No, you are not getting it. Suppose that P[i] denotes the i-th prime number. The proposed theorem does not say that P[i+1]-P[i] <= 70 million for all values of i, as you believe.
What it does say is that for every index k for which P[k+1]-P[k] > 70 you can find a number m greater than k such that P[m+1]-P[m] <= 70 million.
And that is precisely why Hadfield's version has "updated lyrics", as TFS says. If you listen carefully you'll realize that most of the changes in the lyrics are precisely to the parts that lead to the conjecture that Major Tom may actually be a junkie overdosing.
(Of course other things like "protein pills" and "check ignition" are changed simply to avoid misleading people that may take him too literally.)
I'm pretty sure that for a device to be associated, it has to be attempting to join the network. I could be wrong, I'm not a WiFi engineer. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.
No, I'm pretty sure that you are absolutely right about that: You are not a WiFi engineer.
Nope, Seagate Momentus XT drives use the NAND Flash as a cache for the HDD, like SRT does. Furthermore, they only have 4 GB or 8 GB of NAND Flash, as opposed to the 128 GB in the SSD portion of the Fusion Drive and 64 GB of SRT. So the Momentus are actually more distanced to the Fusion drives than the SRT.
I see that you don't really understand what Apple's Fusion Drive really is. In Intel's SRT the SSD drive acts like a cache for the HDD. I hope I don't need to explain what a disk cache is and how it works. In the Fusion Drive on the other hand both drives appear as a single logical volume with the space of both drives combined and the OS decides which files get stored on the SSD and which on the HDD. From the Ars Technica article I quoted:
In a caching solution, like Intel's, files live on the hard disk drive and are temporarily mirrored to the SSD cache as needed. In an enterprise auto-tiering situation, and with Fusion Drive, the data is actually moved from one tier to another, rather than only being temporarily cached there.
Use the dictionary of your choice and check the words "continent" and "country".
Well, I went one step further and used several of the dictionaries and encyclopedias of my choice and checked the word "America". Guess what I found.
From the New Oxford American (oh the irony!) Dictionary (emphasis mine):
America (also the Americas): a landmass in the western hemisphere that consists of the continents of North and South America joined by the Isthmus of Panama. The continent was originally inhabited by American Indians and Inuits. The northeast coastline of North America was visited by Norse seamen in the 8th or 9th century, but for the modern world the continent was first reached by Christopher Columbus in 1492. - used as a name for the United States.
Note that the definition of the landmass precedes the definition of the USA. Similar precedence will be found also in Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, and most other authoritative sources (admittedly not all, although all will acknowledge both meanings).
And regarding the definition of "continent" you need to realize that there are at least five different definitions for that word using different criteria. You were taught a particular one that separated North and South America, but other people (in particular outside the USA) are taught other definitions and most of those don't make that distinction.
By the way, according to the CIA the conventional short name for the United States of America is "United States", not "America".
(...) but I can't believe not a single person has suggested that you leave your room, walk across campus and go to the freaking library. Need a computer? There are computer labs everywhere, too. Seriously, I thought this was one of the worst ask slasdots and expected half the answers to be "Go to the f-ing library". But no one?! let me say it then.
You know who believes that things will be different when every damn time in the past they haven't been? Charlie Brown, that's who. He never managed to kick that football.
I wonder if it's a coincidence that in the last three or four days I started to receive a lot more spam to my Yahoo mail address. By "a lot more" I mean three or four times more than what I was receiving a week ago each day.
I don't have any relation with anyone in New Zealand, so my guess is that it's indeed just a coincidence. But still the timing makes me wonder.
In other words - it's the phone you recommend to your parents so you don't have to do tech support for them.
I don't think you realize the implications of that last thing you say.
What you are saying is that if you are not extremely technically oriented (i.e., you are like the vast majority of people) then the iPhone is the best phone for you: It allows you to do almost everything that you can do with the "other" phones (and certainly pretty much everything that common people actually want to do with them), it gives you access to a library of 800,000 curated apps of all types, and, most importantly, it allows you to do all this without having to constantly resort to the help of your technically oriented son.
You should work for Apple's publicity agents, man.
Actually it's slightly more interesting than that, and even more rewarding, when you realize that the Cyrillic alphabet has direct roots in the Greek alphabet. (The Latin alphabet used by Western European languages also has its roots in Greek, but slightly farther).
How is this relevant? Let me give you two examples that you are already familiar with:
The letter that looks exactly like a p actually derives from the Greek letter rho. Thus, it has an R sound.
