"This completely misses the whole point of RAID 1, which is to always have two copies of your files, even the most recent ones."
You can do Raid 1 with external drives it doesn't require internal drives. But RAID is not real backup anyhow. I would never simply use RAID 1 and assume my files were safe. Everyone should have their files backed up minimally 2 ways.
The reason I don't use RAID 1 on my main system or laptop is that such a thing is not really necessary in my case. My important working files are not stored on my main system or laptop drive but on a network with NAS devices. I do have some files I want to keep handy on the system drive and I never want to have downtime which is one reason I do have a bootable USB 3 drive as a backup mirror with incremental backups setup. If my system fails, I just boot with my external so I can keep working by simply rebooting my system. All changes to the drive are backed up nightly. And changes to the drive are backed up to Crashplan. Archived files are stored on optical media in a firebox. The bootable mirrored drive solution works well for me although I have not been forced to do it yet.
The only other tier of redundancy I think could be needed is a complete Time Machine backup drive so that I can maintain older versions of files I have modified and saved so I can retrieve older versions if needed. Thus far, I have not needed to do this so I have not proceeded with this idea yet.
Also it is important to remember no RAID level is a backup solution. Files can get corrupted before one realizes, drives can get damaged, other hardware on your RAID can render it unreadable, the OS managing a RAID device can get corrupted. There are lots of things that can finish off your data when you have a live powered RAID system. Sometimes sticking your most important stuff on backup BluRays in a firebox is even better than a live RAID device. I have lost photos on my RAID devices in the past, but with periodic optical backups I have been able to go back and retrieve lost versions of those files.
"Having to manually do backups suck."
Not much in the backup process for bootable mirroring is manual unless one feels one wants to make it that way. One can usually setup automatic backup mirroring that is incremental. This way one always have a mirrored backup.....not once a month but daily and not manual but automated. It is simply how you want to setup things in your software. Not a pain at all. Burning to optical media is always a labor intensive manual process though.
"Sounds like you would be better with real RAID1. How many wires do you connect to your laptop?"
I don't need RAID 1 for my system or my laptop. I have working files stored offsite and on RAID 5 NAS's and I have important archives in a drive in a firebox and I swap it out periodically with another drive I do incremental archival updates on.
I don't usually use my laptop except when travelling and sometimes I plug a couple things into it as needed. My main system has 2 drives plugged in currently. My mirrored backup drive and the old mirror of the system I ran 6 months ago. I am still migrating some things as I find I need them. And I keep my phone USB plugged in to charge my phone. Everything else is wireless. So 3 wires plug into the back of my AIW main system + power + ethernet. Sometimes I plug in a BD burner as needed.The only wire I can actually see is my phone charger cable since I plug it in alot.
My systems are more like working terminal machines and not a storage devices. Other than the OS, programs and some personal files, all storage is external.
For the laptop I occasionally use a couple of 2.5" external drives mirrored and rubber banded together for offloading photos from shoots. (Can't be too careful when a graduation or wedding shoot are at stake.) I can plug in the card reader and the mirrored drives and pipe the photos directly to the drives when I need to offload my cards. I have 2 memory cards mirrored in each camera and once cards are fu
I prefer low electricity systems myself. Started using small Shuttle boxes to build my systems back in the day because of that. Today there are much smaller energy use systems.
I always run a PC VM on my mac simply because I don't like having a big box anymore. Works well for my old legacy software. Even run XP more than 7 still. What I dino I am.
It is nice to have the 2 sizes of tablets. It is nice to have consistently high quality for both. It is something I have come to appreciate as I get older. I don't like things breaking easily. A friends nook died after it slid onto the floor when she lost her grip once. Kind of pricey for a single mistake. My kids have dropped the iPad numerous times and there are barely any marks. I hope they get a bit less fumble fingered.
To me it is worth a bit of a premium for such things.
I bought a $300 Dell to make a Hackintosh for the kids, but it quickly became so underpowered that it doesn't really make sense to do such a thing any longer. Nice project, but cheaper and underpowered is not very worthwhile. I will be replacing it with a used MBA from eBay. The prices on the older ones will plummet now that the newest ones are out., but old MBA's are still more usable for my kids than the cheapie Dell Hackintosh.
That is impressive. I didn't know that. That does argue for a sizeable markup on Apple products however. And yet I think the price premium is largely a bit overblown.
I have both and SSD and and HDD in my computer, but I don't really need more than that in the computer itself these days. I used to build server systems with up to 8 drives and stacks of optical drives, but they were loud and power hungry. I just don't do this sort of thing anymore. I like things spread around a bit these days.
Why is Raid 1 expensive? Certainly throwing an additional drive to mirror your internal drive is useful if you have the space, but it isn't really paramount to have an extra internal drive. One can do a RAID 1 -alike approach by simply having a single inexpensive external drive that you make into an exact bootable copy of your internal drive. This works well for those with laptops or even some small PC's or AIW's. It doesn't really seem to make things excessively messy for most people.
