyone has to slow down anyway. However, that's where proper enforcement can come into play. Start ticketing people and they'll learn. Then again, you start ticketing people and that just compounds the problem as people start slowing down..."oh my god, it's a police officer....and he's writing a ticket....slow...down...I've...never...seen...that...before". I guess the only way to make it work right is to go vigilante and start blocking the lane, but then that opens up a whole different can of worms. I guess you can't win.
Also, on this topic, I find it interesting to see how people in different areas behave. Here in Michigan, you will almost always see people waiting until the last minute to merge. A few years ago we went down the the Smokies/Blue Ridge Parkway. On the way back, we were in Virginia (or maybe West Virginia). There was construction at a tunnel, and we were merged into one lane. There was nobody waiting until the last minute to merge. I looked back in the mirror, and for as far as I could see (at least a half mile), there was just a single line of cars and an empty lane.
Well, your 800tb figure would be based on a perfect distribution of writes...essentially like treating the entire 80GB as a gigantic ring buffer. Factors that could modify that figure:
1) First, your very basic figure should be slightly higher, because these 80GB drives actually contain something like 6GB additional capacity that is unavailable for use. It's there so that the wear leveling has some extra room to work with.
2) You have to write in pages at a time, but there are going to be many times when you don't need to write a full page, so that's the first thing to cut into the theoretical amount.
3) Wear leveling isn't going to be perfect. There are going to be pages that are written to "unnecessarily" as part of the erase process. With SSDs, you can write in pages but you have to erase in blocks, so to modify a used page, you copy the entire block to cache, modify the page in cache, erase the entire block, and write back the modified block. How many writes are "wasted" like this depends on both how you write data and how intelligent the wear leveling algorithms are.