I don't have 2013 figures but 2012 tape was down to $1.06 billion (drives and media) falling at a rate of 30% annually. I'd say the media is dead. The problem is the price isn't going down much. We are still near $.01/g which gets you in the range of bad HDD. BTW most commercial RAID allow for read only.

The issue of longevity is a very big advantage of tape. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of data doesn't need decades of retention. It is just a small fraction that does, in which case that small fraction can just be redundant and duplicated in with whatever other long term storage solution is needed. It is possible that tape might find some tiny niche and stabilize but that's going to be close enough to dead.

Heck, when it comes to long term storage I still think microfiche is a good solution for long term storage. 200 years from now I have no idea if a tape is readable or the data format will be usable but I'm pretty sure people will still have magnifying glasses.

The article is mainly talking about from now will 2020. I'd have to agree I don't think it will happen by 2020. I suspect even by 2030 mass storage solutions on HDD will still be around. It took a very long time for HDD to kill off tape entirely.

I have a 1st year MBPr. 256g SSD has been constraining. I wish I had gone for the 512g option even at close to $2/g at the time.

The article is a bit weird. It keeps saying to ignore consumer: low price, cheap parts, focus on mobility as inapplicable to enterprise. But then it focus on enterprises disks that aren't far removed from consumer models rather than enterprise models like IBM's flash solutions (ex 840: 33T per U so more than 1P per rack). If we are going to look at enterprise flash I don't understand why you would focus on smaller solutions. Obviously the $8-14g price is even higher but it is at those price points that flash makes sense because it is allowing virtualization to replace multiple servers and thus replacing real estate, network and energy costs not raw HDD costs.

I guess if the article is just saying that mid sized server solutions (say $5-100k) are unlikely to go all SSD before 2020 I have to agree. But I think it should have been more specific. Once you exclude the consumer space and the mass storage space we are probably talking a tiny fraction of the whole HDD market.

A full page in a print magazine had to get you far enough through the sales process that you would remember the product and be willing to talk to a sales person. A banner ad has to get you interested enough to click on the banner to go the site. The proper comparison is the website to the ad.

Today there was another report from NBC on the ground in other towns where they interviewed Ukrainian military officials who had switched to the Russian flag. They didn't like their pay, they didn't like the hours and they were happy to switch. There were interviews with police who were being asked to arrest or shoot at the very people who had been supporting them a month earlier when everyone was against them. This wasn't Russian propaganda this was an American network representing the real grievances of the people on the ground.

I think I've given more than enough evidence that sources that if anything are biased towards the anti-Russian side investigated and found genuine discount. I'm not going to keep responding to, "This whole business of covering up a rigged poll is not impressing anybody outside of Kreml's media space.." That is clearly unequivocally and verifiably false. At this point you are simply ignoring evidence that contradicts your spin that no one believes Russians that Crimeans were unhappy.

It's not a comparison of Ukraine vs Russia. As a Ukrainian, I am comparing Russia and EU/US

So was I. I gave growth figures and comparative economic figures. Russia's economy is far smaller than EU/US (though on par with many EU countries) but is growing much faster. Showing a healthy government under Putin contrary to your comments above about shrinkage. Again GDP data is public.

As for not having contempt for Russians I think you should read your comments in this thread.
 

By the same token, you should grant a right to secede to all sorts of communities - including small town and cities. Doesn't it sound convenient to grant secession rights based on regions?

There have been border adjustments for towns between the USA and Canada. Northwest Angle Inlet (pop 102) is going through the process to move.

The internet is available to a very limited number of people, and the information provided in Russian is mostly one-sided. I do not see how one is supposed to have a choice in this kind of arrangement.

I'm pretty sure I can find a pretty wide diversity of sources in Russian. Ukraine internet usage is 33.7% and Russia is is 53.3% so I'd say that's rather widely available.

Russians are free to drink vodka and play balalaika anywhere they want, given there's no violence.

With comments like this I have a lot trouble understanding why you want Russians in your country at all. You obviously have contempt for them, why keep them?

