so if the goal is to have both redundancy AND utilize the available disk space efficiently, the RAIDZ2 would seem to be a better choice (and it's all 1 big pool):
You are exactly right. To get the same space you have in 6 disks, I would need 8. Also, any two of your disks can go, whereas if I lose two in the same mirror I am screwed...
The other side of the coin is that while I pay for 2 extra disks up-front, I can add larger disks in pairs whereas you need to buy 6 at a time.
Also, I started with only 4 disks and of various sizes - so that changed my calculus. My disks were in part what I had laying around, so I had: 2x 2TB 1x 400GB 1x 300GB
Raidz1 would only get me a max of 900GB and Raidz2 600GB! At that point I was better off just mirroring the two disks and getting 2TB. Mirroring the second smaller pair give me an extra 300GB for "free". The next time I need to expand I can just pop in two 3TB drives and it will increase my storage by 2.7TB.
I currently have the T-Mobile Prepay $30/month plan for my wife (1500 minutes or texts, very little data) and the other $30/month plan for myself (100 minutes with 5GB "4G" Data, unlimited texts). I usually go over by about 100 minutes which costs me $10. I'm next to a landline all day at work and still have a landline at home (for overseas calls) so I don't really need many mobile minutes.
Boost has the best deal I could find, with plans that go down to $35 for unlimited... but bring-your-own can be quite difficult there.
Like I said, I wasn't defending Apple - just stating that a Newton was very dissimilar from an iPhone/iPad - both in superficial appearance and in operation.
The only similarity I see is that both devices have black faces with a screen in the middle.
I'm not defending Apple here, but there was no pinch-to-zoom on Newton - in fact it required a stylus. As far as design elements, the Newton splayed outward to sharp corners - pretty much the opposite of rounded corners.
Expand "easier to work with", please. And "certain kinds of electrical connections". Also, for an encore, substantiate "We are abandoning it where possible". I rather suspect you are talking out of your ass.
No, I was actually talking about my field of expertise. Copper is quickly being adopted for semiconductor interconnections, despite it being extremely hard to work with. It is hard, so it damages the die surface. It is reactive, so interconnections must be done with cover gas. But the main problem is that there is far less experience with it, so we're flying a little bit blind... even reliability test data is not very comprehensive yet.
So, the amount of gold used in electronics is tiny and nobody is "abandoning it". (There really isn't a good alternative anyways.)
Regarding interconnects, companies are switching to copper, palladium, aluminum, and even silver because of the current price of gold. The change has been sudden and swift, and it keeps me very very busy.
Gold would have a lot more industrial applications if it weren't so expensive. We are abandoning it where possible - but it is far easier to work with than copper when making certain kinds of electrical connections.
Why would you store your savings in ANY currency? Currency is meant to facilitate transactions... to make barter more efficient. It is not meant to store your savings in the long-term.
In other words, dumping the Federal Reserve Note buys you nothing. You can buy gold right now - why would you wait for the government to base money upon it? And anyway, the government ALREADY sells gold currency (and silver and platinum). American Eagle coins have been available since the 80s. Every time you save $1500 in fiat currency, you can trade it for a platinum American Eagle and stick it in a safe deposit box (or have it held for you).
FDIC insurance is for your cash, though. If you are holding cash, you are probably mostly concerned that it not lose face value - not that it generates income or grows in value. See also, stuffing hundreds into your mattress or buying gold bars.
Chase was expensive, but not bad. I had an account there for years, but cancelled when they started charging me for the honor of putting money in their bank.
They are also big enough to be stupid. My credit card interest rate is very similar to my mortgage rate, all because they acquired my account from another bank that had given me a promotional rate that is now about 10 years old. I must have been part of some edge case during the database merge or something. Anyone else have a card pinned to 1.4% over prime rate?
If I were hosting an RSS feed (or more likely multiple feeds), I'd surely have an app on my phone to update it (them) and it would be dead simple to setup and use.
You'd have ended up with something like Twitter. Smartphones were not yet very common. Feature phones could run arbitrary Java, but most carriers limited the apps you could install. Short of a carrier deal, that left SMS for the mobile interface.
- Enforced limit on tweet size - Text only (so worked with even simple phones via text message) - I'm not sure I could figure out, in a short time, how to set up an RSS feed that can be updated via SMS.
I have a different vision: You get home and your smart phone is already synced to your full desktop/laptop, so anything you did on the phone all day is available on your desktop/laptop.
Then you are laying in bed with your tablet device, and it also is synced with your smart phone so you just start reading.
The advantages of this approach are: 1. When main device changes (in your example, the smartphone), all of your "docks" do not need to change. 2. High-power devices can stay high-power and low-power devices can stay low. Using your phone to edit high-def video would be murderous. 3. App and device manufacturers don't need to try and shoehorn their mobile OS and apps into a Desktop and vice versa. 4. Not everyone in your household needs to own a "main device", and all of your devices are available to use at the same time.
