>" Is this bad? I think trying to relate cost to ability to pay isn't a terrible thing."
It isn't necessarily bad, if there is a free market and competition in that area that guarantees consumers have a choice and alternatives. Such competition will ensure that the prices stay low and consumers have choices and business greed is kept in check. When it is a true or partial or pseudo monopoly, that doesn't work so well anymore. As to how "good" or "bad" this specific example is, well, it depends on how you classify/view MS and also their relationship with OEMS and what they have done, historically.
>"Complete BS. What sort of fucking retard are you? A free market is by definition not required to do anything for the consumer. That's the whole fucking definition."
Um, if they don't give the consumer what they want, another company will. Or do you think Communism works better?
>"I don't like commercials, but compared to cable/DVR I'd rather have Hulu with commercials."
Choice is a good thing. Free markets give consumers more of what they want. I, for one, am glad Hulu exists even though I have no interest in at least their commercial model, because it spurs more competition. In the past we had none and it is about time the cable monopolies fall under real pressure.
>"It's exactly the same as the cable companies do..."
No it isn't, not even close. With cable, anyone with any brain uses a DVR (I use a TiVo) and skips the commercials. Streaming, on the other hand, can FORCE commercial viewing, and that is exactly what Hulu does- forced commercials.
And with cable/DVR, you can record what you want for later viewing, and without a live Internet connection. Streaming video and your Internet goes down? Too bad. No more video.
And with cable/DVR, I can record hundreds of hours of video and it doesn't impact my Internet speed at all. And my Internet usage doesn't impact video at all. Never any dropping of resolution spontaneously, no missing frames, no freezing.
And with cable/DVR, I can pause, play, rewind, fast forward, and frame-by-frame effectively with my video. And it does so instantly- no lag, no "loading", no hiccups.
So no, this is not "exactly the same as cable."
I don't care if Hulu with commercials was FREE, if it has forced commercials, neither I nor many others will use it. I haven't watched commercials (unless I WANT to) for over 16 years and I will NEVER go back.
>"I can almost guarantee that you have" [had searches done on a databases that contain your prints]
Reply to self- just to clarify (since after I read my reply again, it might not be evident), every time ANY collected print is searched, it is compared to every print to which they have access. If your print is in one of those databases, you are being searched. And since the databases are shared, it is likely that at least high-level-agency searches will search through just about every database out there.
The act of searching is already invasive, but in addition, the more prints and searches, the higher the probability of false positives. This is compounded with the number of searches, which goes up every year.
Even with a true positive, it can place you in a position of having to prove your innocence because:
1) A print doesn't mean you were there or touched anything if it was fake or a plant/frame.
2) Even if you were there, it doesn't mean you were there when something of interest happened because there is no time reference.
3) And either way, a print doesn't mean you actually did anything.
>"I''ve never been searched by any investigative agency, with or without probable cause, nor been a Person of Interest in an investigation"
I can almost guarantee that you have. Just because nothing has come from those searches [that you know of] doesn't mean you haven't been searched and there isn't a risk. If your latent print just happens to be on or around something of interest, it will be run and it will connect to you; and there is a small chance it will connect to you even if it isn't you.
>"Deep vein palm scan? What kind of expensive piece of equipment is that going to take every time I want to do a credit check on a potential customer? Jesus H. Christ. It needs to be simpler than that."
I wasn't referring to using this for everyday transactions, precisely because we shouldn't have to use biometrics for such trivial things (it is dangerous). Biometrics should be reserved only for IMPORTANT ID, like interactions with the police, court, deeds, wills, sensitive medical care, etc.
As for expense- a deep vein scanner is no more expensive than a fingerprint scanner, and it is just as fast. It is also almost as easy to use.
>"Deep palm vein matching may not presently have a known method for creating dummy fakes, but that does not mean it never will. Best to rule out biometrics for all authentication tasks and leave it solely for use in identification without authentication."
What you are saying is very true. That is why I qualified it with "I know of." Probably anything can be defeated, but deep vein currently stands as one of the best, most practical biometric. You can get something very secure, like a retinal scan, but it is not very practical in use (have to look into something, slow, expensive optics and processing, all kinds of things can go wrong- infections, cataracts, clots, hazy fluid, blinding if done wrong, yuck). As for as authentication, nothing beats adding what you know to the biometric equation (PIN/password/etc).
