Predicting that there will be no rabbits, monkeys, or dogs found dating back to the pre-Cambrian, and then finding some would surely prove concretely that evolutionary theory is incorrect. My guess is that this will never happen.
You shouldn't believe in it, you should understand it. That's what sets it apart from creationism - it doesn't require belief.
Your just playing pointless semantic games with the word "belief". In the end, everything requires belief. How many fingers on your hand? 5? Prove it. Prove it with out relying on your fallible senses. Hell for all I know you don't even exist, just a figment of my imagination, or part of the program in the machine. You can't prove you aren't.
Meanwhile, in order to get things done, I believe a lot of what my senses report to me. Including the evidence I've seen of evolution. So I believe evolution is happening and has happened and that the theory is useful. There is nothing inherently mystical about saying you believe something.
Do you not see the flaw in your argument? You start at "nothing can prove it false", and end up at "evolution has been abandonded". Both of those statements cannot be true.
Precisely. Re-read my argument. Its not the case that nothing can prove it false, its that when its proved false its revised, and the new revised theory is still called the theory of evolution, making it *appear* that nothing can prove it false.
A rabbit in the Cambrian. A fossilized dinosaur with a human skeleton in its stomach. Things of this nature are quite contrary to evolution's predictions.
True, but those both rely on us "not finding something".
And the reality is that we find fossils that are much older than expected ALL the time, and the reaction is never "OMG evolution is wrong" its "Oh, I guess these existed much earlier than we thought after all." (Granted we've never found a cambrian rabbit and likely never will, but that's beside the point.
Look into the depression of 1921. The one that no one ever talks about because it was so short lived. Yet the suffering was really intense.
That's really the crux of it. Do we want a short really intense suffering. Or a longer less intense suffering.
If the government's plan prevents millions of american's from becoming bankrupt, homeless, and destitute, at the expense of a slower recovery, that might beneficial to the country overall.
There is also the possibility that if things get intense enough, we'll hit a tipping point, and instead of a short intense suffering with rapid recovery, we'll end up with something FAR worse.
For example there is a river near where I used to live that would freeze over in the winter. The interesting thing however, is that one year it got intensely cold, and the river actually froze through to the bottom. It didn't simply melt and resume to normal in spring. Practically all the fish and other river fauna died, and in the spring when the ice would usually break up and then float away and on the running water underneath... that didn't happen, because it was frozen through. Instead there was massive flooding (causing massive damage). And the water ran above the ice instead of below it. The ice wasn't completely gone until late summer, instead of being gone in early spring which meant the river was much colder that year. I'm not really sure it ever really recovered 100%.
The river had cycles, it froze over and melted every year. But one year, the cold was more intense, and it froze all the way through. And it didn't recover. That's the idea here too. The economy has cycles of recession and prosperity, but if a recession is severe enough it might 'freeze through' and then it won't just bounce back.
I'm not saying this will happen if the government doesn't intervene in this case, but you can't simply say 'it will always take care of itself'.
I believe in evolution 100%. -however- I agree that there is a looseness in evolution, in that while it does make predictions, it is difficult to disprove.
An early example on the page you linked mentioned whales with teeth vs baleen and the prediction that we'd find a fossil with both, which we later found. However, if we hadn't found one, that doesn't disprove evolution, or put it in doubt, it merely means we haven't found one.
There are no 'experiments' in evolution that can prove evolution is outright false. Making a prediction and then failing to find evidence doesn't do it. And further making a prediction that turns out to be incorrect (of which there have been several) invariably means that our prediction was wrong, that we failed to account for some variable or misunderstood the evidence when making the prediction in the first place. Its 'never' evolution itself that is in doubt.
The reality is that the theory of evolution, like any good scientific theory =is= being continually refined and improved.
However, from a certain point of view, whenever evidence pops up that challenges a prediction evolution made, it never challenges evolution itself, scientists simply discard the prediction, and explain how it was their misunderstanding of the evidence; and that now they they have this new evidence, they can see how this is what evolution really predicted all along.
To a lay-person who doesn't realize that the theory of evolution was effectively just abandoned and replaced with a new and subtly improved version. All they see something that feels like the same sort of rationalization that IDers use.
I guess the problem is that when newtonian physics broke down and we fixed them with relativity there was this new theory. When evolution screws up, and we fix it, we keep calling it evolution. So the progress of science isn't really on display in the same way.
You can check the percentage for your usage, start perfmon.msc and add the relevant counters e.g. disk writes/sec and disk transfers/sec. Then do your real world stuff.