Notwithstanding the unfoundedness of this statement, would you recommend a direct rule by Kreml as the better alternative?

No but I don't consider Russia to have the same sort of problems you do.

Which are virtually non-existent? What did Russia invent in the past 23 years, exactly?

I could ask the same thing about Ukraine. But a few examples in IT
Relex is a huge player in software
CROC telco virtualization
Kaspersky Lab is one of the biggest software security companies in the world
Eagle Dynamics a major player in simulation ...
you can google as well as I can. Clothes is another huge area for Russia. You can just look at the data on GDP it isn't just selling raw materials.

So you are saying 123% turnout rate in Sebastopol was a no big deal, who cares. The maximum number of pro-annexation support I heard of was 41%. This is the highest number by far. What sort of numbers do you have?

Yes. I'm saying that the polling indicates that troubled referendum or not the measure would have passed by a huge margin. The Kiev poll you are citing was before the overthrow of the president that Crimea had voted for. The numbers I've heard were 78% in line with the Yanukovych vote in the first place. Most reputable pollsters (USA based so this is not kremlin controlled) believe that the referendum as run because it didn't offer anything other than the '92 constitution might have been much higher. I haven't heard one USA agency that doesn't think 50% was easily achievable.

Why not more? Normally, elections are covered by more than 5-10 independent news agencies. How come you can only name one which is non-Russian?

You had said none and I personally watched NBC based reporters. CNN had 2 teams Anna Coren's and Anderson Coopers'. Amy Kellogg from FOX. Alex Marquardt from ABC. CBS had 3 teams Elizabeth Palmer's in Crimea while Charlie D’Agata and Clarissa Ward's stayed in Kiev. The BBC had a few teams... As far as I can tell anyone who wanted to cover it could.

@David

We do know there were reputable polling agencies and they all showed strong support.

Still, a proper method is to actually perform proper elections. This was not done in Crimea.

I agree. If the international demand were for a proper election and a better process to be followed I wouldn't have an objection. If the international demand is for Crimeans to forever be part of Ukraine with no possibility for redress then I don't support it. And that is the current demand, an assertion that Crimeans have no right to secede.

Crimea is the worst when it comes to pro-Russian propaganda. How can you expect a "free" choice from people who are receiving information pre-packaged in a certain way, and having no or very weak alternatives?

And I don't buy your distinction that information that agrees with you is policy debate and pro-Russian stuff is propaganda leading to brainwashing. There is a functioning press and they have internet. Perfect no, good enough, yes.

You are free to discuss your arguments if you feel so, or have any.

Neo-liberalism is leading to a high degree of concentrated wealth.
The EU social structures undermine many of the cultural values that Russians want.
The EU democratic structure creates too many levels and thus reduces democracy to formal democracy.
Ukraine by being the border between Russia and the West could end up suffering terribly in a war, see Germany's history.
Better integration with the Russian educational system and access to research opportunities in Russia.
etc...

How come Russians to this day can't find an escape in a higher order, so nicely exemplified by U.S. and EU ?

The GDP of Russia has gone from $200b in 1999 to over $2t today. In the same time period the USA GDP has less than doubled. I'd say they are escaping but it takes time. They have economic growth.

What is called "developed world" these days did not accept their "solid evidence" as anything but a profanity.

That's not true. NBCnews, Washington Post, FiveThirtyEight... did an analysis and they didn't support the contention of fraud. Carl Bialik's in particular is quite good. Volodymyr Paniotto of KIIS who did polling in Ukraine for years is well respected in the west.

f) no independent press allowed

That's not true. NBCnews had people on the ground.

And estimations vary drastically depending on who's estimating. What's the point of estimating then? To make oneself feel a bit better regarding something you have no definite data of ?

Elections are just estimates all sorts of situational factors come into play. Estimating is how you govern societies. You do the best you can to figure out policy preferences and usually those estimates are going to be pretty good. If you are wrong things change. The point is to try and align the government with the population.

Are you entirely sure that the Crimean people are that stupid as to not realize that the Russian troops freely walking on the streets aren't exactly the sign of the same "prosperity" coming to Crimea as well?