The letter that looks like a cross between a lowercase N and Greek letter pi is pronounced like a P because... ah, I guess I already gave that one away.
Other examples include a letter that looks like phi and sounds like and F, an uppercase gamma that sounds like G, a deformed upper-case delta that sounds like D, an uppercase upsilon that sounds like U, and of course the descendants of alpha, beta, epsilon, kappa, mu, tau, and others that look (and sound) almost the same in Russian and in English.
So... 68.3% of smartphones run some version of Android, while 18.8% run iOS. So Android phones outnumber iPhones at a ratio of 3.6. Cool.
But on the other hand, web traffic from handheld devices (in mainstream sites, not niche sites like Slashdot) stays pretty much stable at around 67% for iOS and 33% Android. So it would seem like iOS users browse 7.2 times as much as Android users (note this includes tablets).
Do iPad owners browse at such a pace as to skew the results by so much?
Note I'm not saying either of the studies is flawed. I'm just pointing out an apparent contradiction that I find rather puzzling.
Actually, a good chunk of those funny blunders falls into the third of these categories of problems with Apple's iOS 6 Maps:
1. Functionality that was there in the old (Google Maps-based) version, and that was lost in the new one.
2. Errors due to outdated or incomplete information, which conduces to bad navigation directions, misplaced locations, and other funny results. (That is, funny if you are not depending on the feature).
3. Errors in rendering of certain features (Hoover Dam, Eiffel Tower) which can be quite hilarious.
The first category includes things like directions for public transportation, pedestrians, and bike trails, as well a more robust search system, but it doesn't produce funny errors, they don't get pointed out very often.
The second category makes a good chunk of the hilarity, but it's something that Apple will (slowly) correct as they refine their databases. Google has many years of headstart here, so it's no wonder their database is in much better shape.
The third category is the one that produces the most hilarious errors but... well, it turns out that it reflects artifacts in the renderings produced by the flyover feature, a feature that AFAIK is not really part of Google Maps, and thus the criticism is rather silly!
Yes, Google has similar flyovers in Google Earth, but that's a separate product. Furthermore, Google Earth is plagued by similar errors in rendering. Examples: In Google Earth, go to this location in Houston: 29.713347 -95.382174, and follow the bayou (river) as it goes West and South-west towards the Texas Medical Center. See how all those bridges appear to sink to the level of the water? A similar example can be found in Philadelphia: 39.958905 -75.180871.
tl;dr My point is: The 3D rendering errors are funny but not exclusive to Apple. The inaccurate database is easy to fix, but will take time. The missing features are the real problem and we don't know if Apple even intends to add them.
By the beginning of the 24th month, 50–80% of female animals had developed tumors in all treated groups, with up to 3 tumors per animal, whereas only 30% of controls were affected.
I believe the 1.8 GHz ones are overclocked. The 1.4 GHz 4-core ones aren't, and they kick the iPhone 5's ass. The 1.4 GHz one with three cores is slightly less than the iPhone 5 -- for unclear reasons, that's the number that shows up on the graph you originally linked.
Expanding on my reply to the sibling post of yours:
Of the 87 presumably non-overclocked S III in the list, 43 are quad-cores. Those 43 have an average score of 1739.6 which is clearly higher (8.66%) than the only score known for an iPhone 5, but I wouldn't call that "kicking its ass". (They also have a bizarrely high standard deviation of 213.1).
Still, they are statistically faster on average than the iPhone 5. Too bad that according to the table here in the USA we only get a dual core version (n=10, average=1350.8, stdev=230.22, i.e. slower than the iPhone 5). Thus it seems that the superior speed of the quad-cores S III is only a curiosity for those of us in the USA, which is also the biggest market for the iPhone.
There are in total 106 entries in that table, 87 are "non-overclocked" and 19 that we believe are "overclocked". The 87 that are no overclocked have an average score of 1612.6, i.e., slightly faster than the iPhone 5, but with a huge standard deviation of 243.6.
Unfortunately we only have one data point for the iPhone 5, which kind of sucks. But based on the information we have it seems that the the speeds of the processors in the iPhone 5 and the non-overclocked S III are statistically the same.
(The average score for the 19 presumed overclocked S III is 1768, which is surprisingly low given the average of the other 87.)
Thanks for the info. I did see that link briefly after I posted as it was linked in another comment, so please allow me to reiterate what I asked over there:
I see a lot of Galaxy S III handsets in that list with processors running at 1,800 MHz, yet everywhere I look for the specifications of the SIII I only find 1.4 and 1.5 GHz. Are those phones overclocked?