I have a couple of 4 Drive RAID Arrays which work well for my work. But I also have a single USB3 drive that I have as a bootable mirror of my main system so I don't lose down time. Not much more cost than sticking a drive inside your box. And I can throw it into a drawer between backups. That way I am not sucking down power unless I want to.
If you have a 2.5" drive you don't need external power. I have even seen external 3-4 drive 2.5" arrays that didn't require external power I believe. I don't own one of those since I need more space. You are right... for anything with 3.5" drives there needs to be a power cable.
None of my RAID arrays makes my desktop messier since they are NAS devices and are not placed near my desktop. Even if they were thunderbolt arrays I would not set them on my desktop, but in a cabinet a bit away from my machine. My desktop simply has my AIW, a bluetooth keyboard and a bluetooth mouse. And yet I have lots of external devices that make my system more powerful.
Even so, I guess I wouldn't think of a stack of drives in an enclosure stacked under my desktop any worse than having the usual PC box stacked under my desktop.
"Unless you want to take it with you all the time, without carrying your PC, it should be internal. It's cheaper, cleaner, and often faster." I need to take drives with me all the time. I need lightweight and portable, but I am not really the casual user.
Internal can certainly be a bit cheaper, but external USB 3 are not expensive. I don't think of having a big box as cleaner. Having a nice big monitor, a MBA, and a single drive is cleaner looking than a typical PC box scenario in my view. It certainly occupies less space overall.
I don't think eSATA is much faster than USB 3 if at all and certainly it is not faster than Thunderbolt. That is the beauty of the new interfaces. They are as fast as having internal drives for the most part, but you can take your drive with you to use on multiple machines. You can even take your bootable drive with you and run your own system on another computer by booting off of the external.
And once more, I am not the casual user. Most of the casual users I know have a rather simple setup of a single box, monitor, mouse, keyboard and speakers. Some have a USB external drive they store their most prized photos on and throw in a drawer for backup. The great thing about the USB3 or Thunderbolt paradigm is one no longer has to be locked into having to throw everything into one big box as the only way to get practical expansion. Now expansion can be done outside the box. This makes for greater flexibility in my view.
The thing is that once smartphones become a $20 buck commodity there will be some new whiz-bang item that everyone finds they "need". The next paradigm will be where it is all at once smartphones play themselves out..... which could be in the next 4-6 years. Some argue even sooner.
But what will be the next big ticket item which will bleed peoples wallets? Likely, Apple won't create whatever it is, but they certainly seem to have a track record of coming late to a market and making a product that will move people to separate cash from their wallets. I don't see this changing anytime soon. Apple is great at re-designing products. They seem fairly adept at evolving products into something better than is currently out there.
My PJBox is still better sounding than any iPod and very functional for me at least, but there were hundreds of other products on the market by the time Apple came up with the iPod and yet the iPod quickly became the dominant mp3 player.... but not just that... the iPod led to other ways of doing things that have changed how everyone thinks of media in general. The iPod changed the entire utilization of music and other media.
I think this is useful even if you don't own or care for apple products.
I think apple will always have a presence in the Smartphone market as they do in basically every market they have participated in. It won't be as large as it is perhaps as the market becomes commoditized, but they still will focus on pushing the barriers of the higher end range of the market. As you point out, as long as the ecosystem is still functioning, Apple will not diminish in the market beyond a certain threshhold.
I'm happy to see Apple still working hard on the computer segment of their business. New MBA's, iMacs, MacPro's are all signs of a company still engaged in the market. I don't see this changing anytime soon either.
Hmmmm..... would that be why people would buy a MBA or any other thin notebook... to surf the web and watch video?
If that were true then may be you are right and people would be better off with a nook.
But I think that somehow computers offer greater functionality than $250 tablets. Many people I know who buy thin computers need greater battery life as they are on the move a lot and need the power of a computer since where-ever they are is in fact their office.
I concur ugly. I think people don't really understand that Thunderbolt is useful as was Firewire. Thunderbolt is a great replacement for Firewire. People who don't work in media may not need it, but firewire was needed in the A/V business.
Key word being business. The large bulk of peripherals for Thunderbolt are for professionals and businesses who can write this stuff off.
USB 3.0 is nice too, but Thunderbolt is versatile for professionals.
Tablets may even shrink to 20%. Smart phones may shrink to 20%. PC's may grow to 20%. Apple offers only higher end products, so I would never expect them to have the greatest percentage of the market. Only if they come up with some other innovation will they get to 70+% of the market for a while...but then others will commoditize it and Apples share of the market will drop.
When bad news is equal to more than 6 billion in profits though, that is a good sign for any industry. Market share is meaningful, but not the entire story really.
People that need arrays are not usually the casual user. Casual users look for a cheap computer to fit their needs at best buy or something. A single drive in the machine is what they need maybe with some sort of external backup if they value their files.
People who buy arrays of fast hard drives and expensive machines are usually using them for their business and can write them off as an expense.
