That presumes that the only people who buy HDDs vs SSDs are those needing huge storage space.
Yes. Look at the price lists at say the 80GB to 120GB scale which is plenty for an office desktop computer and you'll see it has already happened. A spinning disk is now for if you want to put a lot of stuff on a disk.
Of course, there is the slowdown once the SSD winds up full... but done right, it can be a way to help with disk I/O for all but the worst sustained random writes.
With a well designed filesystem that's what memory is for (with an optional extra of using an SSD as cache too if you want but that is a lot slower than memory).
They'll still be a place for spinning rust with that lower IOPS in places like storage of large files with few users (eg. 10 instead of hundreds) until the price of SSDs at large volumes go down. So I don't dispute that they are nice, just not always worth it for now. It's similar to how you can solve just about any corrosion problem by coating things in gold. Gold costs, but if the price is dropping you can use it more. SSDs used to be the gold plated solution and now they are only that at the large volume size end of town.
That is still a different use case. Large data set analysis is always going to be CPU limited, to the speed you can cram the data through the CPU power you have available and analyse what you need.
It depends - sorts can be I/O limited while filtering, transforming etc is very much CPU bound. Comparisons of data can go either way depending on how much can be kept in memory.
spanning the whole data set across multiple standard HDD
That's often what happens and a large array at the other end of a network link can be much quicker at feeding in the data than a single local SSD (eg. 10Gb/s and 40Gb/s stuff is a lot cheaper than it used to be).
It's the time to get the entire file that matters, so the sum of access time and read time, thus with files beyond a tiny size not "several orders of magnitude" or even a single order of magnitude compared with an array of spinning disks. SSD's are fast but the comment doesn't make any sense unless referring to RAM instead of storage. For now spinning platters of rust are cheaper for large volumes and not a lot slower in use - but the SSDs are catching up and having a lot of memory is a lot better than both.
Huge fluctuations and things like the most trusted player in the market at one time being a Magic the Gathering Online eXchange (Mt GOX) which ripped off the tokens of thousands argues otherwise. It may be "the only game in town" to many but it's crooked at times and your sixgun isn't going to help. You may think you know when to leave the table but so did all those others that lost real money they spent on the tokens. The tax people, DEA etc are starting to get interested now and those blockchains provide a nice way to track where the tokens have been. You see that article on seizure? Well if your token has been used by someone to buy drugs it could be taken away unlike cash that has passed through a few hands since. I like the idea of being able to get money somewhere without Visa, Paypal or whoever but bitcoin just has too much baggage to be viable for long. It's a promise of value by a recluse with a false name and relies on fanboys to keep the value up - even second hand Hello Kitty merch has more to back it up as a token of value.
I'm discussing money moving and not the high hopes for hoarded tokens based on the very little that is actually moving. If there was an attempt tomorrow to exchange all of those tokens for something else only a few at the start of the day would match the high value of the bitcoins currently being passed among enthusiasts. Do you dispute that? If so, why?
Someone should come up with a system to send other people money, even in small amounts.
I was a very tiny part of doing that in 2000 when manufacturing jobs were scarce and such stuff looked promising - as were many others including Charles Stross who has something about that sort of thing on his blog which is far better than I could write. The short story is a lot of end users like travel companies loved the idea but banks hated it. Roadblock. It's still sometimes faster by DAYS to withdraw cash and carry it to another bank for deposit than an electronic fund transfer. The banks seem to like it that way so not much has changed in fifteen years. Sucks when a friend runs out of money overseas due to unexpected shit happening and they have to rely on the charity of strangers because they have to wait for three days for money from friends or family.
It didn't "work", it hasn't even had as much penetration as some offline pyramid schemes (eg. that one that took in Albania - yes not even as big as a the Albanian economy). Instead of having a fake crypto-currency with just the crypto we need something backed by some sort of assets so it can actually be a currency. A promise of value from some recluse with a fake name is only of worth to people who will trust just about anything. There's no point pretending it's like the stuff in the fictional "cryptonomicon" without the gold, some asset or some actual productive entity behind it. A "fiat" currency depends on someone that can be trusted, who has a lot of assets AND a major income stream giving a promise. Thus not something that works for Zimbabwe and not something that works for a recluse with a fake name on the internet.
I suggest you read your last paragraph again and then consider what the article is telling us even if you know nothing at all about this sort of thing other than that. Only a few moments thought will make you wonder why you wrote something as stupid as that. I do not think you are stupid, just that you are appearing so by writing in haste, maybe after a few drinks.
Sort of makes sense, but isn't L.A. infamous for the temperature inversions that hold in the smog? I suppose there must be days with decent wind however.