No I'm not entirely sure. But it appears the Crimean people wanted more than just material wealth, otherwise they would have supported joining the EU.

This is an example of how Russians think these days. There's a large number of Russians supporting such world views - and they were carefully brainwashed by Russian propaganda machine.

You don't see a problem with attributing pro-Ukrainian beliefs to reason and pro-Russian beliefs to brainwashing? It is hard to argue if you are going to believe that no one could possibly disagree with you based on their analysis of the plusses and minuses.

Okey, so originally it was ethnicity, now it's language.

Language is part of culture. Ethnicity is a question of identification. A French child raised in Russia would be Russian.

Do you realize this claim is not supported in any way, except for wild speculations?

No it is supported by solid evidence. Ranging from polling to a referendum to street interviews to public reaction.

. And since we can't grant them that, how can we trust them with the rest?

Well if you are going to attribute their views to brainwashing you can't. If on the other hand you assume that people are evaluating their circumstances and deciding based on those evaluations then you could look at things like election results.

So if the people of Chechnya decide to leave, Putin will let them go?

He should. Frankly I think if they had handled Russia's legitimate concerns better in the early 1990s regarding a pipeline treaty they could have left under Yeltson.

Actually it does have an overwhelming majority. I don't buy 97% but 75% speak Russian at home.

Tyranny of the majority perhaps.

Well if they remain in Ukraine that's a tyranny of the minority. Crimea has to be in one place or the other. Either we follow popular will or ignore popular will.

On another level, is the desire to send your taxes to a different address important enough to create a civil war, important enough to send out gangs to rough up people who disagree, and important enough to totally screw up the place you call home?

Being part of a country is more than the address you send your taxes to. Either being part of a country is trivial in which case what Crimea did doesn't matter or it is important in which case their objections matter. You are trying to have it both ways.

How far should this be taken?

The old standard under Vienna was "the ability to stand alone". That is the ability to form relations with neighboring countries that guarded the territory they control. Russia obviously qualifies under this standard.

The question is, at what point are things so bad that you should violate another country's sovereignty?

I don't think they have to be that bad. Border adjustments don't need to be traumatic.

Russia clearly did more than offering to annex. They actually ran the referendum after sending their military in semi-covertly, ensuring history books will forever question the legitimacy of the vote.

Their military was already there. The population was heavily involved in the military. As for the legitimacy of the vote Crimea became part of Ukraine because one guy moved it. How it got to be part of Ukraine was far less legitimate than a poorly run referendum.

The level of mob involvement has dropped off in Russia under Putin considerably. Both Russia and Ukraine are new democracies. You do understand that Ukraine just had a violent overthrow of their elected president and a replacement with an unelected government. This is not as clear cut as you are making it.

Mostly what you are saying is you like Ukraine better. Which is fine but Crimeans made the opposite choice. You are arguing they aren't entitled to live in the society they want.

You see, anything beyond proper referendum is a wild guess, and we really ought not to take it into account.

We have to estimate using the best data we have. And the best data is strong support.

seeing armed people and violence in the streets is quite another.

So far there has been very little violence. Conversely the overthrow of the pro-Russian government by the pro-Western faction was extremely violent from the start. I'm not sure how this standard doesn't cut the other way.

- a lot of Russians think Alaska should be "returned" to motherland as well.

That analogy doesn't fit because Alaskans don't want to return to Russia. They are happy to be in America. There is no harm to self determination in allowing Alaskans to remain American.

See here for % of ethnic Ukrainians, per region:

I'd use language spoken at home as a better metric then you get: http://blogs-images.forbes.com...

The entire western 2/3rds are obviously staying in Ukraine.

All of this needs to be redone for 2.5 million people!

Those 2.5m people are asking for it to be redone.

140 million of Russians, who don't really want to live in their home country, just added 2.5 millions, out of whom perhaps 1/3 want to live there, but have a high chance of changing their minds pretty soon!

I know lots of people in Russia they do like their life there. Obviously some want to leave. OTOH I also know Ukrainians who want to leave.