I have a bunch of NAS arrays and external drives.... yes I suppose they are premium items, but I need them for work and they are not even apple products.
BTW... not all Thunderbolt drives do require external power.
? you can buy lots of things for less. That doesn't mean they are equivalent. If one does a comparison of the specs one may find an ultrabook that comes close to the MBA for around the same price. But you won't be finding any $400 dollar netbooks, notebooks, ultrabooks that have the same specs currently. In 6 months or 1 year..... you might.... but not right now.
Ok... not 'everyone'... most people. My words reflect that most everyone whom I was dealing with in clinics did in fact have the Triple Screen test back 15 or so years ago when I was doing medicine. Some may choose to forgo the test, but in my experience most choose to have the test. Since it is a blood test, the expense is not too much for most people, most insurance will pay for the test, and many states pay for the screen for the medically underserved.
All tests are elective. The difference with this one is that it is not one of the basic battery of tests given to all pregnant women who consent to undergo the basic battery of tests. However, this test is recommended for all pregnant women and as such should be offered to all pregnant women.
Nobody said anything about a screening test being definitive. The test is sensitive to pick up more people, but not entirely specific. It is a screen test and 1-2 % come back with a positive result indicating more testing may need to be done, but there are quite a few false positives as you state.
Most people do not have a simple AFP. High AFP results are more specific to neural tube defects. Triple screens were more common when I was involved in medicine. Quad screens and beyond are what is done now I believe. Each time a marker is added to the screen it increases the accuracy of finding a potential problem of the various possible problems... but these are screening tests after all. With positive results followup testing should be done.
You are talking about amniocentesis. That is never a first test. The test I am talking about is the simple blood draw test called the quad screen or marker screen. Quad is done on most mothers and is relatively cost effective way of eliminating people from the risk pool of those with genetic malformations and trisomy's and such.
All tests are optional in the sense that one doesn't really have to get any testing. The quad screen is more supplemental to the basic battery of testing that goes on, but the quad screen should be offered to all pregnant women. Did you end up doing the test would be my question?
Most women that we offered the test to decided to go ahead with it in my experience. Most women in the poor clinic I was at had the old triple screen as well. We always checked for the results to drop just as with any of the other testing done.
What is not true? That most women get a quad screen these days? I don't have statistics on it, but I would warrant that this simple blood test has a relatively high amount of use during pregnancy since it is not harmful to the pregnancy, but can yield valuable information.
There are no automatic tests done without consent of a patient. I never said the quad screen was part of the basic battery of tests. But it is one of the tests recommended to be offered to All pregnant women. If something is recommended to all pregnant women, then in my book that seems pretty standard, but your definition might be different or your experience might be different.
In my experience all women offered the test did the test since it is a simple blood draw and of no risk to the fetus. Most insurance seems to cover the test, but even if not, the cost ($150) is not over the top for many folks who are interested in having some peace of mind. So even though it is not one of the "automatically" done tests, it is done for most women that I have encountered in the hospitals I worked at. We looked for the triple screen completion with every patient back in the day. Not everyone had it, but most seemed to.
As to the automaticity of testing, patients have to agree to every test there are no tests that are actually automatically done. There are tests considered routine for every pregnant woman, but even with these one has to agree to them. Nobody can even do a blood draw without the person consenting, but since most people are going to a doctor to be helped with managing their pregnancy they agree to do the standard battery of tests which help the doctor with managing the case.
Quad screen is not simply a test for Downs Syndrome. It is looking for other anomalies as well. Trisomy 18, spina bifida, anencephaly, and other genetic abnormalities. In my experience most every pregnant women I know of does this test to find out whether they have a healthy pregnancy is all I assert. Other people may have differing experiences with this testing. But it is a safe test for the baby and although the test itself not entirely accurate, since it is a broad based screening test, does provide some peace of mind for patients.
Quad screen is a blood test for 4 separate markers. Luckily on 1-2% of people have a positive test and at that point they have to weigh their options. Ultrasounds and other testing may be recommended but generally amniocentesis is one of the ultimate recommended courses of action. This has a chance of terminating the pregnancy so families need to weigh the option of what they want to do.
I presume the amniocentesis is the secondary test you say has a risk of causing miscarriage, but it was not me who said they do it as a standard test. There is nothing standard about something that can lead to miscarriage.
Yes you are right that the test is optional, but so are all medical things. People need to say yes before anything can be done in most cases. You have to choose to have ultrasounds, take prenatal vitamins, go to the hospital to have the baby. People Opt in to most of the recommendations their doctors give them since doctors are paid for their up to date expertise in their discipline.
In my experience most women chose to have the screening done since it is a simple blood test. When most ask what the tests are for, they choose to opt in because of natural desire to know if there is something wrong or not early on. It is simply a peace of mind thing.... not completely necessary since the vast majority of women will have healthy babies. And the screening is useful even if one eventually ends up with a Downs syndrome baby which you choose to carry to term. Couples have a chance to learn about the issues involved with such a decision and plan for the future somewhat.
