You are essentially saying "yeah, if you don't write very much to it, the SSD will not wear out", which is exactly the obvious corollary to what I pointed out. It just is not so that the user doesn't have to worry about wearing out his SSD. It's a failure mode that has to be considered. You can't just wave it away.
1) You can write an HDD CONTINUOUSLY for its entire expected mechanical and electronic lifetime without ANY wearout due to the writing - it essentially has an infinite design number of cycles with respect to writing. It is, inherently by design, free from wearout due to this particular cause. The SSD is emphatically not so.
2) "Unnecessary" features are not the only source of write data. A lot of us like to, you know, WRITE DATA to a drive because that is its PURPOSE. Some of us have the need to write more data than others.
Please stop spreading false information. Flash is flash. It has a limited number of write cycles. Straight from Intel:
Intel warrants to the purchaser of the Product specified above in its original sealed packaging (“Original Purchaser”) and to the purchaser of a computer system built by an Original Purchaser containing the Product (“Original System Customer”) as follows: if the Product is properly used and installed, it will be free from defects in material and workmanship, and will substantially conform to Intel’s publicly available specifications for the “warranty period”, which is THE SHORTER OF: (A) A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS BEGINNING ON THE DATE THE PRODUCT WAS PURCHASED IN ITS ORIGINAL SEALED PACKAGING IN THE CASE OF AN ORIGINAL PURCHASER OR THE DATE OF ORIGINAL PURCHASE OF A COMPUTER SYSTEM CONTAINING THE PRODUCT IN THE CASE OF AN ORIGINAL SYSTEM CUSTOMER; OR (B) THE PERIOD ENDING ON THE DATE WHEN THE USAGE OF THE DRIVE, AS MEASURED BY INTEL’S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE “SMART” ATTRIBUTE (E9) “MEDIA WEAR-OUT INDICATOR”, REACHES A “NORMALIZED VALUE” OF “1”, AS REPORTED BY THE INTEL® SSD TOOLBOX.
Cree makes the LEDs people like Philips put INTO their "bulbs". They know their business and are doing VERY well. Also, 208 lumens per watt is the current experimental bleeding edge. Production is at more like 100-120. These figures are at 25 C junction temperature. The junctions in a LED "bulb" run at maybe 70-100C. By the time you figure the further losses in the driver circuit and elevated junction temperatures, 70-80 lumens per watt is doing well.
You THINK the LEDs will suffer the same shortcoming as the terrible CFLs, but in fact the driver circuits are very different. You have absolutely no basis for your prediction. At any rate, we will before very long find out. I already have one Philips LED that has been running 24x7 for one year with no hint of any degradation.
I'm a total LED fanboi, but even I have to admit the LED probably doesn't have that much advantage in lifetime in my own use pattern. I have several CFLs that undergo 1-2 power cycles per day, running maybe 6-16 hr per day. I've had CFLs (rated at 6-8000 hr life) running so for at least 5 years, which means they've been running 20,000 - 30,000 hr. CFLs love this usage pattern. They HATE being turned on and off many times a day. OTOH,LEDs don't care in the slightest if you switch them on and off one a second for their entire life, but they won't last any longer in continuous use than in intermittent use.
The US hasn't even "banned" ANY kind or rating of incandescents. They are ruling on what you manufacture, and perhaps what you can sell. And there are lots of loopholes even in manufacturing/selling. And anything you already own you can use. Anything you can figure out how to import you can use.
Well, if you actually lived in a new house in California (the rules only apply to new houses), after buying the house and moving in you could rip the nanny state switches the hell out and replace them with normal switches. The day is not YET here when they can control your personal life to that extent. Heck, you could even put 250 watt incandescents in every fixture. You can still buy 'em; they just cost a lot more now.
No, actually, ICBMs are not stealthy. You can see them coming (on radar). Dummies in MIRVs do nothing to prevent that. You can see where they came from. The definition of stealthy is that you cannot see it coming.