If they are overclocked, the relevance of the comparison is greatly diminished. If they are not overclocked, it would be interesting to know in what markets and carriers is Samsung selling S III handsets with those processors.
I see a lot of Galaxy S III there with processors running at 1,800 MHz, yet everywhere I look for the specifications of the SIII I only find 1.4 and 1.5 GHz. Are those phones overclocked?
If they are overclocked, the relevance of the comparison is greatly diminished. If they are not overclocked, it would be interesting to know where Samsung is selling S III handsets with those processors.
Sorry, I can't find the text you mention as "from the linked article". Can you please point out where one of the linked articles says that?
The only thing I could find is this page saying that the A6 running at 1.02 GHz scored 1601, while this chart says that the average Galaxy S3 running at 1400 MHz gets a score of 1560, i.e., the S3 scores slightly lower even though the clock runs 37% faster.
I can tell you how I have done similar stuff on Mac OS X, using only built-in tools and features and very simple bash scripts. Of course you are using Windows, so you will have to change some of the steps to use the matching Windows tools (like using.bat files instead of bash, etc) and may even need to install some stuff. Even if you don't use it, it may be of interest for other Mac users.
Here it goes:
First, save this very crude bash script into a file (sorry, I'm not a bash programmer): #!/bin/bash
function navigate_directory {
cd "$1"
for anItem in *
do
if [ -d "$anItem" ]
then
echo $level$anItem
export level=$level"."
navigate_directory "$anItem"
export level=${level:1:`expr ${#level} - 1`}
elif [ `mdls -name md5cs -raw "$anItem"` = "(null)" ]
then
#echo \ \ $anItem
md5cs=`md5 -q "$anItem"`
#echo \ \ \ \ $md5cs
xattr -w com.apple.metadata:md5cs $md5cs "$anItem"
fi
done
cd.. }
crawlDirs=$@;
export level="." for anItem in "$*" do
echo $anItem
navigate_directory "$anItem" done
All that script does is crawl through all the directories in the input, and for each file it calculates the MD5 checksum (hint: md5cs=`md5 -q "$anItem"` ). Then it uses xattr to save the MD5 checksum as an extended attribute that can be searched using Spotlight (you would need to use the equivalent search feature in Windows 7).
Because you want it to be searchable through Spotlight the "legal" way to do this is by creating your own little application that "registers" the attribute in the system. But that is waaaaaay too much work for something that you don't plan to use a week from now, so just cheat and register it as an Apple metadata attribute: xattr -w com.apple.metadata:md5cs $md5cs "$anItem"
(if this makes you uncomfortable you can later delete the attributes using a similar function)
To index everything, run the script from the base directory of your filesystem (not sure how to do that in Windows, you may have to run it on every drive), or just run on the directories that have your files (it's pointless to index the system files). The time it will take depends on the number and size of the files you have. Given your 4.2 million files in 4.9 TB it should take a day or so given your fast hardware.
At this point if you do a Spotlight search for the MD5 checksum of a file you will almost immediately get a list of all its dupes. (If you don't, you may need to rebuild the Spotlight indexes by running mdutil -i on and then off on every drive. I don't think it's necessary but YMMV).
Now copy this other bash script. Note how it is very similar to the above one. #!/bin/bash
Until I read your comment I had never tried to go to maps.google.com in Safari on my iPhone. It's quite pointless since there is a native app for that, but still I find funny that I never even tried to do it.
So, I just went there, did a couple of searches including driving directions. Let me tell you that I am very impressed with how well it works, especially since it is very unlikely that Google has invested any significant amount of resources in it (again, because it's pointless since all devices from all major mobile platforms come with a Google Maps app preinstalled).
It is very fast and easy to use. It is also very ugly, but that's easy to fix. I wouldn't use it instead of the native app if it was available, but if a service that I am really interested in performs as good as this web app does I would be OK with it.
It's worse than that, as most reasonable people who are not familiar with the history of Intel processors will believe that x64 is inferior or at least precedes x86, and that's precisely backwards.
Microsoft calls it x64 which I guess is not unreasonable.
I disagree. x64 is a terrible name for the architecture, as it suggests that it is quite inferior to x86, a name normally associated to the 32 bit architecture that preceded it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you are not getting it. Suppose that P[i] denotes the i-th prime number. The proposed theorem does not say that P[i+1]-P[i] <= 70 million for all values of i, as you believe.