You already said it, but in your example, those were surface veins, not deep veins. Deep veins can't be seen from any distance with visible light nor from a distance with any known technology. Further, the palm is a more protected area that is rarely visible casually for more than a brief instant (think about where your hands are most of the time- holding something, in your pockets, on a keyboard, face-down in most cases when not holding something and obscured otherwise).
Fingerprints and DNA should not be used for biometrics. Period.
Using fingerprints or DNA and allowing a third-party to have access to that data is unacceptable. Not only because the government and big business should have no need to track what people are doing but because they should not have fingerprint registration data (which will be horribly abused) .
Stand up for your rights, people... and the rights of your children. Once you give this data to the government or big business, it will NEVER be erased or restricted, regardless of claims, policies, or laws- it will go into huge databases and shared between agencies and used however they want for as long as they want. Even worse, with every crime investigation, you will be searched without probable cause. It is a genie that can't be put back into the bottle.
Fingerprints are something you leave all over the place all the time. They are easy to lift, copy, and forge. Easy to fake, easy to use to frame people. Time after time they have been shown to be poor for security and yet very effective at tracking people.
DNA is even worse. Like fingerprints, you leave it all over the place all the time. Samples can be lifted and planted and analyzed. DNA is more than a means to ID, it contains very sensitive information about you.
Iris scan is better than DNS or fingerprints- there is no leaving your iris image all over, and it doesn't say that much about you. But your eyes (iris, not retinal) could be scanned without your permission by any high resolution camera pointed at your face, even your own.
There is only one safer and practical biometric I know of- that is deep vein palm scan. That registration data cannot be readily abused. It can't be latently collected like DNA, fingerprints, and face recognition can. You have to know you are registering/enrolling when it happens. You don't leave evidence of it all over the place. When you go to use it, you know you are using it every time. And on top of all that, it is accurate, fast, reliable, unchanging, live-sensing, and cheap. If you must participate in a biometric, this is the one you should insist on using.
We also need to realize that IT IS NOT EVERYONE'S BUSINESS WHAT WE ALL DO. The first step in securing freedom is privacy. When you are tracked, you are losing your freedom, whether you realize it or not. You should not have to positively ID yourself for ALL transactions. A good example is age verification. There is an important place for anonymity and semi-anonymity in a free society.
Please note that this doesn't solve a equally big problem- you shouldn't HAVE to identify yourself for doing most things. A good example would be if you have to prove your age to do something. Age verification doesn't mean that establishment should be allowed to know WHO you are, and even worse, record that fact somewhere. Such acts erode privacy, freedom, and could be used later to frame, manipulate, or harass people.
>" https://www.amazon.com/Headpho... For $6.90 your problem is solved. But keep whining if that makes you feel better..."
Let's see:
1) 1.8 star review 2) Something else to remember 3) Something else to carry 3) still consumes battery 4) can't charge while using 5) can't use headset, only headphones 6) no option for inline controls 7) major compatibility issues
Exactly how does this solve the problem? So yeah, I will keep whining.
100% yes. Although I am not happy with lack of SD cards, I can handle that if a reasonable storage size is available, 64+GB. I am never happy with a non-swappable battery, but it seems that is beating a dead horse. Certainly also unhappy that wireless charging is so rare. Other unhappiness- lack of NFC, thinness instead of battery size, pixel density instead of brightness and efficiency, huge screen instead of portability.
But I have to draw the line somewhere, and it is at losing a simple, compact, compatible, easy, reliable headphone jack. There is simply no really good reason to remove it. I don't know when I will or won't need it, and I don't want to carry a stupid adapter that also is expensive, easy to lose, sucks more power, is likely to break, makes the phone weak and awkward while using it, and prevents charging while using it.
So with the increased security, that helps to protect from people trying to hack into Google. But who protects us from Google? They already have too much information and now they insist on having even more:
Google just pushed out an update last week, so apparently unless I turn on tracking and logging of everything I do (location, web history, etc), I can't use my Wear watch to search for ANYTHING anymore. Really?
The watch was great when I first bought it. Then they updated and ruined the search ability. Instead of being a nice, fast, Google web-like search engine, it became some stupid Google Now-like thing that doesn't ever give me what I want and no choices. Several months later it is "upgraded" to "Google Assistant" which REQUIRES I turn on all this tracking and storage. Almost nothing I want to search for requires a "history" of what I have done in the past.