It's a disasterous waste of a resource and many people have had to be evacuated, possibly for months. Why isn't there a serious response on the federal level instead of expecting the company to do whatever they can with their own resources? A spill in the gulf was dealt with on such a level.
Actually it's a bit higher than 99% but I rounded it down. The system is unashamedly "might makes right" over there instead of pretending to be a descendant of Magna Carta - so while 93% may look like an abuse to the justice system in one case 99%+ is business as usual under a different system.
So it's pretty awful being under an explicit "might makes right" system instead of being under one that may be collapsing towards that point.
They are no longer sharing the spoils of asset forfeiture with local jurisdictions
Yes that is what they are stopping and it's the same old evil as witchfinders sharing the assets of their victims with the local magistrates. Please do try to keep up.
How is it possible that SCOTUS has not accepted a case on this?
People keep slowing them down with stuff about what you can do in the bedroom or special laws about women's fertility so the queue is long if it's in the queue at all.
The Feds were doing that before and are stopping some things now. Dumbed down enough? Once you grasp that we can start discussing if they are doing enough or not instead of a mindless rant.
Of course it should never happened in the first place, but that's a bit different to pretending there's no effort at correction whether it's a cosmetic band-aid or something real.
I think such court jesters would be killed off fairly quickly or otherwise silenced in a lot of real situations but it's a nice touch in fiction, for instance in King Lear where we get most of this from. How long would a court jester of that type instead clowns (figuratively not literally) that were "yes men" have lasted with Stalin for instance? Still, it's a good metaphor for a software project even though taken from fiction.
"Department of Justice has announced that it's suspending a controversial asset forfeiture program" From that it appears that the Feds are not tolerating it. SCOTUS is not yet in the game.
Maybe economies of scale instead of having every local government have their own police force. It's not going to happen because it drasticly cuts down on the power and corruption opportunities of local government. A nice side effect is a Mayor could not send an employee to jail over a trivial workplace dispute like happened in SF. The state police could tell the Mayor to actually do his job, cut out the photo-op trip to the jail to "save the city" and stop wasting police time.
and armored vehicles for their SWAT team that are never used.
They get used alright, just not in situations where they are really needed. When you have police with military units you get a military response to minor crimes just so they have something to do. For example, even a sig like yours (or the postings of many over decades from BBS on, I'm not picking on you, they'd react the same way to you if it was someone else with the sig) would be seen as enough to link extensive computer use to having enough guns for a Waco incident so the SWAT team comes in for even computer copyright stuff - madness! Bruce Sterling's "The Hacker Crackdown" (also available free online) still applies in full despite it's age.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
Look at the price lists at say the 80GB to 120GB scale which is plenty for an office desktop computer and you'll see it has already happened. A spinning disk is now for if you want to put a lot of stuff on a disk.
With a well designed filesystem that's what memory is for (with an optional extra of using an SSD as cache too if you want but that is a lot slower than memory).
They'll still be a place for spinning rust with that lower IOPS in places like storage of large files with few users (eg. 10 instead of hundreds) until the price of SSDs at large volumes go down. So I don't dispute that they are nice, just not always worth it for now.
It's similar to how you can solve just about any corrosion problem by coating things in gold. Gold costs, but if the price is dropping you can use it more. SSDs used to be the gold plated solution and now they are only that at the large volume size end of town.
It depends - sorts can be I/O limited while filtering, transforming etc is very much CPU bound. Comparisons of data can go either way depending on how much can be kept in memory.
That's often what happens and a large array at the other end of a network link can be much quicker at feeding in the data than a single local SSD (eg. 10Gb/s and 40Gb/s stuff is a lot cheaper than it used to be).
It's the time to get the entire file that matters, so the sum of access time and read time, thus with files beyond a tiny size not "several orders of magnitude" or even a single order of magnitude compared with an array of spinning disks. SSD's are fast but the comment doesn't make any sense unless referring to RAM instead of storage.
For now spinning platters of rust are cheaper for large volumes and not a lot slower in use - but the SSDs are catching up and having a lot of memory is a lot better than both.
Huge fluctuations and things like the most trusted player in the market at one time being a Magic the Gathering Online eXchange (Mt GOX) which ripped off the tokens of thousands argues otherwise. It may be "the only game in town" to many but it's crooked at times and your sixgun isn't going to help. You may think you know when to leave the table but so did all those others that lost real money they spent on the tokens.
The tax people, DEA etc are starting to get interested now and those blockchains provide a nice way to track where the tokens have been. You see that article on seizure? Well if your token has been used by someone to buy drugs it could be taken away unlike cash that has passed through a few hands since.
I like the idea of being able to get money somewhere without Visa, Paypal or whoever but bitcoin just has too much baggage to be viable for long. It's a promise of value by a recluse with a false name and relies on fanboys to keep the value up - even second hand Hello Kitty merch has more to back it up as a token of value.