Trouble is I intuitively think the percentage is pretty low, so even running the PC for a couple weeks with it on and them a couple more with it off I don't think I'd be able to positively conclude the difference could be attributed to timestamp writes from the results. I'm not even sure if existing benchmarking software suite could be used to adequately test for this.
Short of having some way to actually run the PC for a month and being able to separate out which writes were timestamps from all the rest and computing a percent that way, I'm skeptical that we'd be able to get a realistic picture of how much this actually uses.
As a programmer, I would first isolate the function that caused the memory leak to begin with. In this case it would be government screwing with people's value judgments.
Its too late for that.
The leak in your critical app is demanding more memory than you have available and you haven't debugged it yet. You can't say "I will isolate and fix the fuction" because it needs memory NOW, and you haven't isolated or fixed it yet.
In this case it would be government screwing with people's value judgments.
No. That's ALREADY solved itself. People's value judgements on what they can afford have undergone sharp correction the last few months and the savings rate in America has gone up.
But that doesn't unwind the commitments they've already made. You can't fix THAT by changing peoples value judgement. Unwinding the commitments is going to take a significant amount of time and pain. And killing your buggy critical service isn't going to help the situation. If anything it will just extend the amount of time and pain.
You can A: take memory from less critical apps to feed it while you continue to search for solutions, and ride out the unwinding and correction.
Or B, let your critical app crash now. (And by critical I mean, -critical-, there is no 'just reboot it' and keep going. If it goes down, its going to be years before you put things back together. You can't afford to choose B. Nobody can.
So you choose A. You have to. There really is no other choice.
In Windows NT/2000/XP, Linux, FreeBSD and a few other operating systems, the O/S by default writes to the drive on every file/directory access to update the "Last Accessed Time".
In most file systems, if not all, I would imagine that these time stamps are stored in the directory "file" itself, not within the actual files in the directory. So its not like every file is being touched every time its accessed, just the folders they are in.
Granted, turning off last access times would reduce writes to the directories themself, and might be of some benefit, but its not quite the insanity you imply.
I'd be very curious to see what percentage of hard disk writes can actually be attributed to this feature in typical real world use, as well as what real benchmark performance gains can be achieved.
Nothing is wrong with that. How about 'Phenom II's in single quotes instead of double? That would work too. Of course why bother with the leading single quote? A single quote in the one place its acutally needed to delineate the end of the word from the plural construction is shorter and works just as well.
And besides, the 'apostrophe' serves multiple functions in the english language. That of marking a possessive. And that of marking omissions. (You used it in this form when you wrote "What's" instead of "What is".)
It is also used to help sort out awkward inflections. KO'd for example is a recognized way of writing the past tense of 'Knock Out' appears in the Oxford english dictionary as such.
Its use in something like "Phenom II's" is, in my opinion, entirely consistent with both the latter 2 uses I mentioned for the apostrophe. It assists in resolving the ambiguity that arises when attaching a plural inflection to an abbreviation or product code. It also reflects an omission in that something like the plural of a hyptothetical Phenom IIs that could be expressed as Phenom IIses, but as Phenom IIs's the apostrophe serves both to assist with the inflection, and covers the omission of the e as well.
But how do I differentiate the plural of IIs from the plural of the IIse?
And its not a hypothetical question either...
There is a Porsche 911, plural 911s There is also an actual 911S. The plural form of that would be 911Ses But even worse, there is a 911SE, which in plural is also 911SEs For completeness there is also a 911E, plural 911Es. As far as I know there is no 911ES... yet.
Personally I think most people agree its practically impossible to keep the 911S separate from all the 911s, or all the 911Ses separate from the 911SEs. Especially since some products don't capitalize the product letters like is usual with Porsche.
Like the Apple IIe for example. If someone talked about the Apple IIes at least half of us would think it was a new 'es' model.
However, it's still considered a sign of illiteracy among educated people.
I'd think intelligent people would be the first to recognize the inadequacy and ambiguity perpetrated by traditional plural forms to abbreviations and product code names. Oh... you said 'educated' not 'intelligent'. Your probably right about 'educated' people.
Yes, yes, we all know that from grade school. But what happens when AMD launches a "Phenom IIs"
Is the plural Phenum IIss? And even if I write Phenom IIss, most of the readers will immediately wonder if AMD has released a "Phenom IIss"...
The reason the apostrophe is inappropriately used is because it works. When people see Phenom II's, they pronounce it correctly -and- the ambiguity is removed as to whether the "s" is part of the name. The fact that its grammatically/semantically incorrect is an acceptable (to most people) tradeoff.
