There's really nothing wrong with that. People like to watch TV and movies but don't want to be producers and directors. People like to view art, but don't have the patience to be artists. People like to read books and newspapers but don't want to be editors and writers. If every kid that liked video games became a programmer, we wouldn't have enough people doing all the other things in this society that need to get done.
I think the problem is that we are using different definitions of the phrase "can get". By "can get", I mean, "what will the patent office issue today." I think what you mean by "can get", you're talking about a particular interpretation of the law.
You can get a patent on something other than a physical thing. Drug companies do so constantly. The patent processes as well as molecules. I'm not going to argue with you whether or not patents such as the RSA patent are invalid - that's for the courts to decide and until either the Supreme Court gives such a ruling or Congress enacts a law, those patents do hold up. And people pay damages.
Sure it's patentable, but refining ore into metal or manufacturing a drug is *not* a mental process. Not matter how much you *think* about it you can never refine a single ounce of ore into metal nor produce a single molecule of drug. They are physical processes. (Potentially) patentable physical processes.
That's definitely true. But, just the same, no matter how much you think about it, you're not moving a single electron through a switch, or printer head or anything of that sort either - it's the software that tells the computer how to do that. Like it's the formula and process that tells the chemical factory how to produce your drug.
Isn't it? Calculous nothing but a series of logic or mental steps for turning one peice of information into another peice of information. Just like all math, just like all software.No, it isn't. It exists entirely outside of software. If you're going to generalize all things that a series of logical or mental steps, then you're arguing for no patents because one could argue that about any creative process.
You can only invent and patent new non-obvious pysical processes for acheiving a physical result. No that's not true. You can patent a lot more than things that produce physical results. RSA was patented for instance. I guess you could argue that it moves physical electrons, but the pattern of that movement isn't what's being patented. Hell, you can patent a "business process". You can hold a patent on a particular way of solving a standard problem such as your management consulting methodology. It might seem absurd, but consulting firms do hold patents on their methodology!
You seem to agree that a person thinking is absurd to be an invention, not patentable. That non-patentable non-invention does not magically become a patentable invention when you add the blatantly obvious step of using a computer simply to calculate the information faster. I disagree. It does. Just like using the obviouschemical plant to process your drug doesn't prevent your drug from being patentable. I also disagree that physics is anything more than mathematics applied to describe physical observations. And similarly, chemistry is nothing more than applied physics. But that's a matter of opinion I guess.
New and nonobvious physical processes. Not mental steps and logic and math.
Can you provide some examples? Mental steps are indeed patentable - chemical processes start as mental steps and equations on paper. And that is patentable.
A patent on LZW compression is a software patent. You can carry out the 'invention' mentally. I am saying it is absurd to sugest that someone can break the law while suitting motionless and just thinking and actually preforming the patented compression. Ok, so we agree that it's absurd. I didn't say it wasn't - but you seemed to imply that I did, so I wasn't sure where you got it from. That's what I was asking. It doesn't matter if it's turing complete. Calculus has a whole host of new and nonobvious mathematical algorithms for calculating all sorts of useful results. Yes, calculus is really useful for calculations. It's not a software program though. It's absurd to think of it that way. All math is not software. Software can be seen as math, just as physics and chemistry are math. They are turing complete, provable, and patentable.
Software is nothing but a calculation. Not only can ALL software be run by hand, but any software can be run (slowly) in pure thought.
Agreed - but I'm not talking about the software here - I'm talking about the process. Some processes are patentable and probably ought to be.
So you want to be able to patent math. And if I use your new patent and I carry it out inside my head and get that solution, have I violated your patent? Were those thoughts prohibited by law? Thought crime?
I'm not sure where you're getting the thought crime part, but yes, I want to patent some parts of math. It's possible right now in the patenting of chemical processes. I think it's reasonable - if I spend all of my R&D dollars finding an inventive new pathway, I'd like to be able to make some money off of that pathway. If people can't make money off of it, then people won't research it outside of the university setting.
I guess Newton would have gotten a patent on calculus if he developed it today? Or even a patent on multiplication if it were new? They are nothing but software algorithms.
Can you explain this? How is calculus a software algorithm? Is it Turing complete? Can you prove it?
For patent purposes you cannot invent math. An equation or algorithm can be neither new nor novel. Software is nothing but a form of math equation or algorithm. Sofware cannot do anything other than calculations. A calculation is not an invention.
