At a shotgun range I've been to, they have a duck tower about 150 yards behind the clubhouse. It's surrounded by a fairly thick stand of tall trees, but a couple of the stations result in shooters shot trajectory going through the "hole" in the trees and raining down on the front porch of the clubhouse.

I've been standing there and gotten "hit" -- it actually feels no different than if you through a handful of coarse sand into the air and let it fall on you, actually less since you really only feel a small number of pellets because of dispersion.

Shooters are restricted to target loads of #7.5 shot or smaller, so its very light shot. So light that on their "hard" sporting clays course it's very difficult to hit the distant crossing and away clays in any wind. The #7.5 shot has so little inertia that it just gets blown off target.

Many pheasant hunters I've known have stories about getting hit with shot from people on the other side of a field or road hunting on roads adjacent to the field they were hunting on. It's like coarse sand, and pheasant hunting uses much heavier shot than target shot.

I might expect some cost reductions because the increased durability will lessen the amount of excess memories needed for remapping when cells go bad. And don't larger drives use NAND chips in parallel for speed? If you can simplify packaging by using a single chip you might cut costs there, too.

If its as supercalifragilisticexpialidocious as they say it is, you might also expect enterprise adoption to increase, lowering the cost of NAND by cutting demand or resulting in more reliable NAND.

It's also hard to know what kind of process improvements may take place over time.

Either way, I think cheap, durable and fast-or-faster-than-flash storage is pretty exciting, so I guess I'm willing to be optimistic. Storage is so expensive and so relatively slow that something that pushes the envelope on speed and cost just seems to have a lot of potential.

So when the NSA intercepts your hardware before it's delivered?

Just look for the guy in the black suit, sunglasses, and earpiece lurking around the door of your server room with a cell phone plugged into his laptop.

It sure sounds like the outcome could be cheaper, faster, more reliable and possibly even denser storage. How about a 10 TB drive that can saturate a SAS link for the price of a consumer 1 TB SSD now? It sounds appealing to have 40 TB of home storage at performance levels that would make a $200k enterprise storage buyer jealous.

Or that makes for 240 TB enterprise san shelf for the price of an existing 10 TB flash/rust hybrid shelf at speeds that will melt 16 gig fiber channel?

And who knows what value fast/cheap storage would have in terms of software applications. Maybe it would enable machine learning in more of a real-time basis by enabling analysis of vast datasets on demand.

Let's assume that the general education requirements of most college educations (ie, some smattering of English literature & composition, arts, bit of a foreign language, social studies, etc) actually does result in those students coming out slightly more knowledgeable than if they would have had even an "advanced" kind of technical education.

It's a reach, I know, but let's say they are overall a little smarter (ie, learned some new analytical skills & strategies) and are better informed.

I wonder if we're actually better off from this. Not because people aren't smarter or better informed, but because they're only a little smarter and a little better informed and they overestimate how well they informed they are and how good their analytical skills are.

On a mass scale, I wonder how much our political divisiveness and partisanship is driven by a whole bunch of people, who think they're smarter and better informed than they really are, taking sides -- often quite stridently -- on issues they don't really know about and reaching conclusions they don't really have the analytical tools to reach.

Add in the fact that everyone is an Internet Expert on everything they can read in Wikipedia and you have this recipe for high-quality mass ignorance and confirmation bias trying to portray itself as an educated populace.

If we moved the overwhelming majority of these people into a more advanced and focused vocational education that left out the "well rounded" part, would our *actual* ignorance as opposed to overestimated wisdom make us less partisan? Or would we just be even more gullible, swayed by propaganda, etc?

It's too many laws. One doesn't fit, they'll find another.

And once they find one that fits well enough, than anything goes because resistance to enforcement of a law usually brings the full force of the law with it.

I'm kind of wondering where they would all go.

If each panel was a square meter, that's 193 square miles of solar panels.

For example, there's nothing on wikipedia's email page or "online service provider law" pages about this, so, no, I'm still not convinced it would be a huge deal to tell people that you're dumping spam, and then dump spam.

That would be fine. Again, it's the 'accept, then silently delete' that's the problem.

Are there vendors that actually support RAID across otherwise independent SANs?

Like if you had SANs A through F, each with a 10 TB volume and you used SAN controller Z (which has no disks of its own) to take those 10 TB volumes and turn them into a single (say RAID-6) volume.

I've done this for laughs with a NAS4Free implementation, using its iSCSI client to mount LUNs from 3-4 different storage devices and then combining those mounts into a RAID LUN which I then exported via ISCSI and used on a client.

It seems like an interesting idea, and put together right seems like it might offer some relatively interesting redundancy versus some of the replication and mirroring options I've seen vendors advertise.

And in this case, it should be marked as spam, and either a) held by the ISP for some period of time, per the ToS that the user agreed to, or b) delivered to the user, marked as spam, for them to do with as they see fit.

The ONLY situation that anybody here has described that MUST NOT HAPPEN is this chain of three steps:
1) Recipient's ISP SMTP server accepts a message
2) Recipient's ISP SMTP server decides the message is spam
3) Recipient's ISP SMTP server deletes the message with no notification to anybody

There have, in fact, been lawsuits over this sort of thing.

The ISP must either a) refuse the message at time of delivery, via SMTP reject code, or b) accept the message, and hold it for the recipient. If the recipient chooses not to then access the message, that's their lookout.

There are some things that reasonably can be ascribed the quality of being a worthy candidate for ridicule.

Certainly the notion that a representative democracy would copyright its laws and attempt to control their distribution for profit or any other motive is worthy of ridicule.

AFAIK the motivation is almost always financial, usually in collusion with some big legal publisher who gets exclusive rights and kicks back to the state. But it's not hard to imagine some kind of conspiratorial intent to restrict information to protect the legal class or bury details.

About the only rationale that makes any sense is to try to maintain an official reference presentation. The state could actually format and print a small run of the code and annotations themselves, which anyone could copy, but that would probably be a non-trivial amount of overhead, so they outsource it to a publisher in exchange for exclusivity.