I don't know the particular methodologies used.

Reported mtbf for SSDs is higher than regular HDDs.

I can't remember where but there was a recent release of stats from a data center (similar to the stats in question) that had SSDs vs HDDs and the SSDs came out on top for reliability.

I think a major factor that makes SSDs more reliable is that they are not sensitive to shock or vibration - so in a laptop/tablet/phone dominated world, you will have much higher reliability with SSDs than traditional HDDs.

Yes. They are getting cheaper and faster. They are already much faster than magnetic rotating discs in read/write/iops.

Don't be facetious, you can't get a 1TB SSD for 100$ yet and you know this. The OP clearly wrote "getting cheaper", he didn't say they have parity on price.

The reliability rate for current generation SSDs is now higher than traditional HDDs. So in regards to " run 24hours/24hours for 5 years without any problems ?", take your pick, they can all do it better than a traditional HDD.

I think traditional HDDs have precious few years left.

Has it been entered into the criminal code at a federal level?

This should definitely be a civil matter and the FBI should have no involvement in small time cases like this (what a waste of money, up next the FBI giving parking tickets).

What "said papers"? I'll look up "TheTurtlesMoves" and see how many hits it comes up with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method - I've been familiar with it since high school. I'm also familiar with it's limits. These limits are not a problem if one admits that they exist.

I'm happy for you to provide some evidence that I'm wrong. If you do I'll happily take in that new information. One of the key tenets of science is to pass on understanding of one's results - it's a shared discipline. I'd love to read your papers. Please provide some links.

"your still an idiot" - an ironic typo. Don't worry it happens to everyone. I'll be hit by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law in a moment.

You calling me (or anyone) an idiot because you disagree with me paints you in a terribly arrogant light. You should be ashamed of yourself. It borders on bigotry.

I have read " a bit of philosophy in science". It doesn't change what we can and can't test. It doesn't take away the technological limits of what we are able to currently achieve.

"And you don't do that for evolution, which is also an ongoing process plus fossil record, cuz why?"

We don't because we can't (we don't have the technology - yet). I.e. we can't yet observe it happening. We have observed that it has happened. Please note how that is worded - you keep missing subtleties like this.

"Just because we're pointing out your concern trolling for what is is, doesn't mean we haven't read the thread."

"We're" not pointing anything out. I'm pointing out that if you read the whole thread you'd see what the argument is about - which you have missed.

"Argument by selectively quoting authority."
A call to authority does have its limits - in this case I'm not saying it's true because of who said it. In this case it's a verifiable statement and I quoted the authority that stated it - one can't argue that it's a call to authority simply because another is quoting an authority - what would be the point in having experts (authorities) in a topic otherwise?

"Which we have, again,"
No - we - haven't. I set the topic - you're actually talking about something else (very related though), sadly, without realising it.

"Arguing that we haven't seen DNA changes in organisms is like arguing that there's no evidence that we live in a heliocentric solar system."
No - I - didn't. I never argued that we haven't seen "DNA changes in organisms". Of course we have. Can you see my talking about the long term evolution experiment with escherichia coli? A perfect example of us detecting changes in DNA. The argument isn't about that. The argument is about how we detect it. We detect it by comparing cells and looking to see if it has changed. If it has changed then it has mutated - but we did not observe the mutation happening - we detected it post mutation. Is this clear yet? Here is an earlier quote from me:

"we currently deduce it has occurred through comparison of genomic data. I.e. we compare an antecedent and descendant cell, if there are novel changes then it has mutated. But we don't and haven't observed it occurring at this level. As in watch it happen real-time (which is what I meant in case there is confusion)."

Are you with it yet? I'm pretty sure you didn't read the whole thread - I had to make myself clear to another person too so the argument was clarified for anyone to see (in this small portion of the thread). Catch up mate, you're boring me.

At this point you can either admit that you missed the subtleties of the argument and that you were arguing something that wasn't ever in question, or you can delude yourself in the face of clear evidence (i.e. the thread) otherwise.

"You can't test that the Grand Canyon was formed via erosion."