Language changes, even grammar, and 's appened to product names and abbreviations is becoming understood to mean the plural of a 'non-word'.
No. Not use, but slower the more you write to it. You can read all the time and it doesn't speeds.
Not quite. Once it runs out of completely free blocks, the drives 'hit a wall', and from that point on they are significantly slower to write to.
But it doesn't continue getting slower and slower and slower and slower over time. Just that, at some point, it suddenly becomes x% slower to write to and stays that way.
The author does conclude even at the slowest possible speed the Intel model (he said he did a simulation where by writing to all the blocks at least once) that its still beats HDD.
The intel model is the fastest by far. The Samsung drives are also good. And the OCZ Vector was also good. (Not as good as the intel one, but still 48% faster than the WD veliciraptors, which is seriously still excellent.)
The important point however, is that the units that 'still beats HDD' doesn't mean "a little bit faster". They mean continue to royally spank an HDDs ass.
However, the other models, by comparison, are basically unusable.
Apparently it depends on the controller version which affects the speed. Intel put a good one in and the other brands no so good.
Its FAR more complicated than that by far. And the article is 30+ pages long for a reason. (30+ real pages, not bullshit 'half-paragraph per page' pages.
He said its still noticeable though sometimes.
In the sense that yes, once your drive 'hits the wall' the slow down can be noticeable relative to when it was new... but its still twice as fast to 5x as fast as the fastest alternatives.
There is also stuff the OS can do to mitigate the problem, once we have SSD aware OSes.
Essentially, the reason it slows down, is that once your drive has used all the blocks, it has to erase a block before it can use it again, and this can require it to read multiple pages in, erase the block, and write it back out again, which can take up to half a second.
The better controllers, including extra blocks that aren't reported to the OS, and adding OS awareness to the issue can essentially let the drive stay ahead of the random write requests, and erase blocks before they are needed, to ensure their is always a pool of completely erased and ready to go blocks available, and therefore keep the drive much closer to its 'like new speed' indefinitely.
Mod parent up. This is REALLY the best article I've EVER read about SSD performance. If you are interested in buying an SSD do yourself a favor and read it, and understand it.
Which is a more logical numeric range for representing a perceived continuum from "cold" to "hot": 0 to 100 , or -18 to 38?
I detect bias. I can do that too. Which is the more logical numeric range:
-35 to 35 C or -31 to 104 F
or maybe you live in a more extreme climate...
-45 to 45 C vs -49 to 113 F
with 0C being 'mild' right in the middle.
Those are just as valid ranges as 0 to 100F. Winnipeg's temperature range for example easily runs below -40C in on the coldest winter days to over 40C on the hottest the summer days.
Besides hot and cold are relative. As someone from winnipeg what they consider cold to be, and they'll answer -20C or so. (-4F) Someone from florida will probably pick 10C / 50F.
Yes, but it would be something of a huge stretch to apply them, as written, to google. Nonetheless, I think its the best description of what that much data collection all going to one company amounts to.
Chorusss. Even the name sounds like some sssslithery sssnake trying to weasel a deal out of you even though he dosen't have any handsss for a handssshake.
You had such a great snake metaphor going... and then you stuck a 'weasel' in it. Why equate chorus to a snake if you are just going to immediately equate the snake to a weasel? Substitute "weasel" for something like "squeeze" amd the sentence will flow much better.;)
This will start to cut into Google's bottom line and they will get the message and alter their practices.
The problem isn't googles =practices-. The problem is googles -size-.
I really couldn't care less if a some reasonable percentage of sites I visit all get ads from the same provider using cookies.
I really couldn't care less if a webmail provider could potentially data mine my webmail to serve me ads on the webmail site.
I really couldn't care less if a bunch of sites i visit use the same analytics system.
It bothers me greatly however, that virtually all the sites I visit get ads from the same provider, that also is datamining webmail, and also has a huge piece of the analytics pie. Oh and they want my documents, maps, pictures of my house, and phone call logs too.
Individually each piece is relatively worthless. Its the difference between [seeing what someone at the mall is looking at], and [seeing what someone at the mall is looking at, seeing where they went next, seeing what kind of car they drive, seeing where they live, overhearing their conversations, seeing them at work...] In both cases you are just 'seeing' what people do in public, which isn't a privacy breach... but systematically following people around isn't merely 'seeing them in public'. Its stalking. Its surveillance.
The only regulation that needs to be applied is a sort of 'anti stalking' legislation. It won't affect small/new companies, because they aren't big enough to see enough to cross the stalking threshold.
