Do the math. Most flash media are good for at least 100,000 writes. They also use wearing algorithms so that each block averages out to about the same. Even if you try to write to a certain block over and over, the algorithms take over and move blocks that are not written very often to those locations, so blocks end up being written to about the same.
With that in mind, let's take the 64 gb model for $899 as an example. Let's say you have a huge workload and are writing at the max of 35MB/sec. At 100,000 writes, 64GB gives you 6.4e15 bytes that can be written before the disk wears out. At 3.5e7 bytes per second, that comes to 1.83e8 seconds. There are 3.16e7 seconds in a year.
That means that at THE MAX write rate and only 100,000 write cycles (not 10 billion), the drive should last at least 5.8 years. Unless you are simply writing to a logging database, you won't be using anywhere near the max write speed and the drive should last decades.
You grab a bar that becomes the axle on the front wheel as you morph into the light cycle, you don't jump into the air for some unknown reason to land on top of a light cycle rider.
Light cycles turn 90 degrees instantly. Seeing pathetic little air brakes (is that what they were?) and a sideways skidding bike make me wanna puke. He could have come withing an inch of the wall and taken off to the side without losing any speed.
Maybe these changes will be explained as having to do with computer advances or something, but I find them jarring.
Violence is the last resort of the incompetent, a wise man once said. I beg to differ. It is usually the first.
Wasn't that in the Foundation books? I think it was meant to signify that violence is such a worthless option that only the incompetent would use it at all, and even then it would be their last resort.
One thing I like best is placing the open brackets on their own line, as well as using them even if there is only a single statement in the block.
if (contition) { DoSomething(); for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { DoSomethingSeveralTimes(); } } else { DoSomethingElse(); }
I like knowing that there will always be a block when there can be and I can add and remove code, such as a print for debugging, without worrying about adding or removing the braces to maintain functionality or coding practices.
Some people might not believe it, but Slashdot changed over the last two years also! I miss the old eBay home page of 2000, I wish these dern sites would just leave well enough alone!
Seriously kid, you need to grow some brain cells, and get a job, stop leeching off the honest people in society. Nobody likes fucking thieves and leechers like you.
Read the calm logic in his posts and compare it with your swearing, your use of profanity and ALL CAPS. In words you can understand, "Put on your acne medicine and get ready for the bus, junior."
You rate the time of a plumber who is barely competent to be higher than the time of the most talented writer / songwriter / musician and actor on earth.
Interesting... Actually, I would have a problem with a plumber that decided I had to pay him every time I wanted to turn my faucet on or off, even though he wasn't there and didn't actually have to lift a finger if I did it myself.
You are both depriving the producer of revenue AND making use of their product without paying for ownership. It's much like 'stealing' wifi access from your neighbor. The only physical aspect of the theft involves electrons/impulses/etc...
Actually, "stealing" wifi uses bandwidth, which could be used for something else. It actually temporarily deprives the owner of the use of something, which is more like stealing than copying something that was originally authored by another. Copyright does NOT denote ownership. It denotes authorship. Copying is not taking. Does copying public domain works deprive the author of anything? Do you think we shouldn't have a public domain and that even the bible and the works of Aristotle should be copyrighted?
If I make a game, and you want to play it, and you refuse to pay me for my work, you are a thief.
You have a poor mastery of the English language. That is not the definition of thief. I won't allow you and the other copyright fascists to redefine property law, the courts are on my side. If copyright were the same then there wouldn't be a need for copyright, existing property laws could be used. You actually go a step further in your argument that I've ever heard contended, is that a failing of your intellect or just your fury over an imagined crime? I can't believe that you think someone would be guilty of "stealing" simply by wanting to play a game that they don't have.
You are talking shit. long winded shit to justify stealing games, just don't embarrass yourself by this rationalizing to people who actually lose sales to piracy...
How embarrassing, you use the word 'stealing' when talking of copyright infringement. Do you make your living off the artificial scarcity of copyrights, or have you simply been brainwashed by the copyright fat cats?