You completely misunderstood the point. The point was, positing a cruise missile limited to 600 miles range, even if the sub comes to within earshot of the beach its missiles can only reach 600 miles inland.
Aside from the fact that there is nothing limiting cruise missile range to 600 miles[*], I think he has a valid point.
[*] There are even versions of the ridiculously antiquated Tomahawk that can reach 1550 miles. I don't know if those particular versions are currently submarine-fittable however.
There's a LITTLE problem with your pronouncement (besides the unbecoming heat). It ain't so. China, Korea, Iran, Japan, Hungary, Lithuania, and Belize also put the month first. In addition Canada, Nepal, South Africa, Austria, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Philippines, and Saudi Arabia have mixed usage regards DD-MM/MM-DD. Where's your consensus now?
Actually there IS a true international consensus in the form of ISO 8601 International standard, which is YYYY-MM-DD. As of ISO 8601:2004, no component may be left out or truncated on either end. Unlike your favored format, this has the following advantages: 1) It is COMPLETELY unambiguous and requires no cultural agreement to interpret. 2) It sorts left-to-right just like any number or alpha string.
2a) Therefore when used as a part of a filename, files are properly sorted in a an alphabetical directory listing.
Face it, both US (MM-DD-YYYY) and other provincial conventions are stupid. Even if the US convention is a little more stupid than the (most of) European because it sorts NEITHER left-right nor right-left, they are BOTH stupid, There is absolutely NO reason whatsoever not to use ISO 8601 for ALL date specifications.
Yes it was. The original design didn't take into account a very large earthquake causing a very large tsunami, or the prospect of the emergency cooling generators being flooded and no other power source being available.
No it wasn't. What you describe is a failure of specification/design, not a failure of engineering.
I don't know about you, but I didn't sign any such contract. It's a lot closer to the neighborhood protection racket. You pay the racket, OR ELSE. "Nice life, fella, it would be a shame if something was to happen wit' it."
Before anybody asks, no, I'm not at all sure I could build and maintain a better working society, but I'm damn sure I could at least design a better government than any that exist, and I promise you, so could any high school student with above-median IQ.
Because when it comes to all things IP the US will just force everyone else to do whatever it is that the US wants, "sovereign nations" be dammed. EU courts have no practical jurisdiction so why care?
Not so much force. More coerce. Coerce is much worse; much more insidious. Force doesn't work so well any more because US power is rapidly waning.
The pixellation and sound cutouts are not from over-compression. I've seen the same thing. It means something is wrong with the equipment somewhere along the line. If you get into the cable box service menu you will usually see excess data errors logged when that happens. When they get around to fixing it, and it sometimes takes quite a while, these problems always go away.
The over-compression is bad enough for what it is REALLY responsible for. HD scenes with rapid motion are just disgustingly poor on Comcast.
I don't think the backbone infrastructure is designed to handle so much traffic, and I doubt Comcast is willing to spend millions on upgrading.
I agree the problem is real. But millions? Are you kidding? Comcast's gross income in 2011 was 27.484 BILLION - up 71% from 2010! "Net income" after due cooking of the books was over 4 BILLION.
Sorry, but speaking as a Comcast customer, NO SALE. You would give me something worse than what I have now. You would have me pay for every GB rather than have the flat rate. I happen to think the flat rate is a GREAT idea. I also understand that they need to put SOME limit on the aggregate throughput. The only suggestion I have is to have a stepped DATA RATE system. For example, the first 100GB is full speed (call it 16 Mbps); 100 to 250 is 8 Mbps; 250 to 1000 is 4 Mbps; 1000 and up is 2 Mbps. Play with the numbers however you have to on initial setup so that the system can support the load. Note that every 1 Mbps continuous 24x7 for 30 days gives you a total of 259.2 GB.
At the very least, make one step at 250 GB so if you go over, rather than being banned from the network your data rate just goes down to a comparative (but still very useful) dribble. The wireless guys generally do this.
Either way, LET the lightweights who only use a few MB a month continue to support those of us who have a clue; who repeatedly sweat coming close to the 250 GB cap.