>"The problem is the for profit prison system. For a supposedly free nation, we incarcerate a lot of people. I[...] It's gotten to the point where our own system is so corrupt that many of the folks in power should be in prison"
I agree that too many people are incarcerated and for too long (for those without violent crimes. Incarceration was supposed to be about rehabilitation, that was lost a long time ago. But that concept was lost long before "profit" prisons. If the metric for profit were shifted to people safely released without recidivism, that would change everything.
>"FCC audio division's regulations have done little to stop AM and satellite radio from broadcasting right-wing streams-of-consciousness throughout the lower 48 states."
WTF does that have to do with the story? So every Slashdot posting now has to be turned into a left-wing political statement/commentary?
>"Yes , fake news out of fox is much more useful than an article that does not have all the information. Idiot."
CNN has far more "fake news" than even Fox. They just disguise it better. And if you think CNN is going to fairly report on anything Trump related, you are the "idiot."
>"What you appear to be doing is playing word games, because it's easier to be right when you control all the words. But resisting bad things is good, and resisting good things can be bad."
"Bad" and "Good" are very relative, subjective, and even flexible. Apparently the mode du jur is to do bad things in the [often wrong] belief that it is for good. I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right.
This just isn't right. If they are seeking the ID of people who posed actual physical threats, or were involved in UNLAWFUL activity (such as genuine libel, inciting riots, participating in violence or riots, etc), that might be justified.
Being caught up in an ID disclosure just because one visited a web site or Facebook page goes well beyond what could possibly necessary.
More info needed, especially when it is a CNN article.
>"Burning ethanol produces half of the CO2 of burning gasoline, but with a range penalty. You need 125% as much ethanol as gasoline to travel the same distance."
The problem is that ethanol doesn't just appear. It is made from crops. And, up to now in the US, that crop is corn. And that corn is fertilized with petroleum products. And then there is all the transport, conversion, etc. And most existing engines can't just use it without significant alterations. Ultimately it is far less attractive than most people might think.
I really do think that electric is the ultimate answer. There are so many existing and future ways to generate and distribute it- it can evolve dynamically. But it can't be forced, it has to develop. And developing, it is, but things take time.
Leave it to CA to jump on the banning bandwagon. How about we just let things continue to get better by themselves?
1) Is the motivation reduction of pollution or just "feel good" political nonsense? If the latter, then let people feel good by opening their OWN pocketbooks to buy infant technology freely. 2) Cars are cleaner than ever. Again, is this about pollution or feel-good, drop-in-the-bucket, "save the earth NOW" CO2? 3) Target gross polluters, one "bad" ICE can spit out many, many times as much pollution as a good one. 4) People are generally excited about electric. The market is going to explode for electric with or without government interference. 5) Put some thought into what emissions those generation stations that feed those electric will emit and have that ready. 6) Trying to force alternatives to ICE before the market has products or production capability or infrastructure is a recipe for disaster. 7) Not all vehicles can be electric anytime soon. Motorcycles, towing vehicles, long-distance hauling, airplanes 8) Encourage alternatives, don't punish regular people.
Both candidates were poor. Many people voting for EITHER candidate were not happy with the candidate but held their nose and voted for the least worst. Some of it has nothing to do with the candidate, anyway. For example, if you value gun rights, voting for Hillary would be insane, no matter how much you hate Trump, the person.
And thus the problem with "first to the post" voting both in the primaries and the elections themselves. This could be mostly fixed with IRV http://fairvote.org/ so you can vote for candidates you like without fear of your vote counting for nothing. Alas, this will probably never happen.
Slashdot Mirror
>" Is this bad? I think trying to relate cost to ability to pay isn't a terrible thing."
It isn't necessarily bad, if there is a free market and competition in that area that guarantees consumers have a choice and alternatives. Such competition will ensure that the prices stay low and consumers have choices and business greed is kept in check. When it is a true or partial or pseudo monopoly, that doesn't work so well anymore. As to how "good" or "bad" this specific example is, well, it depends on how you classify/view MS and also their relationship with OEMS and what they have done, historically.
>"Complete BS. What sort of fucking retard are you? A free market is by definition not required to do anything for the consumer. That's the whole fucking definition."