Has anyone else noticed a change in Obama through this year? It seems like he has been taking the same speech classes that every other politician has been taken that make him sound mildly retarded to me. He used to speak eloquently and quickly, whereas now he puts long pauses in run-on sentences. It seems many times like he is ending a sentence in all ways only have him continue on his thought. Listen to his Speech on Patriotism for instance. The first 23 seconds is one long run-on sentence:
And on a spring morning... in April of 1775,... a simple band of colonists,... farmers and merchants,... blacksmiths and printers,... men and boys,... they left their home.. and their families in Lexington and Concord... to take up arms against the tyranny... of an empire.
As is the next 18 seconds:
The odds against them were long,... and the risks were enormous,... for even if they survived... that particular battle, any ultimate failure... would bring charges of treason... and death by hanging... and yet they took that chance.
Who is writing his speeches? They drive me CRAZY! Maybe he has always done this, but not to this extent.
Why not this?
On a spring morning in April of 1775, a simple band of colonists left their homes and families to take up arms against the tyranny of an empire. The odds against them were long and the risks were enormous. Even if they survived that battle, any ultimate failure would bring charges of treason and death by hanging. Yet they took that chance.
The whole thing should take under 20 seconds to speak, not 40.
Obama has done three things that have made me second-guess my support for him and this isn't the worst. The compromise bill does grant retroactive immunity to the telcoms. Obama was against this, but you don't get to vote on every part of a bill every time when you're a senator. Bush greatly expanded the president's powers under his term using executive orders and no one has challenged him. I believe he should be impeached and thrown in jail, but that doesn't seem to be going to happen. Letting the lawsuits against the telcoms go would do a great deal to bring about justice, it would at least make people weary of taking the president's word for it when asked by him to break a law in secret. However, the protections in the new bill should narrow the powers of the executive enough to make it clear that a law was begin broken and to enable easy impeachment if it happens again. There were actually three senate votes to amend the bill to remove or weaken the telcom immunity and Obama voted for all three amendments (which failed). He figured at the end though that the bill as a whole was worth passing, even with the immunity intact.
One other thing was Obama's refusal to use public financing, which he has always claimed he supports. This isn't that big since I don't believe the positions are contradictory. For instance, I think someone could oppose tax cuts while still cashing their refund check. You can still play by the rules even if you wish them to be changed. When you look at the choice of financing a campaign with $80 million or $250 million, what would you choose?
The worst thing though was simply a chance to stand up and show his character. It hasn't been mentioned against Obama to my knowledge, which I find regrettable. When one of McCain's advisers was asked hypothetically how a terrorist attack would affect the presidential campaign, he replied that he thought that it would help McCain due to his foreign policy experience. EVERYTHING I saw in the media seemed to say that it was a stupid remark, but I don't see how since he was directly replying to the question asked. McCain's quote in the media even seemed to agree: "I cannot imagine why he would say it. It's not true. I've worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America. My record is very clear." That's like asking a police officer if an increase in crime would mean their budget would increase. Certainly the officer doesn't wish an increase in crime, but they would get more funding. Why cannot people see this?
This is what an Obama spokesman said:
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: "The fact that John McCain's top adviser says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a 'big advantage' for their political campaign is a complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change. Barack Obama will turn the page on these failed policies and this cynical and divisive brand of politics so that we can unite this nation around a common purpose to finish the fight against al-Qaida."
This is a completely misleading analysis of the actual conversation and would make me regret ever voting for Obama, except Hillary would probably be just as bad. As it stands, I have to question Obama's character for letting a spokesman make such a statement without rebuke. My image of him is forever tarnished, I wish he simply would have said this:
Mr. Black was simply answering a reporter's question about the political campaign. I respect Senator McCain's patriotism and service to this country, and to believe that he would actually wish a terrorist attack on American soil just to help his campaign is ridiculous in the extreme. We need to stop concentrating on misstatements and sound bites and concentrate on the issues that really matter to America.