Meanwhile a company like google would need to be careful, because they effectively are stalking people on the web. Often able to track virtually everything you do on the web.
Like I said, I don't care if google sees me out on the 'public web'. But I don't like being stalked by them everywhere I go.
So Apple is "lying" and inventing a huge legal pretense in order to ask for $10?
Close. In order to reduce customer resistance to paying the upgrade fees. After all, if its not 'apples fault' there is no point in blaming them right? Meanwhile they collect 10$ from a few million units.
Perhaps if Apple wanted to make money on its software, it would charge a lot for it.
Yeah, because we know there isn't any margin on ipods, they're barely scraping by... oh wait.
And how many million do you figure this little update actually cost them to make? I mean the feature list isn't exactly ground breaking... add bluetooth features that should already have been there... and don't forget cut-n-paste I'm sure their engineers worked overtime on working out how that might work.
Of course the last paid update was even better. They offered us the privilege of paying for an update to enable you to use their app store.
To suggest that the $10 fee is egregious is simply absurd. To go on and on about it just makes you a troll. This is not an issue.
Your right. I should really bow down at their brilliance of charging millions of people $10 for a few software patches that from any other company on the face of the earth would be free. But no... their real brilliance is that they've managed to make people like you actually defend them.
What about movies and TV shows? What about storing in Lossless quality?
What about them? One day we'll all want Exabyte iPods. But for right now that's not really the issue. You don't really benefit from lossless on an ipod anyway. And movies and TV shows on an ipod touch? Please. The battery won't even make it through one long movie... never mind plural movies.
Shot that argument down...Cue references to
Except I NEVER said X should be enough for anybody. I simply argued that there are a lot of other priorities (like battery life), or perhaps internet/wifi sync to your home itunes library (you don't need all 10 Terabytes of music with you if you can just download that one song you suddenly want to listen to on the fly), etc, etc that sort of stuff would benefit more people than just more space would.
And no matter how much space you get there will be outliers who need more; at 32GB its pretty much already just the outliers who actually really honestly need more today. And I'm sure we'll see capacity steadily increase and easily keep pace with what the mainstream needs.
Since that is exactly what the the grandparent poster suggested:
But I don't see why we couldn't just have one or two ground-based remote pilots available for emergencies. In the case of a serious failure a senior non-pilot crew member could push a button to enable remote control (hence negating the possibility of a remote attack on the control systems), and someone sitting in a simulator in St. Louis could try to land the plane for them.
you need a visual cue to tell you your hand has gone off the edge of the phone??
To tell me I've I'm at the bottom of the document or list.
If I try and scroll down past the bottom of a document on the iphone, it pushes the document up a bit and stops to show me visually that I'm at the bottom, there is nothing below, when I release it slides back down.
On the storm, it just does nothing.
So if I'm scrolling a long list and arrive at the bottom after moving my finger 3/4s of the way down the screen, the iphone pushes up a bit and shows me I'm at the bottom. The storm just stops scrolling.
So on the iphone I know I'm at the bottom of the list. With the storm I'm not sure if maybe my finger just lost good contact 3/4 of the way through, and have to try another swipe to see if it really won't go down any more.
Yes I know about the scroll bar, but that's not nearly as good feedback, especially in long documents or lists.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't comment about being legally obligated to charge for it,
But that's the part that needs comment.
And you don't need to be a lawyer. Apple gives away itunes, quicktime, safari to any windows user who cares to download them. That's quite a bit of functionality they just 'give away'. Uh Oh -- Someone better alert the SEC!! They are violating GAAP and SOX!! If they distribute them them for less than $10/download our messiah Steve goes directly to jail!
More like our messiah Steve might have to wear the same turtleneck twice.
Similarly, Microsoft optional updates (ie anything that isn't a security patch) is also 'free functionality'. Then there were those free channels on the Wii, and the Playstation 3 has had several major feature upgrades since release as free downloads to existing customers. The free upgrades for my linksys router that added all kinds of filtering features and what not...
Bottom line: Apple pretends they have to charge to make the charge more palatable to customers. I mean hey, its not apple's fault... damned SEC! damed SOX! damned GAAP! That's dishonest. And so I'm protesting it.
Slashdot Mirror
Predicting that there will be no rabbits, monkeys, or dogs found dating back to the pre-Cambrian, and then finding some would surely prove concretely that evolutionary theory is incorrect. My guess is that this will never happen.
See my other responses.
And this is your problem.
I don't have a problem.
You shouldn't believe in it, you should understand it. That's what sets it apart from creationism - it doesn't require belief.