When I was on OB rotations I don't really remember anyone not having the Triple screen, even though most of the patients I was dealing with were urban poor women many of whom were on various forms of public support. Among the rest of women with insurance and such, most don't think twice about opting in for the screening.
Not if you don't believe in medical care, but in general everyone gets a screening test so they know if the baby is viable or has any number of problems.
Nearly all of the apps on my kids iPad grandma gifted them are free. We have bought only a handful of educational ones we deemed to be useful in filling their brains with knowledge. We have over the past couple of years sifted through roughly 500 educational programs which were all free.
I think iOS users spending more on apps does not demonstrate there are fewer free apps. I do think it means that people who buy iOS devices are willing to spend money on apps though. Spending more is not equivalent to fewer free apps in Apples store. There may in fact be fewer free apps in apples store, but the corollary doesn't seem very tight to me.
Funny how it is a conservative media buzzword at the moment. My dad who listens to Rush, Hannity, et all non-stop has started using "Low information Voter" to describe basically everyone he doesn't seem to agree with. Basically it is an odd Ad hominem attack against a generalized group of people one takes issue with.
Reminds me of when the Liberals where slinging around phrases like republitards or conservatives slinging around phrases like libtards. Perhaps more crude and organic, but never-the-less pat phrases which are generalizations. The phrase seems pretty pat when it is a recent and popularized conservative media buzzword to run-down a entire groups of people, but then again your experience may vary. One group calling the other group "Low Information" is pretty much a nice tidy label for your political opponents which entirely ignores the fact that almost everyone is "low information".
"Odd that I can pay attention to both Canadian and American politics at a level where I know what's going on. High consumption of politics isn't required, at most 35mins a day, on the most highly trafficked political sites will get you up to a "medium" level voter."
Do you know whats going on? That is a fairly large assumption. I take the opposite view myself. I don't know most of what is going on. Getting truth out of propaganda is a tricky business. If you think 35 min a day gets you to a medium level of knowledge of politics... then you definitely have a low bar of expectation of actual understanding. Even more so given that you are relying on this knowledge from a few "highly trafficked political" sites. It often takes me many hours of research to look at what folks are saying and verify if it has any merit at all. Even after checking things out I often am not certain what the real story is. But then again, l tend to be skeptical about what is being fed to me.
Being fed your political regurgitations from some websites informs you up to a certain level, but real understanding is much harder to come by.
"They're the people who don't really have an interest in politics at all, but are easily swayed by blasts of information for either or both parties. Which fit their viewpoint."
I think you could say the same thing about partisans. Are partisan voter generally more informed in your estimation? Seems to me that most people don't have much of the actual information. I get pat stuff from both sides of the political aisle all the time which makes no sense what-so-ever. In the end it turns out to be just propaganda and not real information.
In my view, partisans usually don't have much interest in politics other than getting all bunched up about this or that thing every so often. Partisans are the ones who have drunk the coolaid and don't seem to have much ability to think outside of their info food chains. If they get a piece of information... they spend a huge amount of effort to make it fit their world view.
Low information voter is simply not being used to describe swing voters as seems to be your assertion. Here is what Rush Limbaugh said for your edification. "Low-information voters are clearly people that don't have all the information available to make a voting choice. That's all they are. And they're all over the place. And most of them do vote Democrat. Most of them did vote for Obama. It's not a comment on their intelligence. It's not that they're stupid or don't understand the issues. They just haven't had it all explained to them."
So... if these voters had things "explained" to them somehow make them better voters? Probably not. It depends on who is explaining and whether the information they are using is actual and not propaganda. I prefer to not digest pre-digested information from a few top political sites which are almost entirely partisan propaganda machines. The information is out there, but it usually is not found on highly trafficked political sites.
Sounds like a nice idea, but on a practical, real-world level completely impossible. The problem is that people are involved in the equation and there could never be a consensus to adhere to separation of dogma like libertarian at the federal level and/or socialist at the local level. Even though I am a libertarian, I realize that my ideas generally are in the minority and have been so for longer than my whole life.
All voters are low information. There simply is not the time to be a high or even medium information voter.
Btw.... terms like "low information voter" are just more pat phrases invented by the machine to distract and isolate the citizens. Easier to control the masses by creating buzzwords that blame everyone but oneself.
"... if engaged in hunting at the time then the guns could be confiscated as well."
And by hunting you mean poaching by the side of the road. Poachers should have their guns confiscated. All gun owners need to be responsible and obey the laws. Just because you don't like this law or that law doesn't mean you get to ignore it.
Slashdot Mirror
not sure what you are meaning about tv broadcasts from the past 80 years? clarification.
commenting on news stories is worthless? how so?
That is the only reason I pick up cable part of the year anymore.....American College Football.
Finally, I will be able to drop cable entirely.
"This completely misses the whole point of RAID 1, which is to always have two copies of your files, even the most recent ones."