It's not stealing and it's certainly not piracy. You're doing something that doesn't harm anyone in any way. If you think about harm, it requires an overt act. If Joe punches Bob, that harms him. If Joe steals Bob's CD, that harms Bob because he no longer has the use of that CD. If you think about it, the game companies (plus MPAA and RIAA) are not complaining about people using their products. As a matter of fact, they want as many people as possible to use their products. What they are complaining about is the lack of payment. "Not purchasing" a game does the same harm to them that they do to me by not giving me $50. "Not purchasing" a game does the same harm to them whether I use the game or not.
The copyright monopoly created by our governments is an artificial right of refusal granted to copyright holders. Unlike inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I haven't seen arguments that even come close to persuading me that the right to hoard and control knowledge is a moral one. It is a legal regulation meant to encourage the creation of new works by allowing the creators a method of profiting from them.
No body could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst: [...]
Unauthorized duplication consists of two things:
The duplication and use of a copyrighted work -- Obviously the copyright holders of video games want them to reach the largest audience possible. I daresay that the authors would want the most people to enjoy the game as possible, not to simply line their pockets. Say if it were guaranteed that they would never make a single dime, would they like people to play their games and enjoy their creation anyway? Even if not, in what way can the use be said to harm the author if they don't even know about it? Has it to do with privacy, where the author might not want anyone to see their creation, but they will take the harm to their privacy if they get paid for it? That is not an argument that I have heard offered before, but it might have validity.
The absence of payment for use of the copyrighted work -- This can obviously by itself not be claimed as a harm, any more than me claiming that you haven't paid me $50 is harming me. This being a cause of harm is predicated on the notion that the $50 is owed to the author. I cannot say to owe someone money without agreeing to it. If I had destroyed or taken their property, that is a wrong unto itself that may be compensated with money. Also if I agree to pay a person money, I can form a contract with them that by my act will make it so that I owe them money for some consideration.
An any rate, I cannot see how people can perpetuate the myth of "billions of dollars lost". What is wrong with the media that they are so eager to report the drivel spouted by the entertainment industry without balancing the story? They count a 13 year old kid as having cost them the full purchase price of $20,000 when he downloaded 1,000 movies. The kid might only get $10 a week in allowance so the most he theoretically could have cost them was $520 in one year. In actuality he might have only purchased a DVD or two, or rented a dozen. I am sorry that I appear alone in ignoring people that make flawed arguments and try to mislead the public.
For example, 25 percent of the students who were given a strong assurance of confidentiality admitted to having copied someone else's homework. Among those given no assurance of confidentiality, more than half admitted to it.'
All that proves is that 25% of people are dishonest and stupid.
Several of the cases assigned to me, all originating out of the prior pending action, recently have been closed upon voluntary dismissal.
I believe the judge is catching on that the RIAA is just using the courts. Most times they probably are just fishing and/or have bad data so they don't find the right people. The rest of the time they are using their lawsuit assembly-line operation to extort money from people and they don't intend to bring court cases. If not for extorting money, then simple to try and affect public opinion. They can basically sue dozens of people for the cost of suing one. When a lot of the cases are dismissed, it's a sign that the plaintiffs need to be reeled in.
How much does it cost to keep listening for another couple of years, while it continues exploring? We estimate it to be maybe 0.01% of the cost of sending a new probe to do the same thing.
Good question. It's not just a computer recording information in a back room at NASA, I would guess quite a bit more.
All licensing is really is allowing one party to perform the acts prohibited by the copyright monopoly of another. There's an exception in copyright law for the owner of copy of the software to make use of the software by copying into ram to run the program, but that doesn't automatically apply when the software is licensed instead of sold. If you didn't purchase and didn't license a piece of software for instance, you would be violating copyright just by copying it into memory by executing it. I think I found the case I was thinking of, TRIAD SYSTEMS CORPORATION v. SOUTHEASTERN EXPRESS COMPANY.
The only time I've ever had a problem with it, the barista reset the wireless router and it started working again. I've never had speed issues due to people using P2P.
Not true. Distribution is only one of the rights copyright holders are granted a monopoly on, at least in the U.S.. The other rights are to reproduce (copy), prepare derivative works, perform the works publicly and display the works publicly.