Disadvantages: 1. App and device manufacturers need to figure out a way to sync everything up. 2. Requires a network. 3. Individual devices may cost a bit more due to the need for a CPU in each.
In reality, I don't think the "brains" of a smart phone cost very much. I think far more cost is in the battery and screen. I think syncing is the way to go. It's a bit painful right now... even if you are 100% Apple not everything syncs. Google is great for keeping contacts, email, and calendars in sync. Firefox does a good job keeping browsers in sync. Amazon keeps all of your reading in sync. All of these companies are fighting for this space, and I don't really see many going for the route you envision.
iPhone call quality is terrible. Signal quality seems OK unless you do the left-hand short-the-antenna trick.
The "feel" of the hardware is subjective, but there's no question that the iPhone feels substantial and expensive. This matters little to me, and in any case it is wrapped in a cheap rubber protective sleeve most of the time:)
"Features" are very difficult to match up. Is processor speed a plus when it runs higher or a minus because it uses more battery? Is a larger screen a plus, or is the phone now too big? You really have to just accept that it is a subjective comparison and move on:)
Cost-wise, it's a wash... except that now Google is subsidizing the cost of the Nexus! Yay! Apple will never compete with "no profit":)
I think people care about Android vs iOS comparisons because market share of an OS translates more or less directly to the size and vitality of the software you can get for those platforms.
This is why Google is going out of their gourd about things like the Kindle Fire. Sure, it's technically an "Android", but it doesn't help them in any way.
To a lesser extent, they are having the same trouble with phones. Developing for Android is a bit more work than developing for iPhone at the moment, if only because of the number of targets.
Once they get this all figured out, what you said about market share and software availability will start to become true. Right now Apple seems to be getting a large amount of the development with just a small fraction of market share.
There is also the issue of paying customers... someone willing to part with $600 for a phone is a lot more likely to buy software than someone willing to part with $200. So the raw "market share" number is not terribly useful without also considering the market share by revenue.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't happen on prepay.
so if the goal is to have both redundancy AND utilize the available disk space efficiently, the RAIDZ2 would seem to be a better choice (and it's all 1 big pool):
You are exactly right. To get the same space you have in 6 disks, I would need 8. Also, any two of your disks can go, whereas if I lose two in the same mirror I am screwed...
The other side of the coin is that while I pay for 2 extra disks up-front, I can add larger disks in pairs whereas you need to buy 6 at a time.
Also, I started with only 4 disks and of various sizes - so that changed my calculus. My disks were in part what I had laying around, so I had:
2x 2TB
1x 400GB
1x 300GB
Raidz1 would only get me a max of 900GB and Raidz2 600GB! At that point I was better off just mirroring the two disks and getting 2TB. Mirroring the second smaller pair give me an extra 300GB for "free". The next time I need to expand I can just pop in two 3TB drives and it will increase my storage by 2.7TB.
I bet that he is referring to metro area, and you are looking at population inside city limits.
500,000 is smallish for a metro area, but big for a US city.
If you are using Android, turn on Settings->Wireless and network->Mobile network settings->Data roaming.
Not sure why this is unchecked by default. T-Mobile is unusable even on Long Island without it.
I currently have the T-Mobile Prepay $30/month plan for my wife (1500 minutes or texts, very little data) and the other $30/month plan for myself (100 minutes with 5GB "4G" Data, unlimited texts). I usually go over by about 100 minutes which costs me $10. I'm next to a landline all day at work and still have a landline at home (for overseas calls) so I don't really need many mobile minutes.
Boost has the best deal I could find, with plans that go down to $35 for unlimited... but bring-your-own can be quite difficult there.
Pinch to zoom is part of the lawsuit, though.
Yeah IMHO his was a large part P.T. Barnum.
Like I said, I wasn't defending Apple - just stating that a Newton was very dissimilar from an iPhone/iPad - both in superficial appearance and in operation.
The only similarity I see is that both devices have black faces with a screen in the middle.
I'm not defending Apple here, but there was no pinch-to-zoom on Newton - in fact it required a stylus. As far as design elements, the Newton splayed outward to sharp corners - pretty much the opposite of rounded corners.
I have (I kid you not) a brown toilet.
Expand "easier to work with", please. And "certain kinds of electrical connections". Also, for an encore, substantiate "We are abandoning it where possible". I rather suspect you are talking out of your ass.
No, I was actually talking about my field of expertise. Copper is quickly being adopted for semiconductor interconnections, despite it being extremely hard to work with. It is hard, so it damages the die surface. It is reactive, so interconnections must be done with cover gas. But the main problem is that there is far less experience with it, so we're flying a little bit blind... even reliability test data is not very comprehensive yet.
So, the amount of gold used in electronics is tiny and nobody is "abandoning it". (There really isn't a good alternative anyways.)
Regarding interconnects, companies are switching to copper, palladium, aluminum, and even silver because of the current price of gold. The change has been sudden and swift, and it keeps me very very busy.