You can do Raid 1 with external drives it doesn't require internal drives. But RAID is not real backup anyhow. I would never simply use RAID 1 and assume my files were safe. Everyone should have their files backed up minimally 2 ways.
The reason I don't use RAID 1 on my main system or laptop is that such a thing is not really necessary in my case. My important working files are not stored on my main system or laptop drive but on a network with NAS devices. I do have some files I want to keep handy on the system drive and I never want to have downtime which is one reason I do have a bootable USB 3 drive as a backup mirror with incremental backups setup. If my system fails, I just boot with my external so I can keep working by simply rebooting my system. All changes to the drive are backed up nightly. And changes to the drive are backed up to Crashplan. Archived files are stored on optical media in a firebox. The bootable mirrored drive solution works well for me although I have not been forced to do it yet.
The only other tier of redundancy I think could be needed is a complete Time Machine backup drive so that I can maintain older versions of files I have modified and saved so I can retrieve older versions if needed. Thus far, I have not needed to do this so I have not proceeded with this idea yet.
Also it is important to remember no RAID level is a backup solution. Files can get corrupted before one realizes, drives can get damaged, other hardware on your RAID can render it unreadable, the OS managing a RAID device can get corrupted. There are lots of things that can finish off your data when you have a live powered RAID system. Sometimes sticking your most important stuff on backup BluRays in a firebox is even better than a live RAID device. I have lost photos on my RAID devices in the past, but with periodic optical backups I have been able to go back and retrieve lost versions of those files.
"Having to manually do backups suck."
Not much in the backup process for bootable mirroring is manual unless one feels one wants to make it that way. One can usually setup automatic backup mirroring that is incremental. This way one always have a mirrored backup.....not once a month but daily and not manual but automated. It is simply how you want to setup things in your software. Not a pain at all. Burning to optical media is always a labor intensive manual process though.
"Sounds like you would be better with real RAID1. How many wires do you connect to your laptop?"
I don't need RAID 1 for my system or my laptop.
I have working files stored offsite and on RAID 5 NAS's and I have important archives in a drive in a firebox and I swap it out periodically with another drive I do incremental archival updates on.
I don't usually use my laptop except when travelling and sometimes I plug a couple things into it as needed.
My main system has 2 drives plugged in currently. My mirrored backup drive and the old mirror of the system I ran 6 months ago. I am still migrating some things as I find I need them. And I keep my phone USB plugged in to charge my phone. Everything else is wireless. So 3 wires plug into the back of my AIW main system + power + ethernet. Sometimes I plug in a BD burner as needed.The only wire I can actually see is my phone charger cable since I plug it in alot.
My systems are more like working terminal machines and not a storage devices. Other than the OS, programs and some personal files, all storage is external.
For the laptop I occasionally use a couple of 2.5" external drives mirrored and rubber banded together for offloading photos from shoots. (Can't be too careful when a graduation or wedding shoot are at stake.) I can plug in the card reader and the mirrored drives and pipe the photos directly to the drives when I need to offload my cards. I have 2 memory cards mirrored in each camera and once cards are fu
I prefer low electricity systems myself. Started using small Shuttle boxes to build my systems back in the day because of that. Today there are much smaller energy use systems.
I always run a PC VM on my mac simply because I don't like having a big box anymore. Works well for my old legacy software.
Even run XP more than 7 still. What I dino I am.
I have heard good things about the Kindles.
It is nice to have the 2 sizes of tablets. It is nice to have consistently high quality for both.
It is something I have come to appreciate as I get older. I don't like things breaking easily.
A friends nook died after it slid onto the floor when she lost her grip once. Kind of pricey for a single mistake.
My kids have dropped the iPad numerous times and there are barely any marks. I hope they get a bit less fumble fingered.
To me it is worth a bit of a premium for such things.
I bought a $300 Dell to make a Hackintosh for the kids, but it quickly became so underpowered that it doesn't really make sense to do such a thing any longer. Nice project, but cheaper and underpowered is not very worthwhile. I will be replacing it with a used MBA from eBay. The prices on the older ones will plummet now that the newest ones are out., but old MBA's are still more usable for my kids than the cheapie Dell Hackintosh.
That is impressive. I didn't know that.
That does argue for a sizeable markup on Apple products however.
And yet I think the price premium is largely a bit overblown.
I have both and SSD and and HDD in my computer, but I don't really need more than that in the computer itself these days. I used to build server systems with up to 8 drives and stacks of optical drives, but they were loud and power hungry. I just don't do this sort of thing anymore. I like things spread around a bit these days.
Why is Raid 1 expensive? Certainly throwing an additional drive to mirror your internal drive is useful if you have the space, but it isn't really paramount to have an extra internal drive.
One can do a RAID 1 -alike approach by simply having a single inexpensive external drive that you make into an exact bootable copy of your internal drive.
This works well for those with laptops or even some small PC's or AIW's. It doesn't really seem to make things excessively messy for most people.