At one point at least running a program was considered protected by copyright because the program was copied into the computer's memory from disk. There was a company that developed trucking software and had maintenance contracts. Another company competed for the maintenance contracts. The court ruled that after the company started licensing the software instead of selling it, the other company had violated copyright when servicing the software since it involved running the program and thereby copying it into memory. Prior to licensing that was OK because of the first sale doctrine I believe.
Are there any video cards that support the extra colors, or is there something else where the display can more accurately represent the color based on color space without actually changing the bits per channel sent from the video card? I th ink Matrox had a 30 bit video card at one point...
My local coffee chain has free wi-fi access, no strings attached. You don't have to buy a coffee officially, you might get some stares if you don't. There's not two hour limit or any crap like that. They need the connection anyway for credit card charges and to talk to the home office for inventory and such.
T-Mobile's "$6 an hour, $10 an day, or $40 an month" was just frickin' ridiculous.
By your arguments the problem is that the teachers aren't good enough, therefore shouldn't we be paying them less? How much do you think you'd have to raise teacher salaries to get the kind of people you want to get? It would take decades to see any real change. There would be very little turn-over for a obvious reasons. The people that put up with being teachers now will not go quietly into the night if you quadruple their salary. Older teachers will probably stay as long as possible and teacher's unions are notoriously powerful (at least in the U.S.). There simply won't be room for new graduates and they will have to take other jobs. The unions of course would forbid hiring only new teachers at higher salaries.
Since there are adequate numbers of graduating teachers now, how do you propose to separate the 'better' teachers? Being a 'good' teacher is about more than just knowing the subjects yourself. A teacher that cannot teach the material in the district-mandated textbook should not be teaching now. Maybe the problem is simply with curriculum and not with the teachers.
Slashdot Mirror
Do the math. Most flash media are good for at least 100,000 writes. They also use wearing algorithms so that each block averages out to about the same. Even if you try to write to a certain block over and over, the algorithms take over and move blocks that are not written very often to those locations, so blocks end up being written to about the same.
With that in mind, let's take the 64 gb model for $899 as an example. Let's say you have a huge workload and are writing at the max of 35MB/sec. At 100,000 writes, 64GB gives you 6.4e15 bytes that can be written before the disk wears out. At 3.5e7 bytes per second, that comes to 1.83e8 seconds. There are 3.16e7 seconds in a year.
That means that at THE MAX write rate and only 100,000 write cycles (not 10 billion), the drive should last at least 5.8 years. Unless you are simply writing to a logging database, you won't be using anywhere near the max write speed and the drive should last decades.
Maybe these changes will be explained as having to do with computer advances or something, but I find them jarring.
Wasn't that in the Foundation books? I think it was meant to signify that violence is such a worthless option that only the incompetent would use it at all, and even then it would be their last resort.
One thing I like best is placing the open brackets on their own line, as well as using them even if there is only a single statement in the block.
if (contition)
{
DoSomething();
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
DoSomethingSeveralTimes();
}
}
else
{
DoSomethingElse();
}
I like knowing that there will always be a block when there can be and I can add and remove code, such as a print for debugging, without worrying about adding or removing the braces to maintain functionality or coding practices.
Some people might not believe it, but Slashdot changed over the last two years also! I miss the old eBay home page of 2000, I wish these dern sites would just leave well enough alone!
Read the calm logic in his posts and compare it with your swearing, your use of profanity and ALL CAPS. In words you can understand, "Put on your acne medicine and get ready for the bus, junior."
Interesting... Actually, I would have a problem with a plumber that decided I had to pay him every time I wanted to turn my faucet on or off, even though he wasn't there and didn't actually have to lift a finger if I did it myself.
Actually, "stealing" wifi uses bandwidth, which could be used for something else. It actually temporarily deprives the owner of the use of something, which is more like stealing than copying something that was originally authored by another. Copyright does NOT denote ownership. It denotes authorship. Copying is not taking. Does copying public domain works deprive the author of anything? Do you think we shouldn't have a public domain and that even the bible and the works of Aristotle should be copyrighted?