Um, if they don't give the consumer what they want, another company will. Or do you think Communism works better?
>"Complete shit for brains..."
Look in the mirror, foul-mouthed coward...
>"I don't like commercials, but compared to cable/DVR I'd rather have Hulu with commercials."
Choice is a good thing. Free markets give consumers more of what they want. I, for one, am glad Hulu exists even though I have no interest in at least their commercial model, because it spurs more competition. In the past we had none and it is about time the cable monopolies fall under real pressure.
>"It's exactly the same as the cable companies do..."
No it isn't, not even close. With cable, anyone with any brain uses a DVR (I use a TiVo) and skips the commercials. Streaming, on the other hand, can FORCE commercial viewing, and that is exactly what Hulu does- forced commercials.
And with cable/DVR, you can record what you want for later viewing, and without a live Internet connection. Streaming video and your Internet goes down? Too bad. No more video.
And with cable/DVR, I can record hundreds of hours of video and it doesn't impact my Internet speed at all. And my Internet usage doesn't impact video at all. Never any dropping of resolution spontaneously, no missing frames, no freezing.
And with cable/DVR, I can pause, play, rewind, fast forward, and frame-by-frame effectively with my video. And it does so instantly- no lag, no "loading", no hiccups.
So no, this is not "exactly the same as cable."
I don't care if Hulu with commercials was FREE, if it has forced commercials, neither I nor many others will use it. I haven't watched commercials (unless I WANT to) for over 16 years and I will NEVER go back.
>"I can almost guarantee that you have" [had searches done on a databases that contain your prints]
Reply to self- just to clarify (since after I read my reply again, it might not be evident), every time ANY collected print is searched, it is compared to every print to which they have access. If your print is in one of those databases, you are being searched. And since the databases are shared, it is likely that at least high-level-agency searches will search through just about every database out there.
The act of searching is already invasive, but in addition, the more prints and searches, the higher the probability of false positives. This is compounded with the number of searches, which goes up every year.
Even with a true positive, it can place you in a position of having to prove your innocence because:
1) A print doesn't mean you were there or touched anything if it was fake or a plant/frame.
2) Even if you were there, it doesn't mean you were there when something of interest happened because there is no time reference.
3) And either way, a print doesn't mean you actually did anything.
>"I''ve never been searched by any investigative agency, with or without probable cause, nor been a Person of Interest in an investigation"
I can almost guarantee that you have. Just because nothing has come from those searches [that you know of] doesn't mean you haven't been searched and there isn't a risk. If your latent print just happens to be on or around something of interest, it will be run and it will connect to you; and there is a small chance it will connect to you even if it isn't you.
>"Deep vein palm scan? What kind of expensive piece of equipment is that going to take every time I want to do a credit check on a potential customer? Jesus H. Christ. It needs to be simpler than that."
I wasn't referring to using this for everyday transactions, precisely because we shouldn't have to use biometrics for such trivial things (it is dangerous). Biometrics should be reserved only for IMPORTANT ID, like interactions with the police, court, deeds, wills, sensitive medical care, etc.
As for expense- a deep vein scanner is no more expensive than a fingerprint scanner, and it is just as fast. It is also almost as easy to use.
>"Deep palm vein matching may not presently have a known method for creating dummy fakes, but that does not mean it never will. Best to rule out biometrics for all authentication tasks and leave it solely for use in identification without authentication."
What you are saying is very true. That is why I qualified it with "I know of." Probably anything can be defeated, but deep vein currently stands as one of the best, most practical biometric. You can get something very secure, like a retinal scan, but it is not very practical in use (have to look into something, slow, expensive optics and processing, all kinds of things can go wrong- infections, cataracts, clots, hazy fluid, blinding if done wrong, yuck). As for as authentication, nothing beats adding what you know to the biometric equation (PIN/password/etc).
You already said it, but in your example, those were surface veins, not deep veins. Deep veins can't be seen from any distance with visible light nor from a distance with any known technology. Further, the palm is a more protected area that is rarely visible casually for more than a brief instant (think about where your hands are most of the time- holding something, in your pockets, on a keyboard, face-down in most cases when not holding something and obscured otherwise).
Fingerprints and DNA should not be used for biometrics. Period.
