They showed that the non-Intel MLC drives can have some serious performance issues, so I'de stick with an Intel MLC.
If designed correctly, an SSD is actually more reliable than a standard HD, since you know exctly when it's going to fail. Here's some key points from the article on reliability:
page 4:
OEMs wanted assurances that a user could write 20GB of data per day to these drives and still have them last, guaranteed, for five years.... Intel went one step further and delivered 5x what the OEMs requested. Thus Intel will guarantee that you can write 100GB of data to one of its MLC SSDs every day, for the next five years, and your data will remain intact.
Intel actually includes additional space on the drive, on the order of 7.5 - 8% more (6 - 6.4GB on an 80GB drive) specifically for reliability purposes. If you start running out of good blocks to write to (nearing the end of your drive's lifespan), the SSD will write to this additional space on the drive.
page 5:
Intel's SSDs are designed so that when they fail, they attempt to fail on the next erase - so you don't lose data. If the drive can't fail on the next erase, it'll fail on the next program - again, so you don't lose existing data. You'll try and save a file and you'll get an error from the OS saying that the write couldn't be completed.
The beauty here is that the SSD knows exactly when it can't erase/program a block, and if the drive knows, then you can use software to ask the drive what it knows. In the near future Intel will be releasing its own SSD tool that will let you query two SMART attributes on the drive: one telling you how close you are to the rated cycling limit, and one telling you when you've run out of reallocating blocks. The latter is the most important because Intel fully expects these drives to outlast their rated limits. As bad blocks develop, the SSD will mark them as such and write to new ones - by telling you when it has run out of bad blocks (or nearly run out of bad blocks), you'll know exactly when you need a new hard drive.
"Either there is/was some form of intelligent design, or there was not [some form of intelligent design]. These 2 possibilities cover all possible scenarios."
It is logically impossible to come up with even a theoretical explanation for the existence of life that does not fall into one of these two categories. It is not an issue of evidence of another; ALL possible realities have just been covered, by this wide definition. Therefore your following statement is absolutely incorrect:
"There's no evidence yet ruling out more, so it's not neccesarily true that ID must be true if evolution is false and vice versa."
Since these are the only two possibilities, and the Law of Non-Contradiction is true, mutual exclusion therefore also holds, as does my original point. If you wish to discuss this point further, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the laws of logic, as you have blatantly defied them in your prior post.
Ironically, by taking up pragmatic discussion of particular issues, you have admitted that theroies that seem to oppose certain portions of evolutionary theory merit scientific discussion and investigation. On that we agree. However, a slashdot forum is certainly not the ideal location for a comprehensive point-by-point discussion between the two major viewpoints.
I apologize for not making the distinction in my original post between the high-level notion of ID, and the valid scientific theories that point to ID.
At the highest philosophical level, you are correct in that ID is not, by scientific standards, a valid theory. However, to state that any argument supporting ID is also non-scientific, is a classical logical fallacy. This is the fallacy of stating that because something is true of the whole, therefore it must also apply to all of its parts.
To back up one step, there are two possibilities as to how life has come into existence and has attained its current form. Either there is/was some form of intelligent design, or there was not. These 2 possibilities cover all possible scenarios. If there was not any intelligent design, then life came into being by chance. This is logically and scientifically equivalent to stating that evolution is true.
Therefore, either evolution is true, or some form of intelligent design is true. Therefore, by mutual exclusion, if evolution could be proved false, then it would logically follow that some form of intelligent design would have to be true. I use the word "prove" here in the scientific sense, in that scientifically we can never state that we know what the absolute truth of the matter is, only that we have a high degree of certainty as to what the absolute truth is.