What it does say is that for every index k for which P[k+1]-P[k] > 70 you can find a number m greater than k such that P[m+1]-P[m] <= 70 million.
That seems like such a weird song to sing up there sitting in a tin can.
Bowie sorta updated the matter on Scary Monsters anyway.
ashes to ashes funk to funky
we know major tom's a junky
strung out on heaven's high
hitting an all time low
And that is precisely why Hadfield's version has "updated lyrics", as TFS says. If you listen carefully you'll realize that most of the changes in the lyrics are precisely to the parts that lead to the conjecture that Major Tom may actually be a junkie overdosing.
(Of course other things like "protein pills" and "check ignition" are changed simply to avoid misleading people that may take him too literally.)
I'm pretty sure that for a device to be associated, it has to be attempting to join the network. I could be wrong, I'm not a WiFi engineer. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.
No, I'm pretty sure that you are absolutely right about that: You are not a WiFi engineer.
So Fusion's the same as the Momentus Drives, ya?
Nope, Seagate Momentus XT drives use the NAND Flash as a cache for the HDD, like SRT does. Furthermore, they only have 4 GB or 8 GB of NAND Flash, as opposed to the 128 GB in the SSD portion of the Fusion Drive and 64 GB of SRT. So the Momentus are actually more distanced to the Fusion drives than the SRT.
I see that you don't really understand what Apple's Fusion Drive really is. In Intel's SRT the SSD drive acts like a cache for the HDD. I hope I don't need to explain what a disk cache is and how it works. In the Fusion Drive on the other hand both drives appear as a single logical volume with the space of both drives combined and the OS decides which files get stored on the SSD and which on the HDD. From the Ars Technica article I quoted:
In a caching solution, like Intel's, files live on the hard disk drive and are temporarily mirrored to the SSD cache as needed. In an enterprise auto-tiering situation, and with Fusion Drive, the data is actually moved from one tier to another, rather than only being temporarily cached there.
Those are two very different approaches.
Use the dictionary of your choice and check the words "continent" and "country".
Well, I went one step further and used several of the dictionaries and encyclopedias of my choice and checked the word "America". Guess what I found.
From the New Oxford American (oh the irony!) Dictionary (emphasis mine):
America (also the Americas):
a landmass in the western hemisphere that consists of the continents of North and South America joined by the Isthmus of Panama. The continent was originally inhabited by American Indians and Inuits. The northeast coastline of North America was visited by Norse seamen in the 8th or 9th century, but for the modern world the continent was first reached by Christopher Columbus in 1492.
- used as a name for the United States.
Note that the definition of the landmass precedes the definition of the USA. Similar precedence will be found also in Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, and most other authoritative sources (admittedly not all, although all will acknowledge both meanings).
And regarding the definition of "continent" you need to realize that there are at least five different definitions for that word using different criteria. You were taught a particular one that separated North and South America, but other people (in particular outside the USA) are taught other definitions and most of those don't make that distinction.
By the way, according to the CIA the conventional short name for the United States of America is "United States", not "America".
(...) but I can't believe not a single person has suggested that you leave your room, walk across campus and go to the freaking library. Need a computer? There are computer labs everywhere, too. Seriously, I thought this was one of the worst ask slasdots and expected half the answers to be "Go to the f-ing library". But no one?! let me say it then.
GO TO THE F-ING LIBRARY!
Actually, several people suggested that. This guy, for example, suggested it 42 minutes before you did.
You know who believes that things will be different when every damn time in the past they haven't been? Charlie Brown, that's who. He never managed to kick that football.
Oh, but he did kick that football once.
timemachine isn't some magical and new thing. It's called a GUI over the top of rsync.
What? No, it's not. It's not even remotely something like that.
I wonder if it's a coincidence that in the last three or four days I started to receive a lot more spam to my Yahoo mail address. By "a lot more" I mean three or four times more than what I was receiving a week ago each day.
I don't have any relation with anyone in New Zealand, so my guess is that it's indeed just a coincidence. But still the timing makes me wonder.
In other words - it's the phone you recommend to your parents so you don't have to do tech support for them.
I don't think you realize the implications of that last thing you say.
What you are saying is that if you are not extremely technically oriented (i.e., you are like the vast majority of people) then the iPhone is the best phone for you: It allows you to do almost everything that you can do with the "other" phones (and certainly pretty much everything that common people actually want to do with them), it gives you access to a library of 800,000 curated apps of all types, and, most importantly, it allows you to do all this without having to constantly resort to the help of your technically oriented son.
You should work for Apple's publicity agents, man.