You have a poor mastery of the English language. That is not the definition of thief. I won't allow you and the other copyright fascists to redefine property law, the courts are on my side. If copyright were the same then there wouldn't be a need for copyright, existing property laws could be used. You actually go a step further in your argument that I've ever heard contended, is that a failing of your intellect or just your fury over an imagined crime? I can't believe that you think someone would be guilty of "stealing" simply by wanting to play a game that they don't have.
How embarrassing, you use the word 'stealing' when talking of copyright infringement. Do you make your living off the artificial scarcity of copyrights, or have you simply been brainwashed by the copyright fat cats?
Has anyone else noticed a change in Obama through this year? It seems like he has been taking the same speech classes that every other politician has been taken that make him sound mildly retarded to me. He used to speak eloquently and quickly, whereas now he puts long pauses in run-on sentences. It seems many times like he is ending a sentence in all ways only have him continue on his thought. Listen to his Speech on Patriotism for instance. The first 23 seconds is one long run-on sentence:
As is the next 18 seconds:
Who is writing his speeches? They drive me CRAZY! Maybe he has always done this, but not to this extent.
Why not this?
The whole thing should take under 20 seconds to speak, not 40.
Obama has done three things that have made me second-guess my support for him and this isn't the worst. The compromise bill does grant retroactive immunity to the telcoms. Obama was against this, but you don't get to vote on every part of a bill every time when you're a senator. Bush greatly expanded the president's powers under his term using executive orders and no one has challenged him. I believe he should be impeached and thrown in jail, but that doesn't seem to be going to happen. Letting the lawsuits against the telcoms go would do a great deal to bring about justice, it would at least make people weary of taking the president's word for it when asked by him to break a law in secret. However, the protections in the new bill should narrow the powers of the executive enough to make it clear that a law was begin broken and to enable easy impeachment if it happens again. There were actually three senate votes to amend the bill to remove or weaken the telcom immunity and Obama voted for all three amendments (which failed). He figured at the end though that the bill as a whole was worth passing, even with the immunity intact.
One other thing was Obama's refusal to use public financing, which he has always claimed he supports. This isn't that big since I don't believe the positions are contradictory. For instance, I think someone could oppose tax cuts while still cashing their refund check. You can still play by the rules even if you wish them to be changed. When you look at the choice of financing a campaign with $80 million or $250 million, what would you choose?
The worst thing though was simply a chance to stand up and show his character. It hasn't been mentioned against Obama to my knowledge, which I find regrettable. When one of McCain's advisers was asked hypothetically how a terrorist attack would affect the presidential campaign, he replied that he thought that it would help McCain due to his foreign policy experience. EVERYTHING I saw in the media seemed to say that it was a stupid remark, but I don't see how since he was directly replying to the question asked. McCain's quote in the media even seemed to agree: "I cannot imagine why he would say it. It's not true. I've worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America. My record is very clear." That's like asking a police officer if an increase in crime would mean their budget would increase. Certainly the officer doesn't wish an increase in crime, but they would get more funding. Why cannot people see this? This is what an Obama spokesman said:
This is a completely misleading analysis of the actual conversation and would make me regret ever voting for Obama, except Hillary would probably be just as bad. As it stands, I have to question Obama's character for letting a spokesman make such a statement without rebuke. My image of him is forever tarnished, I wish he simply would have said this:
It's not stealing and it's certainly not piracy. You're doing something that doesn't harm anyone in any way. If you think about harm, it requires an overt act. If Joe punches Bob, that harms him. If Joe steals Bob's CD, that harms Bob because he no longer has the use of that CD. If you think about it, the game companies (plus MPAA and RIAA) are not complaining about people using their products. As a matter of fact, they want as many people as possible to use their products. What they are complaining about is the lack of payment. "Not purchasing" a game does the same harm to them that they do to me by not giving me $50. "Not purchasing" a game does the same harm to them whether I use the game or not.
The copyright monopoly created by our governments is an artificial right of refusal granted to copyright holders. Unlike inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I haven't seen arguments that even come close to persuading me that the right to hoard and control knowledge is a moral one. It is a legal regulation meant to encourage the creation of new works by allowing the creators a method of profiting from them.