Therefore, intelligent design is worthy of mention on scientific grounds if and only if there is valid scientific cause to discredit evolution. Note that the motivations behind the proponents for ID are absolutely irrelevant to this fact. If evolution can be scientifically shown to be false, then it can be scientifically stated with a high degree of certainty that some form of ID is true. Similarly, if there is reasonable scientific doubts with the theory of evolution, then it is scientific to make mention of these doubts. Anyone with the mindset that they will not allow a particular theory to submit itself to the standard procedure of considering its possible flaws is, by definition, exercising bad science.
That said, there are some scientific theories that seem to support evolution, and there are some scientific theories that seem to support ID. Claiming otherwise is a narrow-minded statement born out of ignorance.
The issue, therefore, is not whether or not ID at the highest possible level is scientific. The issue is whether or not the arguments and theories that happen to point to ID are scientific, and that they should be mentioned. This is not an issue of religion as motivation behind ID, but if proper scientific methodology is being applied to evolution.
The lawyers on the side of evolution have done a brilliant job at masking this fact, and the lawyers on the side of ID have done a terrible job of falling right into their trap. The case seems to have been handled very well by the evolution lawyers, and miserably by the ID lawyers.
While the judge is correct in this statement: "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not", he has committed the classical logical fallacy of equating the parts with the whole. If anything makes an effective argument against evolution, then it by necessity points to ID. By stating that any [argument X] that points to ID can be taught on the basis of not being scientific, he is assuming that all [argument X] are inherently non-scientific. Herein lay his logical fallacy, and the result is that any [argument X], regardless of its independent scientific legitimacy, will be labeled as "ID religion", and barred proper scientific merit. This is the very definition of bias towards a particular theory, to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, my original point (edited to reflect the distinction between parts and the whole) still stands, that: "the judge ruled against investigating theories which point to #2, because it disagrees with the assumptions of theory #1."
Our legal system is effectively embarking on a witch-hunt to depose all references to ID and oppositions to evolution, while at the same time covering their eyes, covering their ears, and covering their mouths to "see no evil", "hear no evil", "speak no evil".
You raised a very good point, which there was no plausible answer for until a few years ago.
I strongly suggest the book "Starlight and Time" by Dr. Russell Humphreys.
That you doubt that God would "trick" us by creating the "appearance" of a universe (i.e. light in-transit just for "show") is a very good point. It is, in fact, one of the motivations behind Dr. Humphreys's research.
He has put forth an ID theory that seems to offer a plausable answer to this particular issue. The first section is a layman's version, while the second second section is more technical. (Equations from General Relativity, how they apply, etc)
From my extremely limited knowledge of the case, it seems that the issue (and the judge's job in this case) is not to decide which theory is correct. There are arguments for and against both theories. The issue is whether both theories should be given due investigation.
Both Intelligent Design and Evolution can be considered theories, and both should be examined and researched scientifically. Both have underlying presuppositions. Both sets of assumptions are irrelevant to the veracity of their truthfulness. The assumptions are either true or untrue, regardless of your personal view on said assumptions. (The majority of people have a problem with this point, regardless if they are Christians waving their ID banners, or secularists waving their evolution banners.)
As long as it is possible that a theory's underlying assumptions could be true, then the theory should be scientifically investigated. Since the underlying assumptions of both ID and evolution could be true, they should both be investigated.
Refusing to investigate a particular theory on the basis of its underlying assumptions is bad science. This has happened with evolution before, and the tables are now being turned and it is happening to ID.
Once it is established that either could be true, it becomes an issue of investigating at the evidence for (and against) both, and building scientific arguments on both sides. However, this is not the issue at hand.
The judge seems to have denied the veracity of a theory (ID) on the basis that science can neither prove nor disprove said theory's assumptions. Put another way, the judge ruled against investigating theory #2, because it disagrees with the assumptions of theory #1. This is a textbook definition of bad science, or, in this case, bad politics enforcing bad science. This is a disturbing trend, and is just as bad as when the Catholic Church forbade many scientific advances in the name of religion, during the middle ages.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3403
They showed that the non-Intel MLC drives can have some serious performance issues, so I'de stick with an Intel MLC. If designed correctly, an SSD is actually more reliable than a standard HD, since you know exctly when it's going to fail. Here's some key points from the article on reliability:
page 4: OEMs wanted assurances that a user could write 20GB of data per day to these drives and still have them last, guaranteed, for five years. ... Intel went one step further and delivered 5x what the OEMs requested. Thus Intel will guarantee that you can write 100GB of data to one of its MLC SSDs every day, for the next five years, and your data will remain intact.