Slashdot Mirror
You are essentially saying "yeah, if you don't write very much to it, the SSD will not wear out", which is exactly the obvious corollary to what I pointed out. It just is not so that the user doesn't have to worry about wearing out his SSD. It's a failure mode that has to be considered. You can't just wave it away.
1) You can write an HDD CONTINUOUSLY for its entire expected mechanical and electronic lifetime without ANY wearout due to the writing - it essentially has an infinite design number of cycles with respect to writing. It is, inherently by design, free from wearout due to this particular cause. The SSD is emphatically not so.
2) "Unnecessary" features are not the only source of write data. A lot of us like to, you know, WRITE DATA to a drive because that is its PURPOSE. Some of us have the need to write more data than others.
Please stop spreading false information. Flash is flash. It has a limited number of write cycles. Straight from Intel:
And why is it important to have astronauts in space? Symbolism, romance and sword-rattling are not acceptable answers.
Your closed-minded refusal to accept certain answers does not necessarily invalidate them.
Cree makes the LEDs people like Philips put INTO their "bulbs". They know their business and are doing VERY well. Also, 208 lumens per watt is the current experimental bleeding edge. Production is at more like 100-120. These figures are at 25 C junction temperature. The junctions in a LED "bulb" run at maybe 70-100C. By the time you figure the further losses in the driver circuit and elevated junction temperatures, 70-80 lumens per watt is doing well.
You THINK the LEDs will suffer the same shortcoming as the terrible CFLs, but in fact the driver circuits are very different. You have absolutely no basis for your prediction. At any rate, we will before very long find out. I already have one Philips LED that has been running 24x7 for one year with no hint of any degradation.
Funny, I put a cheap screw-in LED "bulb" in my refrigerator and it works excellent and looks divine. Everyone comments on it.
Well, my state requires CFLs to be recycled at a drop-off facility and forbids them to be dropped in landfill trash. Maybe they know something?
I'm a total LED fanboi, but even I have to admit the LED probably doesn't have that much advantage in lifetime in my own use pattern. I have several CFLs that undergo 1-2 power cycles per day, running maybe 6-16 hr per day. I've had CFLs (rated at 6-8000 hr life) running so for at least 5 years, which means they've been running 20,000 - 30,000 hr. CFLs love this usage pattern. They HATE being turned on and off many times a day. OTOH,LEDs don't care in the slightest if you switch them on and off one a second for their entire life, but they won't last any longer in continuous use than in intermittent use.
You're dreaming. Even a 60W incandescent is 800. A 100W is 1600 or better.
Bingo.
The US hasn't even "banned" ANY kind or rating of incandescents. They are ruling on what you manufacture, and perhaps what you can sell. And there are lots of loopholes even in manufacturing/selling. And anything you already own you can use. Anything you can figure out how to import you can use.
Well, if you actually lived in a new house in California (the rules only apply to new houses), after buying the house and moving in you could rip the nanny state switches the hell out and replace them with normal switches. The day is not YET here when they can control your personal life to that extent. Heck, you could even put 250 watt incandescents in every fixture. You can still buy 'em; they just cost a lot more now.
No, actually, ICBMs are not stealthy. You can see them coming (on radar). Dummies in MIRVs do nothing to prevent that. You can see where they came from. The definition of stealthy is that you cannot see it coming.
You completely misunderstood the point. The point was, positing a cruise missile limited to 600 miles range, even if the sub comes to within earshot of the beach its missiles can only reach 600 miles inland.
Aside from the fact that there is nothing limiting cruise missile range to 600 miles[*], I think he has a valid point.
[*] There are even versions of the ridiculously antiquated Tomahawk that can reach 1550 miles. I don't know if those particular versions are currently submarine-fittable however.
Made my day!
There's a LITTLE problem with your pronouncement (besides the unbecoming heat). It ain't so. China, Korea, Iran, Japan, Hungary, Lithuania, and Belize also put the month first. In addition Canada, Nepal, South Africa, Austria, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Philippines, and Saudi Arabia have mixed usage regards DD-MM/MM-DD. Where's your consensus now?