This is not strictly true if you think of physics as an extension of math and chemistry as an extension of physics. Chemistry is very much patentable. Business process patents really reach far into those realms. The laws of science aren't patentable, but the methods of using them can be - drug patents for instance. Software isn't a law of mathematics but it's a method of using it.
I agree - it's pain to get right. The out of the box setups generally suck. No one really wants to use container managed persistence since it's god awful slow. You can make bean managed persistence work very well however. It just takes quite a bit of development or you need to buy some third party's package that's made for that.
JSPs are servlets really. All your servlet engine does with them is compile them for you.
3-tier setups work really well for separation of concern. You can clearly do that without EJBs of course. But, if you put the effort into them, you can make them really useful as well. It's just a pain in the ass, especially when you try to use them with WebLogic or Websphere right out of the box.
Writing legistlature saying tax dollars can't be spent in that way is nearly the same as legislating interoperability - but I'd be against that since it might mean that students don't learn what's really going on in the marketplace, as the marketplace stands today.
Fortune 500 companies deciding that would just be the free-market system working its wonders. However, they don't have any incentive to do that since they still see the closed system as having the best available products.
JSP uses javax.servlet which is part of J2EE. I think perhaps you're referring to EJBs, JNDI and the rest of J2EE though I'm not sure. They are a bit difficult to grasp at first and they are the wrong tool for some jobs, and sometimes the right tool used the wrong way for other jobs.
HTML and SQL is definitely effective for some jobs, but a total mess for others. I worked with a company whose commerce site consisted of ASPs that really did very little and HUGE SQL stored procs (multiple thousands of lines of spaghetti) that only one guy could really change. Thankfully, they threw it all out for a more rational solution.
It's true, J2EE might be considered totally obsolete tomorrow if something incredibly powerful and useful comes out, but that's true of any technology, including HTML and SQL. Remember, there was DB technology before SQL. But beign obsolete doesn't mean it won't be used of course...I still see a lot of Fortran and COBOL out there.
I don't think that there's anything wrong with a software patent or a business model patent. The patent office just needs better guidelines about what ought to be a patentable idea and what shouldn't be. I agree, obvious things like automating a hand-done task with a computer shouldn't be patentable ideas. That's just silly. But that's the problem is the patent office - they can't tell silly from innovative.
As far as the length of patents, I don't see any reason why software should be any different than anything else. I don't think that the speed at which a particular industry evolves should affect the patent length - after all, if the industry truely evolved so quickly, you would think that most patents wouldn't be useful for long. I'd like to avoid the discussion of the one-click patent however since I think it's silly and a bit obvious, not innovative and probably should never have been granted in the first place.
Some business method patents make some sense. For example, if I find a novel/better way of finding approximate solutions in polynomial time to NP complete problems, I ought to be able to protect it so that my ideas aren't stolen every time I demo the piece of software.
I think the HTML/web browser example is a good one - it's a good example of market forces at work. It doesn't pay to patent that sort of thing as it prevents widespread adoption.
I don't think forcing them to use the patent is a good idea. It gets rid of research centers, places like Xerox PARC (not that they participated in this) , that exist to invent things and patent them, but don't have the production capability (or perhaps desire) to put their patent in product out on the market themselves. Instead, they rely on selling the rights to someone who can do it for them.
I think most of our issues would be solved with patent reform and a wide-scale review. The people granting the patents just need to be better at discerning what is patentable and what is not, or perhaps the court system/legislature should make it more obvious to them.
The other problem are patents that lock proprietary file formats and communication protocols; marking these software products doesn't help to make software interoperable, the opposite is true.
I think the problem is that companies don't have any incentive to support software interoperability. In fact, they perceive disincentive as interoperability appears to have the potential to lower their software sales. We could mess with the free-market system however and legislate interoperability. Theoretically, that shouldn't be necessary, but we have to adjust the free-market system when monopolies are attacked anyway.
The result is a system which is _far_ less inclined to bend over to a corporation and shaft their voters. Au contraire, if in doubt they'll shaft the corporations for extra votes.
I think that history might prove you wrong on that one. Look at how Italy has handled the Parmalat bankruptcy so far.