Using fingerprints or DNA and allowing a third-party to have access to that data is unacceptable. Not only because the government and big business should have no need to track what people are doing but because they should not have fingerprint registration data (which will be horribly abused) .
Stand up for your rights, people... and the rights of your children. Once you give this data to the government or big business, it will NEVER be erased or restricted, regardless of claims, policies, or laws- it will go into huge databases and shared between agencies and used however they want for as long as they want. Even worse, with every crime investigation, you will be searched without probable cause. It is a genie that can't be put back into the bottle.
Fingerprints are something you leave all over the place all the time. They are easy to lift, copy, and forge. Easy to fake, easy to use to frame people. Time after time they have been shown to be poor for security and yet very effective at tracking people.
DNA is even worse. Like fingerprints, you leave it all over the place all the time. Samples can be lifted and planted and analyzed. DNA is more than a means to ID, it contains very sensitive information about you.
Iris scan is better than DNS or fingerprints- there is no leaving your iris image all over, and it doesn't say that much about you. But your eyes (iris,
not retinal) could be scanned without your permission by any high resolution camera pointed at your face, even your own.
There is only one safer and practical biometric I know of- that is deep vein palm scan. That registration data cannot be readily abused. It can't be latently collected like DNA, fingerprints, and face recognition can. You have to know you are registering/enrolling when it happens. You don't leave evidence of it all over the place. When you go to use it, you know you are using it every time. And on top of all that, it is accurate, fast, reliable, unchanging, live-sensing, and cheap. If you must participate in a biometric, this is the one you should insist on using.
Example: http://www.m2sys.com/palm-vein...
More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
We also need to realize that IT IS NOT EVERYONE'S BUSINESS WHAT WE ALL DO. The first step in securing freedom is privacy. When you are tracked, you are losing your freedom, whether you realize it or not. You should not have to positively ID yourself for ALL transactions. A good example is age verification. There is an important place for anonymity and semi-anonymity in a free society.
>"It has Cast functionality, as well as input via stereo 3.5 mm jack"
Oh really... a 3.5mm jack. Hmm...
Please note that this doesn't solve a equally big problem- you shouldn't HAVE to identify yourself for doing most things. A good example would be if you have to prove your age to do something. Age verification doesn't mean that establishment should be allowed to know WHO you are, and even worse, record that fact somewhere. Such acts erode privacy, freedom, and could be used later to frame, manipulate, or harass people.
>" https://www.amazon.com/Headpho... For $6.90 your problem is solved. But keep whining if that makes you feel better..."
Let's see:
1) 1.8 star review
2) Something else to remember
3) Something else to carry
3) still consumes battery
4) can't charge while using
5) can't use headset, only headphones
6) no option for inline controls
7) major compatibility issues
Exactly how does this solve the problem? So yeah, I will keep whining.
>"Is the lack of a headphone jack a deal-breaker"
100% yes. Although I am not happy with lack of SD cards, I can handle that if a reasonable storage size is available, 64+GB. I am never happy with a non-swappable battery, but it seems that is beating a dead horse. Certainly also unhappy that wireless charging is so rare. Other unhappiness- lack of NFC, thinness instead of battery size, pixel density instead of brightness and efficiency, huge screen instead of portability.
But I have to draw the line somewhere, and it is at losing a simple, compact, compatible, easy, reliable headphone jack. There is simply no really good reason to remove it. I don't know when I will or won't need it, and I don't want to carry a stupid adapter that also is expensive, easy to lose, sucks more power, is likely to break, makes the phone weak and awkward while using it, and prevents charging while using it.
So with the increased security, that helps to protect from people trying to hack into Google. But who protects us from Google? They already have too much information and now they insist on having even more:
Google just pushed out an update last week, so apparently unless I turn on tracking and logging of everything I do (location, web history, etc), I can't use my Wear watch to search for ANYTHING anymore. Really?
The watch was great when I first bought it. Then they updated and ruined the search ability. Instead of being a nice, fast, Google web-like search engine, it became some stupid Google Now-like thing that doesn't ever give me what I want and no choices. Several months later it is "upgraded" to "Google Assistant" which REQUIRES I turn on all this tracking and storage. Almost nothing I want to search for requires a "history" of what I have done in the past.
>"This noble thought of rehabilitation has never been an actual part of the prison system in the US."