Your just playing pointless semantic games with the word "belief". In the end, everything requires belief. How many fingers on your hand? 5? Prove it. Prove it with out relying on your fallible senses. Hell for all I know you don't even exist, just a figment of my imagination, or part of the program in the machine. You can't prove you aren't.
Meanwhile, in order to get things done, I believe a lot of what my senses report to me. Including the evidence I've seen of evolution. So I believe evolution is happening and has happened and that the theory is useful. There is nothing inherently mystical about saying you believe something.
Do you not see the flaw in your argument? You start at "nothing can prove it false", and end up at "evolution has been abandonded". Both of those statements cannot be true.
Precisely. Re-read my argument. Its not the case that nothing can prove it false, its that when its proved false its revised, and the new revised theory is still called the theory of evolution, making it *appear* that nothing can prove it false.
A rabbit in the Cambrian. A fossilized dinosaur with a human skeleton in its stomach. Things of this nature are quite contrary to evolution's predictions.
True, but those both rely on us "not finding something".
And the reality is that we find fossils that are much older than expected ALL the time, and the reaction is never "OMG evolution is wrong" its "Oh, I guess these existed much earlier than we thought after all." (Granted we've never found a cambrian rabbit and likely never will, but that's beside the point.
Look into the depression of 1921. The one that no one ever talks about because it was so short lived. Yet the suffering was really intense.
That's really the crux of it. Do we want a short really intense suffering. Or a longer less intense suffering.
If the government's plan prevents millions of american's from becoming bankrupt, homeless, and destitute, at the expense of a slower recovery, that might beneficial to the country overall.
There is also the possibility that if things get intense enough, we'll hit a tipping point, and instead of a short intense suffering with rapid recovery, we'll end up with something FAR worse.
For example there is a river near where I used to live that would freeze over in the winter. The interesting thing however, is that one year it got intensely cold, and the river actually froze through to the bottom. It didn't simply melt and resume to normal in spring. Practically all the fish and other river fauna died, and in the spring when the ice would usually break up and then float away and on the running water underneath... that didn't happen, because it was frozen through. Instead there was massive flooding (causing massive damage). And the water ran above the ice instead of below it. The ice wasn't completely gone until late summer, instead of being gone in early spring which meant the river was much colder that year. I'm not really sure it ever really recovered 100%.
The river had cycles, it froze over and melted every year. But one year, the cold was more intense, and it froze all the way through. And it didn't recover. That's the idea here too. The economy has cycles of recession and prosperity, but if a recession is severe enough it might 'freeze through' and then it won't just bounce back.
I'm not saying this will happen if the government doesn't intervene in this case, but you can't simply say 'it will always take care of itself'.
I believe in evolution 100%. -however- I agree that there is a looseness in evolution, in that while it does make predictions, it is difficult to disprove.
An early example on the page you linked mentioned whales with teeth vs baleen and the prediction that we'd find a fossil with both, which we later found. However, if we hadn't found one, that doesn't disprove evolution, or put it in doubt, it merely means we haven't found one.
There are no 'experiments' in evolution that can prove evolution is outright false. Making a prediction and then failing to find evidence doesn't do it. And further making a prediction that turns out to be incorrect (of which there have been several) invariably means that our prediction was wrong, that we failed to account for some variable or misunderstood the evidence when making the prediction in the first place. Its 'never' evolution itself that is in doubt.
The reality is that the theory of evolution, like any good scientific theory =is= being continually refined and improved.
However, from a certain point of view, whenever evidence pops up that challenges a prediction evolution made, it never challenges evolution itself, scientists simply discard the prediction, and explain how it was their misunderstanding of the evidence; and that now they they have this new evidence, they can see how this is what evolution really predicted all along.
To a lay-person who doesn't realize that the theory of evolution was effectively just abandoned and replaced with a new and subtly improved version. All they see something that feels like the same sort of rationalization that IDers use.
I guess the problem is that when newtonian physics broke down and we fixed them with relativity there was this new theory. When evolution screws up, and we fix it, we keep calling it evolution. So the progress of science isn't really on display in the same way.
I'm not sure how 5000 applicants competing for 500 jobs is better than 50 applicants competing for 5.
You can check the percentage for your usage, start perfmon.msc and add the relevant counters e.g. disk writes/sec and disk transfers/sec. Then do your real world stuff.
Trouble is I intuitively think the percentage is pretty low, so even running the PC for a couple weeks with it on and them a couple more with it off I don't think I'd be able to positively conclude the difference could be attributed to timestamp writes from the results. I'm not even sure if existing benchmarking software suite could be used to adequately test for this.