Most often, when languages are compared, you are merely comparing the differences in constants in a language! Lets say we implement the Quick Sort Algorithm in C++ and Python. We will probably find that the C++ version is slightly faster. What does this mean? It means the the implementation of C++ generates fewer constants that the Python Implementation. So, the Python version may be slower, but it is only in constant O(1) differences and in most cases this does not matter! Eliminating extra constants ( in any language ) is stupid when you have chosen the wrong algorithm in the first place! ( such as an order n^3 when it could have been n*log(n) ).
While I don't disagree with your assertion that people ought to pick the right language for the job, there are many situations where a constant time increase isn't acceptable. Web programming generally isn't one of them, but consider the world of scientific and financial calculation. In those situations, any time increase can be very detrimental.
I don't have the answers to this - but I think that the problem is that there's no good metric for long term success. Maybe options with longer vesting periods for executives? Personally, I think that fiscal liability contracts would be great, but I'm not sure that they would work. Wouldn't it be great if everyone who had to have faith in their word had some sort of fiscally-based recourse if they proved to be dishonest?
That's the big problem with software, isn't it? The minimum knowledge, or maybe effort, level is sometimes too low because you can get away with it. Sure, you can slap it together and make it "work" in the short term. In the long term...well you've probably moved on anyway. Maybe the problem is that people need something badly but they don't know what it is that they need? There just aren't enough incentives and metrics for long term success. I can write a (insert standard here) document that's believable but useless like politicians write legistlation, but it won't help anyone.
Meh, I've never been a fan of software engineering practices. I like object models only because it helps people understand what they are writing and why. However, I've never seen a tool make a time estimate more accurate. Sometimes, the answer to "how long will this take?" is "I don't know." but you still have to put a date on it anyway.
You know, I used to think of sales as been the annoying bastards over there. But now I've been dating a salesperson for a couple of years and I think that I see what the problem is. Her managers give her unrealistic expectations. They don't care if there's a market for the product or if companies have already set their budgets or whether the buying market is just soft for some other reason. But then her job gets threatened unless she hits "her" numbers. They really aren't her numbers - they are her manager's number divided by the number of people he manages. Now it's not all his fault of course - he has a manager too who is doing the same thing to him. And so it goes up the chain.
Usually, it's because the board of directors has written a clause into a CEO contract that says that if he hits certain numbers, then it triggers a stock grant or a bonus. So of course, he's pushing for it. The board has the shareholders wanting big returns so they are pushing too - the board members have a financial stake in the company too of course. And then you have the analysts who give everyone in charge an incentive to say that growth is going to be high so that they can offer a "buy" rating. But none of these people actually have to do any of the sales calls. Nor do they have to build the product.
So from the developers point of view, it's the salesperson being a pain in the ass. But I think the problem is really that people in charge have the wrong incentives and don't have the balls to say "hey, those numbers are unrealistic."
I think executive business success could be easy to measure in a publicly traded company (or even a private one). You can insist that the executives deliver a certain percentage of revenue, profit or stock price increase. Unfortunately, those execs seem to be adept at cheating whereas it might be harder to cheat in software.
Hmm apparently you don't know the subtle difference between "it's invisible so it must be there" and "I have to see it in order to know that it exists." Proving the existence is easy enough. I'm sure it's a concept that we all understand. Proving the lack of existence is a LOT harder. Going back to my alien example - try proving that aliens don't exist. I didn't say that I could prove that they do exist, but I don't think that you can prove that they don't exist. It's a logically subtlety that you've missed somewhere along the way.
Hmm we clearly don't agree on any of the base assumptions since I believe you've argued yourself into the corner. The lack of reporting could easily be attributed to the lack of discovery rather than the lack of existence. It's like assuming there are no whales because you've never been to the ocean.
Sadly, the point you don't understand is that I'm not pro-MS. I run Linux and Solaris. I just like truth rather than FUD.
Sure, assuming that the 5.4k and the 10k drives used the same materials and the 10k one just spun faster. However, if the 10k drive used better materials, you might expect it to wear out more slowly. I really have no idea of what kinds of materials are really used however.
Wow what kind of drives do you use? I burn out at least a drive a year. Now I have a RAID array which I use rather than actually buying a tape drive or burning to CD. If there are better drives out there, I'd love to get some. IIRC, I'm just using run of the mill 10k seagates.