All Brazilians who live in Brazil speak Portuguese... those who don't, were born abroad.
Some practically undiscovered tribes in the Amazon jungle don't speak Portuguese...
Granted, the numbers are too small to really matter, but still.
Actually it's slightly more interesting than that, and even more rewarding, when you realize that the Cyrillic alphabet has direct roots in the Greek alphabet. (The Latin alphabet used by Western European languages also has its roots in Greek, but slightly farther).
How is this relevant? Let me give you two examples that you are already familiar with:
The letter that looks exactly like a p actually derives from the Greek letter rho. Thus, it has an R sound.
The letter that looks like a cross between a lowercase N and Greek letter pi is pronounced like a P because... ah, I guess I already gave that one away.
Other examples include a letter that looks like phi and sounds like and F, an uppercase gamma that sounds like G, a deformed upper-case delta that sounds like D, an uppercase upsilon that sounds like U, and of course the descendants of alpha, beta, epsilon, kappa, mu, tau, and others that look (and sound) almost the same in Russian and in English.
So... 68.3% of smartphones run some version of Android, while 18.8% run iOS. So Android phones outnumber iPhones at a ratio of 3.6. Cool.
But on the other hand, web traffic from handheld devices (in mainstream sites, not niche sites like Slashdot) stays pretty much stable at around 67% for iOS and 33% Android. So it would seem like iOS users browse 7.2 times as much as Android users (note this includes tablets).
Do iPad owners browse at such a pace as to skew the results by so much?
Note I'm not saying either of the studies is flawed. I'm just pointing out an apparent contradiction that I find rather puzzling.
It's not like they don't need help...
Actually, a good chunk of those funny blunders falls into the third of these categories of problems with Apple's iOS 6 Maps:
The first category includes things like directions for public transportation, pedestrians, and bike trails, as well a more robust search system, but it doesn't produce funny errors, they don't get pointed out very often.
The second category makes a good chunk of the hilarity, but it's something that Apple will (slowly) correct as they refine their databases. Google has many years of headstart here, so it's no wonder their database is in much better shape.
The third category is the one that produces the most hilarious errors but... well, it turns out that it reflects artifacts in the renderings produced by the flyover feature, a feature that AFAIK is not really part of Google Maps, and thus the criticism is rather silly!
Yes, Google has similar flyovers in Google Earth, but that's a separate product. Furthermore, Google Earth is plagued by similar errors in rendering. Examples:
In Google Earth, go to this location in Houston: 29.713347 -95.382174, and follow the bayou (river) as it goes West and South-west towards the Texas Medical Center. See how all those bridges appear to sink to the level of the water? A similar example can be found in Philadelphia: 39.958905 -75.180871.
tl;dr My point is: The 3D rendering errors are funny but not exclusive to Apple. The inaccurate database is easy to fix, but will take time. The missing features are the real problem and we don't know if Apple even intends to add them.
According to the paper (p. 4, emphasis mine):
I believe the 1.8 GHz ones are overclocked. The 1.4 GHz 4-core ones aren't, and they kick the iPhone 5's ass. The 1.4 GHz one with three cores is slightly less than the iPhone 5 -- for unclear reasons, that's the number that shows up on the graph you originally linked.
Expanding on my reply to the sibling post of yours:
Of the 87 presumably non-overclocked S III in the list, 43 are quad-cores. Those 43 have an average score of 1739.6 which is clearly higher (8.66%) than the only score known for an iPhone 5, but I wouldn't call that "kicking its ass". (They also have a bizarrely high standard deviation of 213.1).
Still, they are statistically faster on average than the iPhone 5. Too bad that according to the table here in the USA we only get a dual core version (n=10, average=1350.8, stdev=230.22, i.e. slower than the iPhone 5). Thus it seems that the superior speed of the quad-cores S III is only a curiosity for those of us in the USA, which is also the biggest market for the iPhone.
Yes, but by a very small margin:
There are in total 106 entries in that table, 87 are "non-overclocked" and 19 that we believe are "overclocked". The 87 that are no overclocked have an average score of 1612.6, i.e., slightly faster than the iPhone 5, but with a huge standard deviation of 243.6.
Unfortunately we only have one data point for the iPhone 5, which kind of sucks. But based on the information we have it seems that the the speeds of the processors in the iPhone 5 and the non-overclocked S III are statistically the same.
(The average score for the 19 presumed overclocked S III is 1768, which is surprisingly low given the average of the other 87.)