Short of having some way to actually run the PC for a month and being able to separate out which writes were timestamps from all the rest and computing a percent that way, I'm skeptical that we'd be able to get a realistic picture of how much this actually uses.
As a programmer, I would first isolate the function that caused the memory leak to begin with. In this case it would be government screwing with people's value judgments.
Its too late for that.
The leak in your critical app is demanding more memory than you have available and you haven't debugged it yet. You can't say "I will isolate and fix the fuction" because it needs memory NOW, and you haven't isolated or fixed it yet.
In this case it would be government screwing with people's value judgments.
No. That's ALREADY solved itself. People's value judgements on what they can afford have undergone sharp correction the last few months and the savings rate in America has gone up.
But that doesn't unwind the commitments they've already made. You can't fix THAT by changing peoples value judgement. Unwinding the commitments is going to take a significant amount of time and pain. And killing your buggy critical service isn't going to help the situation. If anything it will just extend the amount of time and pain.
You can A: take memory from less critical apps to feed it while you continue to search for solutions, and ride out the unwinding and correction.
Or B, let your critical app crash now. (And by critical I mean, -critical-, there is no 'just reboot it' and keep going. If it goes down, its going to be years before you put things back together. You can't afford to choose B. Nobody can.
So you choose A. You have to. There really is no other choice.
In Windows NT/2000/XP, Linux, FreeBSD and a few other operating systems, the O/S by default writes to the drive on every file/directory access to update the "Last Accessed Time".
In most file systems, if not all, I would imagine that these time stamps are stored in the directory "file" itself, not within the actual files in the directory. So its not like every file is being touched every time its accessed, just the folders they are in.
Granted, turning off last access times would reduce writes to the directories themself, and might be of some benefit, but its not quite the insanity you imply.
I'd be very curious to see what percentage of hard disk writes can actually be attributed to this feature in typical real world use, as well as what real benchmark performance gains can be achieved.
"Phenom II"s seems to work.
Nothing is wrong with that. How about 'Phenom II's in single quotes instead of double? That would work too. Of course why bother with the leading single quote? A single quote in the one place its acutally needed to delineate the end of the word from the plural construction is shorter and works just as well.
And besides, the 'apostrophe' serves multiple functions in the english language. That of marking a possessive. And that of marking omissions. (You used it in this form when you wrote "What's" instead of "What is".)
It is also used to help sort out awkward inflections. KO'd for example is a recognized way of writing the past tense of 'Knock Out' appears in the Oxford english dictionary as such.
Its use in something like "Phenom II's" is, in my opinion, entirely consistent with both the latter 2 uses I mentioned for the apostrophe. It assists in resolving the ambiguity that arises when attaching a plural inflection to an abbreviation or product code. It also reflects an omission in that something like the plural of a hyptothetical Phenom IIs that could be expressed as Phenom IIses, but as Phenom IIs's the apostrophe serves both to assist with the inflection, and covers the omission of the e as well.
No. It's Phenom IIses.
Touche.
But how do I differentiate the plural of IIs from the plural of the IIse?
And its not a hypothetical question either...
There is a Porsche 911, plural 911s
There is also an actual 911S. The plural form of that would be 911Ses
But even worse, there is a 911SE, which in plural is also 911SEs
For completeness there is also a 911E, plural 911Es.
As far as I know there is no 911ES... yet.
Personally I think most people agree its practically impossible to keep the 911S separate from all the 911s, or all the 911Ses separate from the 911SEs. Especially since some products don't capitalize the product letters like is usual with Porsche.
Like the Apple IIe for example. If someone talked about the Apple IIes at least half of us would think it was a new 'es' model.
However, it's still considered a sign of illiteracy among educated people.
I'd think intelligent people would be the first to recognize the inadequacy and ambiguity perpetrated by traditional plural forms to abbreviations and product code names. Oh... you said 'educated' not 'intelligent'. Your probably right about 'educated' people.
Phenom IIs is a plural.
Yes, yes, we all know that from grade school. But what happens when AMD launches a "Phenom IIs"
Is the plural Phenum IIss? And even if I write Phenom IIss, most of the readers will immediately wonder if AMD has released a "Phenom IIss"...
The reason the apostrophe is inappropriately used is because it works. When people see Phenom II's, they pronounce it correctly -and- the ambiguity is removed as to whether the "s" is part of the name. The fact that its grammatically/semantically incorrect is an acceptable (to most people) tradeoff.
Language changes, even grammar, and 's appened to product names and abbreviations is becoming understood to mean the plural of a 'non-word'.