Slashdot Mirror
There's really nothing wrong with that. People like to watch TV and movies but don't want to be producers and directors. People like to view art, but don't have the patience to be artists. People like to read books and newspapers but don't want to be editors and writers. If every kid that liked video games became a programmer, we wouldn't have enough people doing all the other things in this society that need to get done.
I think the problem is that we are using different definitions of the phrase "can get". By "can get", I mean, "what will the patent office issue today." I think what you mean by "can get", you're talking about a particular interpretation of the law.
You can get a patent on something other than a physical thing. Drug companies do so constantly. The patent processes as well as molecules. I'm not going to argue with you whether or not patents such as the RSA patent are invalid - that's for the courts to decide and until either the Supreme Court gives such a ruling or Congress enacts a law, those patents do hold up. And people pay damages.
Sure it's patentable, but refining ore into metal or manufacturing a drug is *not* a mental process. Not matter how much you *think* about it you can never refine a single ounce of ore into metal nor produce a single molecule of drug. They are physical processes. (Potentially) patentable physical processes.
That's definitely true. But, just the same, no matter how much you think about it, you're not moving a single electron through a switch, or printer head or anything of that sort either - it's the software that tells the computer how to do that. Like it's the formula and process that tells the chemical factory how to produce your drug.
Isn't it? Calculous nothing but a series of logic or mental steps for turning one peice of information into another peice of information. Just like all math, just like all software.No, it isn't. It exists entirely outside of software. If you're going to generalize all things that a series of logical or mental steps, then you're arguing for no patents because one could argue that about any creative process.
You can only invent and patent new non-obvious pysical processes for acheiving a physical result.
No that's not true. You can patent a lot more than things that produce physical results. RSA was patented for instance. I guess you could argue that it moves physical electrons, but the pattern of that movement isn't what's being patented. Hell, you can patent a "business process". You can hold a patent on a particular way of solving a standard problem such as your management consulting methodology. It might seem absurd, but consulting firms do hold patents on their methodology!
You seem to agree that a person thinking is absurd to be an invention, not patentable. That non-patentable non-invention does not magically become a patentable invention when you add the blatantly obvious step of using a computer simply to calculate the information faster.
I disagree. It does. Just like using the obviouschemical plant to process your drug doesn't prevent your drug from being patentable.
I also disagree that physics is anything more than mathematics applied to describe physical observations. And similarly, chemistry is nothing more than applied physics. But that's a matter of opinion I guess.
New and nonobvious physical processes. Not mental steps and logic and math.
Can you provide some examples? Mental steps are indeed patentable - chemical processes start as mental steps and equations on paper. And that is patentable.
A patent on LZW compression is a software patent. You can carry out the 'invention' mentally. I am saying it is absurd to sugest that someone can break the law while suitting motionless and just thinking and actually preforming the patented compression.
Ok, so we agree that it's absurd. I didn't say it wasn't - but you seemed to imply that I did, so I wasn't sure where you got it from. That's what I was asking.
It doesn't matter if it's turing complete. Calculus has a whole host of new and nonobvious mathematical algorithms for calculating all sorts of useful results.
Yes, calculus is really useful for calculations. It's not a software program though. It's absurd to think of it that way. All math is not software. Software can be seen as math, just as physics and chemistry are math. They are turing complete, provable, and patentable.
Software is nothing but a calculation. Not only can ALL software be run by hand, but any software can be run (slowly) in pure thought.
Agreed - but I'm not talking about the software here - I'm talking about the process. Some processes are patentable and probably ought to be.
So you want to be able to patent math. And if I use your new patent and I carry it out inside my head and get that solution, have I violated your patent? Were those thoughts prohibited by law? Thought crime?
I'm not sure where you're getting the thought crime part, but yes, I want to patent some parts of math. It's possible right now in the patenting of chemical processes. I think it's reasonable - if I spend all of my R&D dollars finding an inventive new pathway, I'd like to be able to make some money off of that pathway. If people can't make money off of it, then people won't research it outside of the university setting.
I guess Newton would have gotten a patent on calculus if he developed it today? Or even a patent on multiplication if it were new? They are nothing but software algorithms.
Can you explain this? How is calculus a software algorithm? Is it Turing complete? Can you prove it?
For patent purposes you cannot invent math. An equation or algorithm can be neither new nor novel. Software is nothing but a form of math equation or algorithm. Sofware cannot do anything other than calculations. A calculation is not an invention.