John Locke:
Unauthorized duplication consists of two things:
An any rate, I cannot see how people can perpetuate the myth of "billions of dollars lost". What is wrong with the media that they are so eager to report the drivel spouted by the entertainment industry without balancing the story? They count a 13 year old kid as having cost them the full purchase price of $20,000 when he downloaded 1,000 movies. The kid might only get $10 a week in allowance so the most he theoretically could have cost them was $520 in one year. In actuality he might have only purchased a DVD or two, or rented a dozen. I am sorry that I appear alone in ignoring people that make flawed arguments and try to mislead the public.
All that proves is that 25% of people are dishonest and stupid.
If we make votes of the legislature anonymous, then lobbyists and corporations couldn't tell if their bought candidates voted for them or not...
That's cool. How hard is it to view ballots? I'd like to cast my own ballot using this method so I can find it later and make sure it was counted...
I believe the judge is catching on that the RIAA is just using the courts. Most times they probably are just fishing and/or have bad data so they don't find the right people. The rest of the time they are using their lawsuit assembly-line operation to extort money from people and they don't intend to bring court cases. If not for extorting money, then simple to try and affect public opinion. They can basically sue dozens of people for the cost of suing one. When a lot of the cases are dismissed, it's a sign that the plaintiffs need to be reeled in.
Good question. It's not just a computer recording information in a back room at NASA, I would guess quite a bit more.
But their opinions differ from mine, and I'm the one with mod points.
All licensing is really is allowing one party to perform the acts prohibited by the copyright monopoly of another. There's an exception in copyright law for the owner of copy of the software to make use of the software by copying into ram to run the program, but that doesn't automatically apply when the software is licensed instead of sold. If you didn't purchase and didn't license a piece of software for instance, you would be violating copyright just by copying it into memory by executing it. I think I found the case I was thinking of, TRIAD SYSTEMS CORPORATION v. SOUTHEASTERN EXPRESS COMPANY.
The only time I've ever had a problem with it, the barista reset the wireless router and it started working again. I've never had speed issues due to people using P2P.
Not true. Distribution is only one of the rights copyright holders are granted a monopoly on, at least in the U.S.. The other rights are to reproduce (copy), prepare derivative works, perform the works publicly and display the works publicly.
At one point at least running a program was considered protected by copyright because the program was copied into the computer's memory from disk. There was a company that developed trucking software and had maintenance contracts. Another company competed for the maintenance contracts. The court ruled that after the company started licensing the software instead of selling it, the other company had violated copyright when servicing the software since it involved running the program and thereby copying it into memory. Prior to licensing that was OK because of the first sale doctrine I believe.
Are there any video cards that support the extra colors, or is there something else where the display can more accurately represent the color based on color space without actually changing the bits per channel sent from the video card? I th ink Matrox had a 30 bit video card at one point...
My local coffee chain has free wi-fi access, no strings attached. You don't have to buy a coffee officially, you might get some stares if you don't. There's not two hour limit or any crap like that. They need the connection anyway for credit card charges and to talk to the home office for inventory and such.
T-Mobile's "$6 an hour, $10 an day, or $40 an month" was just frickin' ridiculous.
We're not talking about whacking the guy, just moving him from the location of the legal profession.
By your arguments the problem is that the teachers aren't good enough, therefore shouldn't we be paying them less? How much do you think you'd have to raise teacher salaries to get the kind of people you want to get? It would take decades to see any real change. There would be very little turn-over for a obvious reasons. The people that put up with being teachers now will not go quietly into the night if you quadruple their salary. Older teachers will probably stay as long as possible and teacher's unions are notoriously powerful (at least in the U.S.). There simply won't be room for new graduates and they will have to take other jobs. The unions of course would forbid hiring only new teachers at higher salaries.
Since there are adequate numbers of graduating teachers now, how do you propose to separate the 'better' teachers? Being a 'good' teacher is about more than just knowing the subjects yourself. A teacher that cannot teach the material in the district-mandated textbook should not be teaching now. Maybe the problem is simply with curriculum and not with the teachers.