Thanks for the info. I did see that link briefly after I posted as it was linked in another comment, so please allow me to reiterate what I asked over there:
I see a lot of Galaxy S III handsets in that list with processors running at 1,800 MHz, yet everywhere I look for the specifications of the SIII I only find 1.4 and 1.5 GHz. Are those phones overclocked?
If they are overclocked, the relevance of the comparison is greatly diminished. If they are not overclocked, it would be interesting to know in what markets and carriers is Samsung selling S III handsets with those processors.
I see a lot of Galaxy S III there with processors running at 1,800 MHz, yet everywhere I look for the specifications of the SIII I only find 1.4 and 1.5 GHz. Are those phones overclocked?
If they are overclocked, the relevance of the comparison is greatly diminished. If they are not overclocked, it would be interesting to know where Samsung is selling S III handsets with those processors.
Sorry, I can't find the text you mention as "from the linked article". Can you please point out where one of the linked articles says that?
The only thing I could find is this page saying that the A6 running at 1.02 GHz scored 1601, while this chart says that the average Galaxy S3 running at 1400 MHz gets a score of 1560, i.e., the S3 scores slightly lower even though the clock runs 37% faster.
What am I missing?
I can tell you how I have done similar stuff on Mac OS X, using only built-in tools and features and very simple bash scripts. Of course you are using Windows, so you will have to change some of the steps to use the matching Windows tools (like using .bat files instead of bash, etc) and may even need to install some stuff. Even if you don't use it, it may be of interest for other Mac users.
Here it goes:
First, save this very crude bash script into a file (sorry, I'm not a bash programmer):
#!/bin/bash
function navigate_directory { ..
cd "$1"
for anItem in *
do
if [ -d "$anItem" ]
then
echo $level$anItem
export level=$level"."
navigate_directory "$anItem"
export level=${level:1:`expr ${#level} - 1`}
elif [ `mdls -name md5cs -raw "$anItem"` = "(null)" ]
then
#echo \ \ $anItem
md5cs=`md5 -q "$anItem"`
#echo \ \ \ \ $md5cs
xattr -w com.apple.metadata:md5cs $md5cs "$anItem"
fi
done
cd
}
crawlDirs=$@;
export level="."
for anItem in "$*"
do
echo $anItem
navigate_directory "$anItem"
done
All that script does is crawl through all the directories in the input, and for each file it calculates the MD5 checksum (hint: md5cs=`md5 -q "$anItem"` ). Then it uses xattr to save the MD5 checksum as an extended attribute that can be searched using Spotlight (you would need to use the equivalent search feature in Windows 7).
Because you want it to be searchable through Spotlight the "legal" way to do this is by creating your own little application that "registers" the attribute in the system. But that is waaaaaay too much work for something that you don't plan to use a week from now, so just cheat and register it as an Apple metadata attribute: xattr -w com.apple.metadata:md5cs $md5cs "$anItem"
(if this makes you uncomfortable you can later delete the attributes using a similar function)
To index everything, run the script from the base directory of your filesystem (not sure how to do that in Windows, you may have to run it on every drive), or just run on the directories that have your files (it's pointless to index the system files). The time it will take depends on the number and size of the files you have. Given your 4.2 million files in 4.9 TB it should take a day or so given your fast hardware.
At this point if you do a Spotlight search for the MD5 checksum of a file you will almost immediately get a list of all its dupes. (If you don't, you may need to rebuild the Spotlight indexes by running mdutil -i on and then off on every drive. I don't think it's necessary but YMMV).
Now copy this other bash script. Note how it is very similar to the above one.
#!/bin/bash
function get_md5_for_file
Until I read your comment I had never tried to go to maps.google.com in Safari on my iPhone. It's quite pointless since there is a native app for that, but still I find funny that I never even tried to do it.
So, I just went there, did a couple of searches including driving directions. Let me tell you that I am very impressed with how well it works, especially since it is very unlikely that Google has invested any significant amount of resources in it (again, because it's pointless since all devices from all major mobile platforms come with a Google Maps app preinstalled).
It is very fast and easy to use. It is also very ugly, but that's easy to fix. I wouldn't use it instead of the native app if it was available, but if a service that I am really interested in performs as good as this web app does I would be OK with it.
It's worse than that, as most reasonable people who are not familiar with the history of Intel processors will believe that x64 is inferior or at least precedes x86, and that's precisely backwards.
Microsoft calls it x64 which I guess is not unreasonable.
I disagree. x64 is a terrible name for the architecture, as it suggests that it is quite inferior to x86, a name normally associated to the 32 bit architecture that preceded it.