You are both idiots for not knowing how to argue. Zeromous, perhaps your point is "Someone can be hosting a cloud locally to support a business/agency. So it can be available over 1gbit LAN with indiscernible latency, or be in a geographically close data center with an interconnect of equivilant bandwidth."

But you didn't provide any supporting facts so your equally ridiculous.

Zeomous of poor reading comprehension says: "I'm still trying to figure out what you exact beef here is." when Russ had just said "lags and stutters".

Anyhow, usually what people host locally is not a cloud infrastructure, since if you're not doing hosting for third parties, and only your own organization, your virtuallization needs are met by a simpler cluster architecture. Some call it a cloud infrastructure, but usually is just a virtuallized cluster. Virtuallization != cloud. Cloud involves virtualization. Not all virtualization is a cloud. Very much the not-all-black-birds-are-crows kind of thing.

Excellent advice.

Hallelujah! Trying to select text and it grabs the whole word, or worse, some programs grab the whole word plus a space. Why do I want trailing spaces with everything I paste?

As a developer thinking about how I can "help" the user, I always favor the perspective that the user knows what they want.

Some developers make the "they can disable this feature" excuse. The frustrating thing is every time you get a new desktop/phone/upgrade/update you find yourself disabling the same options again and again. Only a small handful of products remember these kinds of settings across devices/installs.

Wasn't it nice when at least space programs still worked together and were kind of outside the scope of international quarrels. Astronauts working together, at least to me, were a symbol of how we were still all civilized people who had a lot of common interests and could work together peacefully.

What part of "similar meat from the same part of the cow" do you not understand?

Point being, since you probably are too stupid to pick up on it, that cooking steak longer at higher temperature does not necessarily mean it will be like leather. If it does, then you're doing it wrong.

He preemptively prooved your an idiot: "similar meat from the same part of the cow cooked to a much higher temperature longer as a pot roast"

Have you ever had pot roast? If you've had good pot roast it is the opposite of leather. Either your stupid, illiterate, or both.

What about the people who live nearby as well?

And I always had a hell of a time getting that little kink out...

There is no such thing as "effectively infinite". What you are alluding to is the fact the the number of vulnerabilities is not known until they are all found, and thus you can never be sure how many more there are. Even in a situation where a product is evolving and new bugs are being introduced, at any given point in time there are a finite number of vulnerabilities. There certainly are not trillions of vulnerabilities undiscovered in in Apache. Nothing that would ever approach infinity such that you can say fixing a vulnerability doesn't decrease the number of remaining vulnerabilities.

As each vulnerability is discovered and patched, the effort to find the next one should increase slightly, given that methods which either analyze the code, or make brute force attempts to compromise the system(by brute force I mean, "oh let's try passing ";delete userstables" in this field to see if there is SQL injection, no, how about this field?) will have to search longer before finding a vulnerability, since there are now fewer. Each fixed vulnerability reduces the set of vulnerabilities, regardless if they are known, and thus increases the cost to find the next one. Additionally, it is more likely that researchers will find the more easy to find vulnerabilities, while some may be more elusive. This compounds the increase in cost-to-find.

What you should be more concerned about, is when you have found and fixed all of the easier to find vulnerabilities, what of the small number of finite remaining vulnerabilities? If researchers search and do not find them within a practical time frame that makes the $1,000 prize worth it, then they will not be found. But the blackmarket or other agency might find such a vulnerability to be very valuable, and throw more resources at finding one. Now such a fact doesn't mean the prize program was useless, as it certainly reduced the surface area of vulnerability.

Agreed. Lots of random reads when launching apps for example, or booting up. Just compare boot times. The difference is huge.

Right, certainly if it is CPU bound like rendering is, and not read/write intensive then it doesn't matter very much what kind of drive you have.

I was thinking in terms of sequential reads vs random reads where seek latency has more of an impact.

From the perspective of the rest of the network, the architecture of the router is pretty irrelevant, but I understand why they might want ARM but they didn't identify those reasons. I have a feeling their desire for ARM is not a direct requirement, but an indirect requirement from a desire for some of the attributes of ARM. They might find that an Intel Atom box meets the same needs. Low profile, low heat, cheap, passive heat sinks(eliminates risk of fan failure).

I went with PFSense + Intel Atom box and am happy. The web interface is pretty straightforward. Getting setup initially is a bit of a pain, attaching SSD/Card to one box and flashing, etc. Some of the documentation is terrible.

Agreed that certain scenarios are indeed poorly documented and/or pain to setup. Not that pfsense supports those scenarios poorly, but you just have to dig into command line/config editing and really have to know what you are doing.

SSDs are built off silicon chip manufacturing processes, and thus the pricing reflects that. If you look at chips such as RAM with similar feature size (e.g. 28nm) and how many chips go into an SSD, I speculate that you'd see the pricing is not that far off if comparing chips of similar feature density and size as they'd reflect the same manufacturing costs. Maybe higher for SSD, as it is a newer technology than RAM which has been around for a very long time and perhaps benefits from some efficiency of scale or other manufacturing optimizations that have developed over time.

Indeed, and even then for many usage patterns, latency will be much worse for the HDD RAID array, because certain operations will be the greatest latency of all the drives(i.e. if you read something striped across all the drives, and one of the drives has a longer latency in seeking to that data). So in many cases the average latency is skewed for the worst.

That doesn't even go into power/cooling savings. SSD's use 10th of the power, which is great for a laptop.

Risk of damage from bumping/moving the drive/laptop during operation is non-existant with SSD as well.