Yes, or to use slashdot as an example, I would put the message ID in the crypto message, something like (reply to 40982861).
Gold would have a lot more industrial applications if it weren't so expensive. We are abandoning it where possible - but it is far easier to work with than copper when making certain kinds of electrical connections.
Why would you store your savings in ANY currency? Currency is meant to facilitate transactions... to make barter more efficient. It is not meant to store your savings in the long-term.
In other words, dumping the Federal Reserve Note buys you nothing. You can buy gold right now - why would you wait for the government to base money upon it? And anyway, the government ALREADY sells gold currency (and silver and platinum). American Eagle coins have been available since the 80s. Every time you save $1500 in fiat currency, you can trade it for a platinum American Eagle and stick it in a safe deposit box (or have it held for you).
FDIC insurance is for your cash, though. If you are holding cash, you are probably mostly concerned that it not lose face value - not that it generates income or grows in value. See also, stuffing hundreds into your mattress or buying gold bars.
Touche...
Worst was the old "CoreStates".
Chase was expensive, but not bad. I had an account there for years, but cancelled when they started charging me for the honor of putting money in their bank.
They are also big enough to be stupid. My credit card interest rate is very similar to my mortgage rate, all because they acquired my account from another bank that had given me a promotional rate that is now about 10 years old. I must have been part of some edge case during the database merge or something. Anyone else have a card pinned to 1.4% over prime rate?
If I were hosting an RSS feed (or more likely multiple feeds), I'd surely have an app on my phone to update it (them) and it would be dead simple to setup and use.
You'd have ended up with something like Twitter. Smartphones were not yet very common. Feature phones could run arbitrary Java, but most carriers limited the apps you could install. Short of a carrier deal, that left SMS for the mobile interface.
Some differences vs. RSS:
- Enforced limit on tweet size
- Text only (so worked with even simple phones via text message)
- I'm not sure I could figure out, in a short time, how to set up an RSS feed that can be updated via SMS.
Calling someone a name is not sarcasm.
It is coming.
I have a different vision:
You get home and your smart phone is already synced to your full desktop/laptop, so anything you did on the phone all day is available on your desktop/laptop.
Then you are laying in bed with your tablet device, and it also is synced with your smart phone so you just start reading.
The advantages of this approach are:
1. When main device changes (in your example, the smartphone), all of your "docks" do not need to change.
2. High-power devices can stay high-power and low-power devices can stay low. Using your phone to edit high-def video would be murderous.
3. App and device manufacturers don't need to try and shoehorn their mobile OS and apps into a Desktop and vice versa.
4. Not everyone in your household needs to own a "main device", and all of your devices are available to use at the same time.
Disadvantages:
1. App and device manufacturers need to figure out a way to sync everything up.
2. Requires a network.
3. Individual devices may cost a bit more due to the need for a CPU in each.
In reality, I don't think the "brains" of a smart phone cost very much. I think far more cost is in the battery and screen. I think syncing is the way to go. It's a bit painful right now... even if you are 100% Apple not everything syncs. Google is great for keeping contacts, email, and calendars in sync. Firefox does a good job keeping browsers in sync. Amazon keeps all of your reading in sync. All of these companies are fighting for this space, and I don't really see many going for the route you envision.
I have a pocket-less skirt, you insensitive clod!
iPhone call quality is terrible. Signal quality seems OK unless you do the left-hand short-the-antenna trick.
The "feel" of the hardware is subjective, but there's no question that the iPhone feels substantial and expensive. This matters little to me, and in any case it is wrapped in a cheap rubber protective sleeve most of the time :)
"Features" are very difficult to match up. Is processor speed a plus when it runs higher or a minus because it uses more battery? Is a larger screen a plus, or is the phone now too big? You really have to just accept that it is a subjective comparison and move on :)
Cost-wise, it's a wash... except that now Google is subsidizing the cost of the Nexus! Yay! Apple will never compete with "no profit" :)
I'm certain that is true. Clearly I've made my point poorly, so I'll restate it: Android is fun for me, but I am not a "normal" user.
I think people care about Android vs iOS comparisons because market share of an OS translates more or less directly to the size and vitality of the software you can get for those platforms.
This is why Google is going out of their gourd about things like the Kindle Fire. Sure, it's technically an "Android", but it doesn't help them in any way.
To a lesser extent, they are having the same trouble with phones. Developing for Android is a bit more work than developing for iPhone at the moment, if only because of the number of targets.
Once they get this all figured out, what you said about market share and software availability will start to become true. Right now Apple seems to be getting a large amount of the development with just a small fraction of market share.
There is also the issue of paying customers... someone willing to part with $600 for a phone is a lot more likely to buy software than someone willing to part with $200. So the raw "market share" number is not terribly useful without also considering the market share by revenue.
ZIP is popular, but Katz ended up dead of alcoholism at 37. He never did make a popular app for Windows.
Thom Henderson, on the other hand, sold the rights to ARC and retired to the Eastern Shore of Maryland.