This is not strictly true if you think of physics as an extension of math and chemistry as an extension of physics. Chemistry is very much patentable. Business process patents really reach far into those realms. The laws of science aren't patentable, but the methods of using them can be - drug patents for instance. Software isn't a law of mathematics but it's a method of using it.
I agree - it's pain to get right. The out of the box setups generally suck. No one really wants to use container managed persistence since it's god awful slow. You can make bean managed persistence work very well however. It just takes quite a bit of development or you need to buy some third party's package that's made for that.
JSPs are servlets really. All your servlet engine does with them is compile them for you.
3-tier setups work really well for separation of concern. You can clearly do that without EJBs of course. But, if you put the effort into them, you can make them really useful as well. It's just a pain in the ass, especially when you try to use them with WebLogic or Websphere right out of the box.
Writing legistlature saying tax dollars can't be spent in that way is nearly the same as legislating interoperability - but I'd be against that since it might mean that students don't learn what's really going on in the marketplace, as the marketplace stands today.
Fortune 500 companies deciding that would just be the free-market system working its wonders. However, they don't have any incentive to do that since they still see the closed system as having the best available products.
JSP uses javax.servlet which is part of J2EE. I think perhaps you're referring to EJBs, JNDI and the rest of J2EE though I'm not sure. They are a bit difficult to grasp at first and they are the wrong tool for some jobs, and sometimes the right tool used the wrong way for other jobs.
HTML and SQL is definitely effective for some jobs, but a total mess for others. I worked with a company whose commerce site consisted of ASPs that really did very little and HUGE SQL stored procs (multiple thousands of lines of spaghetti) that only one guy could really change. Thankfully, they threw it all out for a more rational solution.
It's true, J2EE might be considered totally obsolete tomorrow if something incredibly powerful and useful comes out, but that's true of any technology, including HTML and SQL. Remember, there was DB technology before SQL. But beign obsolete doesn't mean it won't be used of course...I still see a lot of Fortran and COBOL out there.
I don't think that there's anything wrong with a software patent or a business model patent. The patent office just needs better guidelines about what ought to be a patentable idea and what shouldn't be. I agree, obvious things like automating a hand-done task with a computer shouldn't be patentable ideas. That's just silly. But that's the problem is the patent office - they can't tell silly from innovative.
As far as the length of patents, I don't see any reason why software should be any different than anything else. I don't think that the speed at which a particular industry evolves should affect the patent length - after all, if the industry truely evolved so quickly, you would think that most patents wouldn't be useful for long. I'd like to avoid the discussion of the one-click patent however since I think it's silly and a bit obvious, not innovative and probably should never have been granted in the first place.
Some business method patents make some sense. For example, if I find a novel/better way of finding approximate solutions in polynomial time to NP complete problems, I ought to be able to protect it so that my ideas aren't stolen every time I demo the piece of software.
I think the HTML/web browser example is a good one - it's a good example of market forces at work. It doesn't pay to patent that sort of thing as it prevents widespread adoption.
I don't think forcing them to use the patent is a good idea. It gets rid of research centers, places like Xerox PARC (not that they participated in this) , that exist to invent things and patent them, but don't have the production capability (or perhaps desire) to put their patent in product out on the market themselves. Instead, they rely on selling the rights to someone who can do it for them.
I think most of our issues would be solved with patent reform and a wide-scale review. The people granting the patents just need to be better at discerning what is patentable and what is not, or perhaps the court system/legislature should make it more obvious to them.
The other problem are patents that lock proprietary file formats and communication protocols; marking these software products doesn't help to make software interoperable, the opposite is true.
I think the problem is that companies don't have any incentive to support software interoperability. In fact, they perceive disincentive as interoperability appears to have the potential to lower their software sales. We could mess with the free-market system however and legislate interoperability. Theoretically, that shouldn't be necessary, but we have to adjust the free-market system when monopolies are attacked anyway.
That's true - Italy isn't the whole EU. However, I would think that the parts are an indicator for the whole.
The result is a system which is _far_ less inclined to bend over to a corporation and shaft their voters. Au contraire, if in doubt they'll shaft the corporations for extra votes.
I think that history might prove you wrong on that one. Look at how Italy has handled the Parmalat bankruptcy so far.