No. Not use, but slower the more you write to it. You can read all the time and it doesn't speeds.
Not quite. Once it runs out of completely free blocks, the drives 'hit a wall', and from that point on they are significantly slower to write to.
But it doesn't continue getting slower and slower and slower and slower over time. Just that, at some point, it suddenly becomes x% slower to write to and stays that way.
The author does conclude even at the slowest possible speed the Intel model (he said he did a simulation where by writing to all the blocks at least once) that its still beats HDD.
The intel model is the fastest by far. The Samsung drives are also good. And the OCZ Vector was also good. (Not as good as the intel one, but still 48% faster than the WD veliciraptors, which is seriously still excellent.)
The important point however, is that the units that 'still beats HDD' doesn't mean "a little bit faster". They mean continue to royally spank an HDDs ass.
However, the other models, by comparison, are basically unusable.
Apparently it depends on the controller version which affects the speed. Intel put a good one in and the other brands no so good.
Its FAR more complicated than that by far. And the article is 30+ pages long for a reason. (30+ real pages, not bullshit 'half-paragraph per page' pages.
He said its still noticeable though sometimes.
In the sense that yes, once your drive 'hits the wall' the slow down can be noticeable relative to when it was new... but its still twice as fast to 5x as fast as the fastest alternatives.
There is also stuff the OS can do to mitigate the problem, once we have SSD aware OSes.
Essentially, the reason it slows down, is that once your drive has used all the blocks, it has to erase a block before it can use it again, and this can require it to read multiple pages in, erase the block, and write it back out again, which can take up to half a second.
The better controllers, including extra blocks that aren't reported to the OS, and adding OS awareness to the issue can essentially let the drive stay ahead of the random write requests, and erase blocks before they are needed, to ensure their is always a pool of completely erased and ready to go blocks available, and therefore keep the drive much closer to its 'like new speed' indefinitely.
Mod parent up. This is REALLY the best article I've EVER read about SSD performance. If you are interested in buying an SSD do yourself a favor and read it, and understand it.
Which is a more logical numeric range for representing a perceived continuum from "cold" to "hot": 0 to 100 , or -18 to 38?
I detect bias. I can do that too. Which is the more logical numeric range:
-35 to 35 C or -31 to 104 F
or maybe you live in a more extreme climate...
-45 to 45 C vs -49 to 113 F
with 0C being 'mild' right in the middle.
Those are just as valid ranges as 0 to 100F. Winnipeg's temperature range for example easily runs below -40C in on the coldest winter days to over 40C on the hottest the summer days.
Besides hot and cold are relative. As someone from winnipeg what they consider cold to be, and they'll answer -20C or so. (-4F) Someone from florida will probably pick 10C / 50F.
Its easy to blame the yanks but if their requirements are the same for NZ and China then NZ must already be compliant.
"if their requirements are the same"
They aren't.
Aren't there already anti-stalking laws ?
Yes, but it would be something of a huge stretch to apply them, as written, to google. Nonetheless, I think its the best description of what that much data collection all going to one company amounts to.
Chorusss. Even the name sounds like some sssslithery sssnake trying to weasel a deal out of you even though he dosen't have any handsss for a handssshake.
You had such a great snake metaphor going ... and then you stuck a 'weasel' in it. ;)
Why equate chorus to a snake if you are just going to immediately equate the snake to a weasel?
Substitute "weasel" for something like "squeeze" amd the sentence will flow much better.
Now, were you okay with it? Did you feel any fear, any adrenaline, anything like that? If not, maybe you're not afraid of death.
Or maybe they are just afraid of falling long distances and experiencing the crunch at the bottom.
This will start to cut into Google's bottom line and they will get the message and alter their practices.
The problem isn't googles =practices-. The problem is googles -size-.
I really couldn't care less if a some reasonable percentage of sites I visit all get ads from the same provider using cookies.
I really couldn't care less if a webmail provider could potentially data mine my webmail to serve me ads on the webmail site.
I really couldn't care less if a bunch of sites i visit use the same analytics system.
It bothers me greatly however, that virtually all the sites I visit get ads from the same provider, that also is datamining webmail, and also has a huge piece of the analytics pie. Oh and they want my documents, maps, pictures of my house, and phone call logs too.
Individually each piece is relatively worthless. Its the difference between [seeing what someone at the mall is looking at], and [seeing what someone at the mall is looking at, seeing where they went next, seeing what kind of car they drive, seeing where they live, overhearing their conversations, seeing them at work...] In both cases you are just 'seeing' what people do in public, which isn't a privacy breach... but systematically following people around isn't merely 'seeing them in public'. Its stalking. Its surveillance.
