Comment Re:The bottom line (Score 1) 46
That's off the top of my head. I'd put effort into searching for more, but we both know you're just going to move the goalposts.
Seems like you're replying to the wrong person...
That's off the top of my head. I'd put effort into searching for more, but we both know you're just going to move the goalposts.
Seems like you're replying to the wrong person...
There's no profit in curing cancer. Big pharmaceutical conglomerates will find a way to shut down this research.
Well then, please explain why "Big Pharma" has delivered cures for multiple kinds of cancer over the last couple of decades.
Go ahead, we're all waiting...
Prison time for what, precisely?
Stalking.
Whether it's convenient or not as long as you are not harassed while switching than a business has every right to try to sway you (within reason) and nothing you say or do will change that.
Exactly what gives them the right to FUCK WITH MY EQUIPMENT AND DISABLE A KEY FEATURE???
Our schools are not in danger of teaching students critical thinking skills any time soon, so businesses can stop worrying about what would happen if they accidentally hired some employees with critical thinking skills. I mean, that is the worry, right?
...maybe I'm just harking back to a past that exists only in my mind...
I don't think so; your memory matches mine very well.
It's a block size vs available space issue so 90% full kills performance on small drives with big blocks (eg. SSDs from a couple of years back)...
OK, while I've not experienced that myself (no SSDs deployed), it certainly makes sense--much more so than the "blanket 90%" claim that people repeat mindlessly.
With today's 4-8 TB drives, it's easy to keep billions of of files on a single disk...
Uhhmmm, no, not quite
Perhaps more importantly, running at 90% of capacity kills your performance if you still use spinning glass platters as your primary storage medium (not so much when talking about a SAN of SSDs). In general, when you hit 90% full, you have problems other than just how long you can last before reaching 100%.
Do you have actual experience or data to back up that claim? Because my verified benchmarked experience is the opposite, 90% does NOT "kill" performance. Of course you're using inner tracks and getting lower transfer speeds, but nothing really dramatic like what you'd see with extreme fragmentation.
I will admit however, that when you get to 0.15% free (on a 4TB disk), performance really sux rox
I have failed miserably looks like. Even adding the bit about railway rolling stock did not help. Well, that is the problem when you speak with a tongue in the cheek. You end up chewing your own tongue.
That was meant to be tongue in cheek? Oh, OK then
Problem is, it's election season, and what you said there was really not much different than some of the bullshit that we're inundated with nightly on TV commercials, and flyers in the mail. My favorite so far is the one accusing a Democrat of attempting to "replace Medicare with a completely government-run system". Uhhhmmm, excuse me???
This is how over built and inefficient government services are.
That was one of the most stupid nonsensical posts I have ever seen here. You calculated the "load factor" based on each of 11,000,000 people instead of on the number of 911 operators.
And of course that's not even counting the fact that 911 services pretty much need to be provisioned to handle *peak* loads, not average (nor even median).
I dunno, I still think the ignorant asses are the people arguing that a clump of cells without so much as a functioning brain stem can somehow be so special as to deserve special consideration.
YES! That's the core issue, and I get sick of proponents of stem cell research (and pro-choice politics) who are too timid to stand up and say it!
They suck down less oxygen too. Divers know this firsthand
it's easy to fool someone with a blackbox and a claim.
Oh, yes. In the late 80's there was a revolutionary video compression engine, in a black box, which attracted some significant investment, and was a complete fraud. Sorry I can't remember names.
But to say it is impossible is to step beyond the limitations of science.
I didn't say it was impossible. Neither did the article referred to. All I implied was that so far all claimed examples of cold fusion demonstrably fall into 2 buckets: 1) poorly-designed experiments which have been discredited by the attempts to reproduce them, 2) outright frauds.
Further, it is pretty clear that Rossi's falls into the category of outright fraud. His results were "reproduced" by people with a history of working with him, left the possibility of faking the amount of energy input, did not properly measure the energy output, and involved him putting the "fuel" in at the beginning and removing it at the end. Add it all up, and the claim that his e-Cat has been independently tested is outright laughable.
The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.