I have a couple of 4 Drive RAID Arrays which work well for my work.
But I also have a single USB3 drive that I have as a bootable mirror of my main system so I don't lose down time.
Not much more cost than sticking a drive inside your box. And I can throw it into a drawer between backups. That way I am not sucking down power unless I want to.
If you have a 2.5" drive you don't need external power. I have even seen external 3-4 drive 2.5" arrays that didn't require external power I believe. I don't own one of those since I need more space. You are right... for anything with 3.5" drives there needs to be a power cable.
None of my RAID arrays makes my desktop messier since they are NAS devices and are not placed near my desktop. Even if they were thunderbolt arrays I would not set them on my desktop, but in a cabinet a bit away from my machine. My desktop simply has my AIW, a bluetooth keyboard and a bluetooth mouse. And yet I have lots of external devices that make my system more powerful.
Even so, I guess I wouldn't think of a stack of drives in an enclosure stacked under my desktop any worse than having the usual PC box stacked under my desktop.
"Unless you want to take it with you all the time, without carrying your PC, it should be internal. It's cheaper, cleaner, and often faster."
I need to take drives with me all the time. I need lightweight and portable, but I am not really the casual user.
Internal can certainly be a bit cheaper, but external USB 3 are not expensive. I don't think of having a big box as cleaner.
Having a nice big monitor, a MBA, and a single drive is cleaner looking than a typical PC box scenario in my view. It certainly occupies less space overall.
I don't think eSATA is much faster than USB 3 if at all and certainly it is not faster than Thunderbolt. That is the beauty of the new interfaces. They are as fast as having internal drives for the most part, but you can take your drive with you to use on multiple machines. You can even take your bootable drive with you and run your own system on another computer by booting off of the external.
And once more, I am not the casual user.
Most of the casual users I know have a rather simple setup of a single box, monitor, mouse, keyboard and speakers. Some have a USB external drive they store their most prized photos on and throw in a drawer for backup. The great thing about the USB3 or Thunderbolt paradigm is one no longer has to be locked into having to throw everything into one big box as the only way to get practical expansion. Now expansion can be done outside the box. This makes for greater flexibility in my view.
The thing is that once smartphones become a $20 buck commodity there will be some new whiz-bang item that everyone finds they "need".
The next paradigm will be where it is all at once smartphones play themselves out..... which could be in the next 4-6 years. Some argue even sooner.
But what will be the next big ticket item which will bleed peoples wallets?
Likely, Apple won't create whatever it is, but they certainly seem to have a track record of coming late to a market and making a product that will move people to separate cash from their wallets. I don't see this changing anytime soon. Apple is great at re-designing products. They seem fairly adept at evolving products into something better than is currently out there.
My PJBox is still better sounding than any iPod and very functional for me at least, but there were hundreds of other products on the market by the time Apple came up with the iPod and yet the iPod quickly became the dominant mp3 player.... but not just that... the iPod led to other ways of doing things that have changed how everyone thinks of media in general. The iPod changed the entire utilization of music and other media.
I think this is useful even if you don't own or care for apple products.
I think apple will always have a presence in the Smartphone market as they do in basically every market they have participated in. It won't be as large as it is perhaps as the market becomes commoditized, but they still will focus on pushing the barriers of the higher end range of the market. As you point out, as long as the ecosystem is still functioning, Apple will not diminish in the market beyond a certain threshhold.
I'm happy to see Apple still working hard on the computer segment of their business. New MBA's, iMacs, MacPro's are all signs of a company still engaged in the market. I don't see this changing anytime soon either.
Hmmmm..... would that be why people would buy a MBA or any other thin notebook... to surf the web and watch video?
If that were true then may be you are right and people would be better off with a nook.
But I think that somehow computers offer greater functionality than $250 tablets.
Many people I know who buy thin computers need greater battery life as they are on the move a lot and need the power of a computer since where-ever they are is in fact their office.
I concur ugly.
I think people don't really understand that Thunderbolt is useful as was Firewire. Thunderbolt is a great replacement for Firewire.
People who don't work in media may not need it, but firewire was needed in the A/V business.
Key word being business.
The large bulk of peripherals for Thunderbolt are for professionals and businesses who can write this stuff off.
USB 3.0 is nice too, but Thunderbolt is versatile for professionals.
You are right Mighty....
Tablets may even shrink to 20%. Smart phones may shrink to 20%. PC's may grow to 20%.
Apple offers only higher end products, so I would never expect them to have the greatest percentage of the market.
Only if they come up with some other innovation will they get to 70+% of the market for a while...but then others will commoditize it and Apples share of the market will drop.
When bad news is equal to more than 6 billion in profits though, that is a good sign for any industry. Market share is meaningful, but not the entire story really.
?? Apple Premium??
People that need arrays are not usually the casual user.
Casual users look for a cheap computer to fit their needs at best buy or something. A single drive in the machine is what they need maybe with some sort of external backup if they value their files.