Intel actually includes additional space on the drive, on the order of 7.5 - 8% more (6 - 6.4GB on an 80GB drive) specifically for reliability purposes. If you start running out of good blocks to write to (nearing the end of your drive's lifespan), the SSD will write to this additional space on the drive.
page 5: Intel's SSDs are designed so that when they fail, they attempt to fail on the next erase - so you don't lose data. If the drive can't fail on the next erase, it'll fail on the next program - again, so you don't lose existing data. You'll try and save a file and you'll get an error from the OS saying that the write couldn't be completed. The beauty here is that the SSD knows exactly when it can't erase/program a block, and if the drive knows, then you can use software to ask the drive what it knows. In the near future Intel will be releasing its own SSD tool that will let you query two SMART attributes on the drive: one telling you how close you are to the rated cycling limit, and one telling you when you've run out of reallocating blocks. The latter is the most important because Intel fully expects these drives to outlast their rated limits. As bad blocks develop, the SSD will mark them as such and write to new ones - by telling you when it has run out of bad blocks (or nearly run out of bad blocks), you'll know exactly when you need a new hard drive.
Apparently Brisbane (65nm) has a 20-cycle L2 cache latency, vs. the 12-cycle latency from the 90nm versions. http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2893&p=3
To reiterate:
"Either there is/was some form of intelligent design, or there was not [some form of intelligent design]. These 2 possibilities cover all possible scenarios."
It is logically impossible to come up with even a theoretical explanation for the existence of life that does not fall into one of these two categories. It is not an issue of evidence of another; ALL possible realities have just been covered, by this wide definition. Therefore your following statement is absolutely incorrect:
"There's no evidence yet ruling out more, so it's not neccesarily true that ID must be true if evolution is false and vice versa."
Since these are the only two possibilities, and the Law of Non-Contradiction is true, mutual exclusion therefore also holds, as does my original point. If you wish to discuss this point further, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the laws of logic, as you have blatantly defied them in your prior post.
Ironically, by taking up pragmatic discussion of particular issues, you have admitted that theroies that seem to oppose certain portions of evolutionary theory merit scientific discussion and investigation. On that we agree. However, a slashdot forum is certainly not the ideal location for a comprehensive point-by-point discussion between the two major viewpoints.
I apologize for not making the distinction in my original post between the high-level notion of ID, and the valid scientific theories that point to ID.
At the highest philosophical level, you are correct in that ID is not, by scientific standards, a valid theory. However, to state that any argument supporting ID is also non-scientific, is a classical logical fallacy. This is the fallacy of stating that because something is true of the whole, therefore it must also apply to all of its parts.
To back up one step, there are two possibilities as to how life has come into existence and has attained its current form. Either there is/was some form of intelligent design, or there was not. These 2 possibilities cover all possible scenarios. If there was not any intelligent design, then life came into being by chance. This is logically and scientifically equivalent to stating that evolution is true.
Therefore, either evolution is true, or some form of intelligent design is true. Therefore, by mutual exclusion, if evolution could be proved false, then it would logically follow that some form of intelligent design would have to be true. I use the word "prove" here in the scientific sense, in that scientifically we can never state that we know what the absolute truth of the matter is, only that we have a high degree of certainty as to what the absolute truth is.