I'm discussing money moving and not the high hopes for hoarded tokens based on the very little that is actually moving. If there was an attempt tomorrow to exchange all of those tokens for something else only a few at the start of the day would match the high value of the bitcoins currently being passed among enthusiasts.
Do you dispute that?
If so, why?
I was a very tiny part of doing that in 2000 when manufacturing jobs were scarce and such stuff looked promising - as were many others including Charles Stross who has something about that sort of thing on his blog which is far better than I could write. The short story is a lot of end users like travel companies loved the idea but banks hated it. Roadblock. It's still sometimes faster by DAYS to withdraw cash and carry it to another bank for deposit than an electronic fund transfer. The banks seem to like it that way so not much has changed in fifteen years. Sucks when a friend runs out of money overseas due to unexpected shit happening and they have to rely on the charity of strangers because they have to wait for three days for money from friends or family.
It didn't "work", it hasn't even had as much penetration as some offline pyramid schemes (eg. that one that took in Albania - yes not even as big as a the Albanian economy).
Instead of having a fake crypto-currency with just the crypto we need something backed by some sort of assets so it can actually be a currency. A promise of value from some recluse with a fake name is only of worth to people who will trust just about anything. There's no point pretending it's like the stuff in the fictional "cryptonomicon" without the gold, some asset or some actual productive entity behind it. A "fiat" currency depends on someone that can be trusted, who has a lot of assets AND a major income stream giving a promise. Thus not something that works for Zimbabwe and not something that works for a recluse with a fake name on the internet.
I suggest you read your last paragraph again and then consider what the article is telling us even if you know nothing at all about this sort of thing other than that. Only a few moments thought will make you wonder why you wrote something as stupid as that. I do not think you are stupid, just that you are appearing so by writing in haste, maybe after a few drinks.
Don't knock it - "copmany spokesperson" is doubleplusgood newspeak :)
Sort of makes sense, but isn't L.A. infamous for the temperature inversions that hold in the smog? I suppose there must be days with decent wind however.
It's a disasterous waste of a resource and many people have had to be evacuated, possibly for months. Why isn't there a serious response on the federal level instead of expecting the company to do whatever they can with their own resources? A spill in the gulf was dealt with on such a level.
Ever heard of one in an autocratic state outside of fiction?
No?
Thought so.
It makes a good story but autocratic rulers tend to react strongly to dissent no matter what the dissenter said yesterday.
Actually it's a bit higher than 99% but I rounded it down.
The system is unashamedly "might makes right" over there instead of pretending to be a descendant of Magna Carta - so while 93% may look like an abuse to the justice system in one case 99%+ is business as usual under a different system.
So it's pretty awful being under an explicit "might makes right" system instead of being under one that may be collapsing towards that point.
The article FFS!
It has to get to them first. Then your rant may make some kind of sense.
The perpetrators of the seizures.
Yes that is what they are stopping and it's the same old evil as witchfinders sharing the assets of their victims with the local magistrates. Please do try to keep up.
People keep slowing them down with stuff about what you can do in the bedroom or special laws about women's fertility so the queue is long if it's in the queue at all.
The Feds were doing that before and are stopping some things now.
Dumbed down enough?
Once you grasp that we can start discussing if they are doing enough or not instead of a mindless rant.
Of course it should never happened in the first place, but that's a bit different to pretending there's no effort at correction whether it's a cosmetic band-aid or something real.
I think such court jesters would be killed off fairly quickly or otherwise silenced in a lot of real situations but it's a nice touch in fiction, for instance in King Lear where we get most of this from.
How long would a court jester of that type instead clowns (figuratively not literally) that were "yes men" have lasted with Stalin for instance?
Still, it's a good metaphor for a software project even though taken from fiction.
"Department of Justice has announced that it's suspending a controversial asset forfeiture program"
From that it appears that the Feds are not tolerating it. SCOTUS is not yet in the game.
Maybe economies of scale instead of having every local government have their own police force. It's not going to happen because it drasticly cuts down on the power and corruption opportunities of local government.
A nice side effect is a Mayor could not send an employee to jail over a trivial workplace dispute like happened in SF. The state police could tell the Mayor to actually do his job, cut out the photo-op trip to the jail to "save the city" and stop wasting police time.
They get used alright, just not in situations where they are really needed. When you have police with military units you get a military response to minor crimes just so they have something to do. For example, even a sig like yours (or the postings of many over decades from BBS on, I'm not picking on you, they'd react the same way to you if it was someone else with the sig) would be seen as enough to link extensive computer use to having enough guns for a Waco incident so the SWAT team comes in for even computer copyright stuff - madness! Bruce Sterling's "The Hacker Crackdown" (also available free online) still applies in full despite it's age.