People who buy arrays of fast hard drives and expensive machines are usually using them for their business and can write them off as an expense.
I have a bunch of NAS arrays and external drives.... yes I suppose they are premium items, but I need them for work and they are not even apple products.
BTW... not all Thunderbolt drives do require external power.
? you can buy lots of things for less. That doesn't mean they are equivalent.
If one does a comparison of the specs one may find an ultrabook that comes close to the MBA for around the same price.
But you won't be finding any $400 dollar netbooks, notebooks, ultrabooks that have the same specs currently.
In 6 months or 1 year..... you might.... but not right now.
Ok... not 'everyone'... most people. My words reflect that most everyone whom I was dealing with in clinics did in fact have the Triple Screen test back 15 or so years ago when I was doing medicine. Some may choose to forgo the test, but in my experience most choose to have the test. Since it is a blood test, the expense is not too much for most people, most insurance will pay for the test, and many states pay for the screen for the medically underserved.
All tests are elective. The difference with this one is that it is not one of the basic battery of tests given to all pregnant women who consent to undergo the basic battery of tests. However, this test is recommended for all pregnant women and as such should be offered to all pregnant women.
Nobody said anything about a screening test being definitive. The test is sensitive to pick up more people, but not entirely specific. It is a screen test and 1-2 % come back with a positive result indicating more testing may need to be done, but there are quite a few false positives as you state.
Most people do not have a simple AFP. High AFP results are more specific to neural tube defects. Triple screens were more common when I was involved in medicine. Quad screens and beyond are what is done now I believe. Each time a marker is added to the screen it increases the accuracy of finding a potential problem of the various possible problems... but these are screening tests after all. With positive results followup testing should be done.
You are talking about amniocentesis. That is never a first test. The test I am talking about is the simple blood draw test called the quad screen or marker screen.
Quad is done on most mothers and is relatively cost effective way of eliminating people from the risk pool of those with genetic malformations and trisomy's and such.
All tests are optional in the sense that one doesn't really have to get any testing.
The quad screen is more supplemental to the basic battery of testing that goes on, but the quad screen should be offered to all pregnant women.
Did you end up doing the test would be my question?
Most women that we offered the test to decided to go ahead with it in my experience.
Most women in the poor clinic I was at had the old triple screen as well.
We always checked for the results to drop just as with any of the other testing done.
What is not true? That most women get a quad screen these days? I don't have statistics on it, but I would warrant that this simple blood test has a relatively high amount of use during pregnancy since it is not harmful to the pregnancy, but can yield valuable information.
There are no automatic tests done without consent of a patient. I never said the quad screen was part of the basic battery of tests. But it is one of the tests recommended to be offered to All pregnant women. If something is recommended to all pregnant women, then in my book that seems pretty standard, but your definition might be different or your experience might be different.
In my experience all women offered the test did the test since it is a simple blood draw and of no risk to the fetus. Most insurance seems to cover the test, but even if not, the cost ($150) is not over the top for many folks who are interested in having some peace of mind. So even though it is not one of the "automatically" done tests, it is done for most women that I have encountered in the hospitals I worked at. We looked for the triple screen completion with every patient back in the day. Not everyone had it, but most seemed to.
As to the automaticity of testing, patients have to agree to every test there are no tests that are actually automatically done. There are tests considered routine for every pregnant woman, but even with these one has to agree to them. Nobody can even do a blood draw without the person consenting, but since most people are going to a doctor to be helped with managing their pregnancy they agree to do the standard battery of tests which help the doctor with managing the case.
Quad screen is not simply a test for Downs Syndrome. It is looking for other anomalies as well. Trisomy 18, spina bifida, anencephaly, and other genetic abnormalities.
In my experience most every pregnant women I know of does this test to find out whether they have a healthy pregnancy is all I assert. Other people may have differing experiences with this testing. But it is a safe test for the baby and although the test itself not entirely accurate, since it is a broad based screening test, does provide some peace of mind for patients.
Quad screen is a blood test for 4 separate markers. Luckily on 1-2% of people have a positive test and at that point they have to weigh their options. Ultrasounds and other testing may be recommended but generally amniocentesis is one of the ultimate recommended courses of action. This has a chance of terminating the pregnancy so families need to weigh the option of what they want to do.
I presume the amniocentesis is the secondary test you say has a risk of causing miscarriage, but it was not me who said they do it as a standard test. There is nothing standard about something that can lead to miscarriage.
Yes you are right that the test is optional, but so are all medical things. People need to say yes before anything can be done in most cases. You have to choose to have ultrasounds, take prenatal vitamins, go to the hospital to have the baby. People Opt in to most of the recommendations their doctors give them since doctors are paid for their up to date expertise in their discipline.
In my experience most women chose to have the screening done since it is a simple blood test. When most ask what the tests are for, they choose to opt in because of natural desire to know if there is something wrong or not early on. It is simply a peace of mind thing.... not completely necessary since the vast majority of women will have healthy babies. And the screening is useful even if one eventually ends up with a Downs syndrome baby which you choose to carry to term. Couples have a chance to learn about the issues involved with such a decision and plan for the future somewhat.