Therefore, intelligent design is worthy of mention on scientific grounds if and only if there is valid scientific cause to discredit evolution. Note that the motivations behind the proponents for ID are absolutely irrelevant to this fact. If evolution can be scientifically shown to be false, then it can be scientifically stated with a high degree of certainty that some form of ID is true. Similarly, if there is reasonable scientific doubts with the theory of evolution, then it is scientific to make mention of these doubts. Anyone with the mindset that they will not allow a particular theory to submit itself to the standard procedure of considering its possible flaws is, by definition, exercising bad science.
That said, there are some scientific theories that seem to support evolution, and there are some scientific theories that seem to support ID. Claiming otherwise is a narrow-minded statement born out of ignorance.
The issue, therefore, is not whether or not ID at the highest possible level is scientific. The issue is whether or not the arguments and theories that happen to point to ID are scientific, and that they should be mentioned. This is not an issue of religion as motivation behind ID, but if proper scientific methodology is being applied to evolution.
The lawyers on the side of evolution have done a brilliant job at masking this fact, and the lawyers on the side of ID have done a terrible job of falling right into their trap. The case seems to have been handled very well by the evolution lawyers, and miserably by the ID lawyers.
While the judge is correct in this statement: "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not", he has committed the classical logical fallacy of equating the parts with the whole. If anything makes an effective argument against evolution, then it by necessity points to ID. By stating that any [argument X] that points to ID can be taught on the basis of not being scientific, he is assuming that all [argument X] are inherently non-scientific. Herein lay his logical fallacy, and the result is that any [argument X], regardless of its independent scientific legitimacy, will be labeled as "ID religion", and barred proper scientific merit. This is the very definition of bias towards a particular theory, to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, my original point (edited to reflect the distinction between parts and the whole) still stands, that: "the judge ruled against investigating theories which point to #2, because it disagrees with the assumptions of theory #1."
Our legal system is effectively embarking on a witch-hunt to depose all references to ID and oppositions to evolution, while at the same time covering their eyes, covering their ears, and covering their mouths to "see no evil", "hear no evil", "speak no evil".
You raised a very good point, which there was no plausible answer for until a few years ago.
I strongly suggest the book "Starlight and Time" by Dr. Russell Humphreys.
That you doubt that God would "trick" us by creating the "appearance" of a universe (i.e. light in-transit just for "show") is a very good point. It is, in fact, one of the motivations behind Dr. Humphreys's research.
He has put forth an ID theory that seems to offer a plausable answer to this particular issue. The first section is a layman's version, while the second second section is more technical. (Equations from General Relativity, how they apply, etc)
From my extremely limited knowledge of the case, it seems that the issue (and the judge's job in this case) is not to decide which theory is correct. There are arguments for and against both theories. The issue is whether both theories should be given due investigation.
Both Intelligent Design and Evolution can be considered theories, and both should be examined and researched scientifically. Both have underlying presuppositions. Both sets of assumptions are irrelevant to the veracity of their truthfulness. The assumptions are either true or untrue, regardless of your personal view on said assumptions. (The majority of people have a problem with this point, regardless if they are Christians waving their ID banners, or secularists waving their evolution banners.)
As long as it is possible that a theory's underlying assumptions could be true, then the theory should be scientifically investigated. Since the underlying assumptions of both ID and evolution could be true, they should both be investigated.
Refusing to investigate a particular theory on the basis of its underlying assumptions is bad science. This has happened with evolution before, and the tables are now being turned and it is happening to ID.
Once it is established that either could be true, it becomes an issue of investigating at the evidence for (and against) both, and building scientific arguments on both sides. However, this is not the issue at hand.
The judge seems to have denied the veracity of a theory (ID) on the basis that science can neither prove nor disprove said theory's assumptions. Put another way, the judge ruled against investigating theory #2, because it disagrees with the assumptions of theory #1. This is a textbook definition of bad science, or, in this case, bad politics enforcing bad science. This is a disturbing trend, and is just as bad as when the Catholic Church forbade many scientific advances in the name of religion, during the middle ages.