The only regulation that needs to be applied is a sort of 'anti stalking' legislation. It won't affect small/new companies, because they aren't big enough to see enough to cross the stalking threshold.
Meanwhile a company like google would need to be careful, because they effectively are stalking people on the web. Often able to track virtually everything you do on the web.
Like I said, I don't care if google sees me out on the 'public web'. But I don't like being stalked by them everywhere I go.
So Apple is "lying" and inventing a huge legal pretense in order to ask for $10?
Close. In order to reduce customer resistance to paying the upgrade fees. After all, if its not 'apples fault' there is no point in blaming them right? Meanwhile they collect 10$ from a few million units.
Perhaps if Apple wanted to make money on its software, it would charge a lot for it.
Yeah, because we know there isn't any margin on ipods, they're barely scraping by... oh wait.
And how many million do you figure this little update actually cost them to make? I mean the feature list isn't exactly ground breaking... add bluetooth features that should already have been there... and don't forget cut-n-paste I'm sure their engineers worked overtime on working out how that might work.
Of course the last paid update was even better. They offered us the privilege of paying for an update to enable you to use their app store.
To suggest that the $10 fee is egregious is simply absurd. To go on and on about it just makes you a troll. This is not an issue.
Your right. I should really bow down at their brilliance of charging millions of people $10 for a few software patches that from any other company on the face of the earth would be free. But no... their real brilliance is that they've managed to make people like you actually defend them.
What about movies and TV shows? What about storing in Lossless quality?
What about them? One day we'll all want Exabyte iPods. But for right now that's not really the issue. You don't really benefit from lossless on an ipod anyway. And movies and TV shows on an ipod touch? Please. The battery won't even make it through one long movie... never mind plural movies.
Shot that argument down...Cue references to
Except I NEVER said X should be enough for anybody. I simply argued that there are a lot of other priorities (like battery life), or perhaps internet/wifi sync to your home itunes library (you don't need all 10 Terabytes of music with you if you can just download that one song you suddenly want to listen to on the fly), etc, etc that sort of stuff would benefit more people than just more space would.
And no matter how much space you get there will be outliers who need more; at 32GB its pretty much already just the outliers who actually really honestly need more today. And I'm sure we'll see capacity steadily increase and easily keep pace with what the mainstream needs.
Remote Control? For an autopilot? Since when?
Since that is exactly what the the grandparent poster suggested:
But I don't see why we couldn't just have one or two ground-based remote pilots available for emergencies. In the case of a serious failure a senior non-pilot crew member could push a button to enable remote control (hence negating the possibility of a remote attack on the control systems), and someone sitting in a simulator in St. Louis could try to land the plane for them.
you need a visual cue to tell you your hand has gone off the edge of the phone??
To tell me I've I'm at the bottom of the document or list.
If I try and scroll down past the bottom of a document on the iphone, it pushes the document up a bit and stops to show me visually that I'm at the bottom, there is nothing below, when I release it slides back down.
On the storm, it just does nothing.
So if I'm scrolling a long list and arrive at the bottom after moving my finger 3/4s of the way down the screen, the iphone pushes up a bit and shows me I'm at the bottom. The storm just stops scrolling.
So on the iphone I know I'm at the bottom of the list. With the storm I'm not sure if maybe my finger just lost good contact 3/4 of the way through, and have to try another swipe to see if it really won't go down any more.
Yes I know about the scroll bar, but that's not nearly as good feedback, especially in long documents or lists.
Its that they are lying that offends me.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't comment about being legally obligated to charge for it,
But that's the part that needs comment.
And you don't need to be a lawyer. Apple gives away itunes, quicktime, safari to any windows user who cares to download them. That's quite a bit of functionality they just 'give away'. Uh Oh -- Someone better alert the SEC!! They are violating GAAP and SOX!! If they distribute them them for less than $10/download our messiah Steve goes directly to jail!
More like our messiah Steve might have to wear the same turtleneck twice.
Similarly, Microsoft optional updates (ie anything that isn't a security patch) is also 'free functionality'. Then there were those free channels on the Wii, and the Playstation 3 has had several major feature upgrades since release as free downloads to existing customers. The free upgrades for my linksys router that added all kinds of filtering features and what not...
Bottom line: Apple pretends they have to charge to make the charge more palatable to customers. I mean hey, its not apple's fault... damned SEC! damed SOX! damned GAAP! That's dishonest. And so I'm protesting it.