Since it is still being formed we can test that it is being made by erosion and then extrapolate back in time. Either way red herrings are just that (red herrings).

"Laughably false."

It's probably better if you read the whole thread and then show some evidence that we have observed it happening (not post occurrence, but during the event). That's what this is about. I hate it when people can't keep up. Remember to email Sir Richard Dawkins and tell him he's wrong as he readily admits what I asserted - in fact I initially learned it from his talk.

" Fruit flies. Bacteria. This is elementary-school level biology, here."

Fruit flies what? I assume you mean drosophila. Bacteria? What about it? Do you have something to say about the several million varieties of bacteria? Random nouns don't mean much in an argument.

It's not ridiculous or stupid. It's an incredibly important appreciation of the limitations of our abilities in science. (btw, we haven't imaged an electron afaik).

You're anecdotal assertion that "about 98% of current "science" that hasn't even been observed and never ever will be" is unsupported. I recognise the sentiment you are trying to express though, and yes, a significant amount of science has never been observed. As above, this is super important as a recognition of where we have good experimental knowledge and where we have intelligently made hypotheses to fill in our observational gaps. I'm fine with this as the state of our science - humans are really good at filling in the gaps by using our brains. But I don't subscribe to pretending that we've seen or know something that we don't.

The discussion started with assertions about what could be tested (using the scientific method). I've rightly pointed out there are parts of science that are assumed by your average Joe to have been thoroughly tested but are not.

I politely asked for some papers to support your claims. Do you have them? This is a related field of study for me so I'm genuinely interested. There is no shame in saying that you've read this at some time but don't remember where or when (it happens to me all the time).

Well that would be cool, but I'm not sure you're correct. Afaik we don't have the technology to simultaneously observe and decode genomic data during cell replication phases.

I believe we currently deduce it has occurred through comparison of genomic data. I.e. we compare an antecedent and descendant cell, if there are novel changes then it has mutated. But we don't and haven't observed it occurring at this level. As in watch it happen real-time (which is what I meant in case there is confusion).

Or maybe Sir Richard Dawkins says it best:

Richard Dawkins, Professor of Zoology, Oxford University, said, ‘Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it has not been observed while it’s happening.’
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html

That was in 2004 and I readily accept the possibility of this changing (and it eventually will if it hasn't already).

Can you point me to some papers to support your claims?

Happy new year!

And happy new year good person!!!!

And happy new year!!!

Interesting twist!

An axiom is also a starting point for reasoning (according to my sometimes always almost never correct friend wikipedia... )

So maybe he is arguing this point as his starting point, as per "One fundamental issue is whether or not conscious awareness is simply a by-product of complex intelligent systems."?

Anyway, is it as cut and dry as you thought?

Thanks.

For the record I wrote "largely untestable" and by this I did not mean entirely untestable. Maybe it wasn't worded the best.

You answered it for me "It may be currently difficult/impossible to perform molecular level tests of evolution" - which is close enough to the sentiment I was trying to convey. It's just a reflection on the state of the art. It's my sentence with the "yet!!!" in it. The "yet!!!" was meant to mean that I think it will happen one day.

It is just a matter of time (so to speak).

Perhaps, considering I already put some thought into questions like yours (as you can see from the comment history), you should go back and reread my original statement and you'll see the answer to your question (the same could be said for your first post - I was polite enough to point out you missed the answer to your posit written in my first post).

My apologies, not worded the best, I can now see there are two interpretations of what I wrote.

I meant 'the "definition" ', and not ' "the" definition'. The definition of god is quite broad and what I wrote fits within it.

I would rewrite it as: It fits within the scope of the definition of a god.

Suffice to say, any being that can control time and space with a thought is a god to us both comparatively (as a species) and metaphysically.

Your idea for that particular experiment is valid - it's the one I quoted "e. coli long term evolution experiment".

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

That is very much a tip of the iceberg experiment proving that it occurs (useful really). It doesn't test for or show the intracellular mutation that is going on (that constitutes evolution). Nor does it test for multi-cell organism evolution (which is where the money is).