Most often, when languages are compared, you are merely comparing the differences in constants in a language! Lets say we implement the Quick Sort Algorithm in C++ and Python. We will probably find that the C++ version is slightly faster. What does this mean? It means the the implementation of C++ generates fewer constants that the Python Implementation. So, the Python version may be slower, but it is only in constant O(1) differences and in most cases this does not matter! Eliminating extra constants ( in any language ) is stupid when you have chosen the wrong algorithm in the first place! ( such as an order n^3 when it could have been n*log(n) ). While I don't disagree with your assertion that people ought to pick the right language for the job, there are many situations where a constant time increase isn't acceptable. Web programming generally isn't one of them, but consider the world of scientific and financial calculation. In those situations, any time increase can be very detrimental.
When was the last time that you used and evaluated Java?
I don't have the answers to this - but I think that the problem is that there's no good metric for long term success. Maybe options with longer vesting periods for executives? Personally, I think that fiscal liability contracts would be great, but I'm not sure that they would work. Wouldn't it be great if everyone who had to have faith in their word had some sort of fiscally-based recourse if they proved to be dishonest?
That's the big problem with software, isn't it? The minimum knowledge, or maybe effort, level is sometimes too low because you can get away with it. Sure, you can slap it together and make it "work" in the short term. In the long term...well you've probably moved on anyway. Maybe the problem is that people need something badly but they don't know what it is that they need? There just aren't enough incentives and metrics for long term success. I can write a (insert standard here) document that's believable but useless like politicians write legistlation, but it won't help anyone.
Meh, I've never been a fan of software engineering practices. I like object models only because it helps people understand what they are writing and why. However, I've never seen a tool make a time estimate more accurate. Sometimes, the answer to "how long will this take?" is "I don't know." but you still have to put a date on it anyway.
You know, I used to think of sales as been the annoying bastards over there. But now I've been dating a salesperson for a couple of years and I think that I see what the problem is. Her managers give her unrealistic expectations. They don't care if there's a market for the product or if companies have already set their budgets or whether the buying market is just soft for some other reason. But then her job gets threatened unless she hits "her" numbers. They really aren't her numbers - they are her manager's number divided by the number of people he manages. Now it's not all his fault of course - he has a manager too who is doing the same thing to him. And so it goes up the chain.
Usually, it's because the board of directors has written a clause into a CEO contract that says that if he hits certain numbers, then it triggers a stock grant or a bonus. So of course, he's pushing for it. The board has the shareholders wanting big returns so they are pushing too - the board members have a financial stake in the company too of course. And then you have the analysts who give everyone in charge an incentive to say that growth is going to be high so that they can offer a "buy" rating. But none of these people actually have to do any of the sales calls. Nor do they have to build the product.
So from the developers point of view, it's the salesperson being a pain in the ass. But I think the problem is really that people in charge have the wrong incentives and don't have the balls to say "hey, those numbers are unrealistic."
I think executive business success could be easy to measure in a publicly traded company (or even a private one). You can insist that the executives deliver a certain percentage of revenue, profit or stock price increase. Unfortunately, those execs seem to be adept at cheating whereas it might be harder to cheat in software.
Hmm apparently you don't know the subtle difference between "it's invisible so it must be there" and "I have to see it in order to know that it exists." Proving the existence is easy enough. I'm sure it's a concept that we all understand. Proving the lack of existence is a LOT harder. Going back to my alien example - try proving that aliens don't exist. I didn't say that I could prove that they do exist, but I don't think that you can prove that they don't exist. It's a logically subtlety that you've missed somewhere along the way.
Hmm we clearly don't agree on any of the base assumptions since I believe you've argued yourself into the corner. The lack of reporting could easily be attributed to the lack of discovery rather than the lack of existence. It's like assuming there are no whales because you've never been to the ocean.
Sadly, the point you don't understand is that I'm not pro-MS. I run Linux and Solaris. I just like truth rather than FUD.
Sure, assuming that the 5.4k and the 10k drives used the same materials and the 10k one just spun faster. However, if the 10k drive used better materials, you might expect it to wear out more slowly. I really have no idea of what kinds of materials are really used however.
Wow what kind of drives do you use? I burn out at least a drive a year. Now I have a RAID array which I use rather than actually buying a tape drive or burning to CD. If there are better drives out there, I'd love to get some. IIRC, I'm just using run of the mill 10k seagates.