You have a good posting. Perhaps it never really was about rehabilitation, but it should be. It isn't easy, however.
>"The problem is the for profit prison system. For a supposedly free nation, we incarcerate a lot of people. I[...] It's gotten to the point where our own system is so corrupt that many of the folks in power should be in prison"
I agree that too many people are incarcerated and for too long (for those without violent crimes. Incarceration was supposed to be about rehabilitation, that was lost a long time ago. But that concept was lost long before "profit" prisons. If the metric for profit were shifted to people safely released without recidivism, that would change everything.
>"FCC audio division's regulations have done little to stop AM and satellite radio from broadcasting right-wing streams-of-consciousness throughout the lower 48 states."
WTF does that have to do with the story? So every Slashdot posting now has to be turned into a left-wing political statement/commentary?
>"Yes , fake news out of fox is much more useful than an article that does not have all the information. Idiot."
CNN has far more "fake news" than even Fox. They just disguise it better. And if you think CNN is going to fairly report on anything Trump related, you are the "idiot."
>"What you appear to be doing is playing word games, because it's easier to be right when you control all the words. But resisting bad things is good, and resisting good things can be bad."
"Bad" and "Good" are very relative, subjective, and even flexible. Apparently the mode du jur is to do bad things in the [often wrong] belief that it is for good. I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right.
This just isn't right. If they are seeking the ID of people who posed actual physical threats, or were involved in UNLAWFUL activity (such as genuine libel, inciting riots, participating in violence or riots, etc), that might be justified.
Being caught up in an ID disclosure just because one visited a web site or Facebook page goes well beyond what could possibly necessary.
More info needed, especially when it is a CNN article.
>"Burning ethanol produces half of the CO2 of burning gasoline, but with a range penalty. You need 125% as much ethanol as gasoline to travel the same distance."
The problem is that ethanol doesn't just appear. It is made from crops. And, up to now in the US, that crop is corn. And that corn is fertilized with petroleum products. And then there is all the transport, conversion, etc. And most existing engines can't just use it without significant alterations. Ultimately it is far less attractive than most people might think.
I really do think that electric is the ultimate answer. There are so many existing and future ways to generate and distribute it- it can evolve dynamically. But it can't be forced, it has to develop. And developing, it is, but things take time.
Leave it to CA to jump on the banning bandwagon. How about we just let things continue to get better by themselves?
1) Is the motivation reduction of pollution or just "feel good" political nonsense? If the latter, then let people feel good by opening their OWN pocketbooks to buy infant technology freely.
2) Cars are cleaner than ever. Again, is this about pollution or feel-good, drop-in-the-bucket, "save the earth NOW" CO2?
3) Target gross polluters, one "bad" ICE can spit out many, many times as much pollution as a good one.
4) People are generally excited about electric. The market is going to explode for electric with or without government interference.
5) Put some thought into what emissions those generation stations that feed those electric will emit and have that ready.
6) Trying to force alternatives to ICE before the market has products or production capability or infrastructure is a recipe for disaster.
7) Not all vehicles can be electric anytime soon. Motorcycles, towing vehicles, long-distance hauling, airplanes
8) Encourage alternatives, don't punish regular people.
>"Trump, considering 40-50% percent of users voted for him."
It wasn't a mystery and doesn't need a range. The popular vote (which doesn't really matter in presidential elections) was as follows:
Trump 62,984,825 46.4%
Clinton 65,853,516 48.5%
a tiny 2.1% difference. Essentially half the country voted for each.
The electoral vote (which does matter) was:
Trump 306
Clinton 232
a huge 24.2% landslide difference
+1 I was going to post the same thing.
Both candidates were poor. Many people voting for EITHER candidate were not happy with the candidate but held their nose and voted for the least worst. Some of it has nothing to do with the candidate, anyway. For example, if you value gun rights, voting for Hillary would be insane, no matter how much you hate Trump, the person.
And thus the problem with "first to the post" voting both in the primaries and the elections themselves. This could be mostly fixed with IRV http://fairvote.org/ so you can vote for candidates you like without fear of your vote counting for nothing. Alas, this will probably never happen.
>"And what makes a "blockchain" phone more secure than a "non-blockchain" one?"
Maybe that is has 256GB of memory! Wow, that is a lot more than even my biggest servers. I wonder how much storage it has? 20TB?