When I was on OB rotations I don't really remember anyone not having the Triple screen, even though most of the patients I was dealing with were urban poor women many of whom were on various forms of public support. Among the rest of women with insurance and such, most don't think twice about opting in for the screening.
The screening is valuable
Not if you don't believe in medical care, but in general everyone gets a screening test so they know if the baby is viable or has any number of problems.
Nearly all of the apps on my kids iPad grandma gifted them are free. We have bought only a handful of educational ones we deemed to be useful in filling their brains with knowledge. We have over the past couple of years sifted through roughly 500 educational programs which were all free.
I think iOS users spending more on apps does not demonstrate there are fewer free apps. I do think it means that people who buy iOS devices are willing to spend money on apps though.
Spending more is not equivalent to fewer free apps in Apples store.
There may in fact be fewer free apps in apples store, but the corollary doesn't seem very tight to me.
Your second point is intriguing though.
Any luck with Cedia and jailbreaking it? The jailbreaks still work don't they?
"And no, it's not a pat phrase to distract."
Funny how it is a conservative media buzzword at the moment. My dad who listens to Rush, Hannity, et all non-stop has started using "Low information Voter" to describe basically everyone he doesn't seem to agree with. Basically it is an odd Ad hominem attack against a generalized group of people one takes issue with.
Reminds me of when the Liberals where slinging around phrases like republitards or conservatives slinging around phrases like libtards. Perhaps more crude and organic, but never-the-less pat phrases which are generalizations. The phrase seems pretty pat when it is a recent and popularized conservative media buzzword to run-down a entire groups of people, but then again your experience may vary. One group calling the other group "Low Information" is pretty much a nice tidy label for your political opponents which entirely ignores the fact that almost everyone is "low information".
"Odd that I can pay attention to both Canadian and American politics at a level where I know what's going on. High consumption of politics isn't required, at most 35mins a day, on the most highly trafficked political sites will get you up to a "medium" level voter."
Do you know whats going on? That is a fairly large assumption. I take the opposite view myself. I don't know most of what is going on. Getting truth out of propaganda is a tricky business. If you think 35 min a day gets you to a medium level of knowledge of politics... then you definitely have a low bar of expectation of actual understanding. Even more so given that you are relying on this knowledge from a few "highly trafficked political" sites. It often takes me many hours of research to look at what folks are saying and verify if it has any merit at all. Even after checking things out I often am not certain what the real story is. But then again, l tend to be skeptical about what is being fed to me.
Being fed your political regurgitations from some websites informs you up to a certain level, but real understanding is much harder to come by.
"They're the people who don't really have an interest in politics at all, but are easily swayed by blasts of information for either or both parties. Which fit their viewpoint."
I think you could say the same thing about partisans. Are partisan voter generally more informed in your estimation? Seems to me that most people don't have much of the actual information. I get pat stuff from both sides of the political aisle all the time which makes no sense what-so-ever. In the end it turns out to be just propaganda and not real information.
In my view, partisans usually don't have much interest in politics other than getting all bunched up about this or that thing every so often. Partisans are the ones who have drunk the coolaid and don't seem to have much ability to think outside of their info food chains. If they get a piece of information... they spend a huge amount of effort to make it fit their world view.
Low information voter is simply not being used to describe swing voters as seems to be your assertion.
Here is what Rush Limbaugh said for your edification.
"Low-information voters are clearly people that don't have all the information available to make a voting choice. That's all they are. And they're all over the place. And most of them do vote Democrat. Most of them did vote for Obama. It's not a comment on their intelligence. It's not that they're stupid or don't understand the issues. They just haven't had it all explained to them."
So... if these voters had things "explained" to them somehow make them better voters? Probably not. It depends on who is explaining and whether the information they are using is actual and not propaganda. I prefer to not digest pre-digested information from a few top political sites which are almost entirely partisan propaganda machines. The information is out there, but it usually is not found on highly trafficked political sites.
"leave that crap out of the federal government."
Sounds like a nice idea, but on a practical, real-world level completely impossible.
The problem is that people are involved in the equation and there could never be a consensus to adhere to separation of dogma like libertarian at the federal level and/or socialist at the local level.
Even though I am a libertarian, I realize that my ideas generally are in the minority and have been so for longer than my whole life.
All voters are low information. There simply is not the time to be a high or even medium information voter.
Btw.... terms like "low information voter" are just more pat phrases invented by the machine to distract and isolate the citizens.
Easier to control the masses by creating buzzwords that blame everyone but oneself.
"... if engaged in hunting at the time then the guns could be confiscated as well."
And by hunting you mean poaching by the side of the road.
Poachers should have their guns confiscated. All gun owners need to be responsible and obey the laws. Just because you don't like this law or that law doesn't mean you get to ignore it.