Actually there IS a true international consensus in the form of ISO 8601 International standard, which is YYYY-MM-DD. As of ISO 8601:2004, no component may be left out or truncated on either end. Unlike your favored format, this has the following advantages:
1) It is COMPLETELY unambiguous and requires no cultural agreement to interpret.
2) It sorts left-to-right just like any number or alpha string.
2a) Therefore when used as a part of a filename, files are properly sorted in a an alphabetical directory listing.
Face it, both US (MM-DD-YYYY) and other provincial conventions are stupid. Even if the US convention is a little more stupid than the (most of) European because it sorts NEITHER left-right nor right-left, they are BOTH stupid, There is absolutely NO reason whatsoever not to use ISO 8601 for ALL date specifications.
Fukishima wasn't a failure of engineering
Yes it was. The original design didn't take into account a very large earthquake causing a very large tsunami, or the prospect of the emergency cooling generators being flooded and no other power source being available.
No it wasn't. What you describe is a failure of specification/design, not a failure of engineering.
Help me out here, because I genuinely want to understand. How can a country be independent but still have Queen Elizabeth II as the head of state?
I don't know about you, but I didn't sign any such contract. It's a lot closer to the neighborhood protection racket. You pay the racket, OR ELSE. "Nice life, fella, it would be a shame if something was to happen wit' it."
Before anybody asks, no, I'm not at all sure I could build and maintain a better working society, but I'm damn sure I could at least design a better government than any that exist, and I promise you, so could any high school student with above-median IQ.
Because when it comes to all things IP the US will just force everyone else to do whatever it is that the US wants, "sovereign nations" be dammed. EU courts have no practical jurisdiction so why care?
Not so much force. More coerce. Coerce is much worse; much more insidious. Force doesn't work so well any more because US power is rapidly waning.
Because there are 2 sets of laws.
One is "Amurika Fuck Yeah!"
One is "Communists Liberal Europe"
Just because EU says something does not mean US court will not say exactly the opposite.
Exactly. Sometimes one does the right thing; sometimes the other does the right thing; sometimes both do the wrong thing.
I wish we could pick and choose only the good stuff from each.
The pixellation and sound cutouts are not from over-compression. I've seen the same thing. It means something is wrong with the equipment somewhere along the line. If you get into the cable box service menu you will usually see excess data errors logged when that happens. When they get around to fixing it, and it sometimes takes quite a while, these problems always go away.
The over-compression is bad enough for what it is REALLY responsible for. HD scenes with rapid motion are just disgustingly poor on Comcast.
I agree the problem is real. But millions? Are you kidding? Comcast's gross income in 2011 was 27.484 BILLION - up 71% from 2010! "Net income" after due cooking of the books was over 4 BILLION.
Comcast Corp. business figures
Why do we have to label at all (it seems pretty clearly to me to be sarcasm, but certainly nneither troll nor fanboi - I hate those terms)?
Sorry, but speaking as a Comcast customer, NO SALE. You would give me something worse than what I have now. You would have me pay for every GB rather than have the flat rate. I happen to think the flat rate is a GREAT idea. I also understand that they need to put SOME limit on the aggregate throughput. The only suggestion I have is to have a stepped DATA RATE system. For example, the first 100GB is full speed (call it 16 Mbps); 100 to 250 is 8 Mbps; 250 to 1000 is 4 Mbps; 1000 and up is 2 Mbps. Play with the numbers however you have to on initial setup so that the system can support the load. Note that every 1 Mbps continuous 24x7 for 30 days gives you a total of 259.2 GB.
At the very least, make one step at 250 GB so if you go over, rather than being banned from the network your data rate just goes down to a comparative (but still very useful) dribble. The wireless guys generally do this.
Either way, LET the lightweights who only use a few MB a month continue to support those of us who have a clue; who repeatedly sweat coming close to the 250 GB cap.