But they don't say anything like this:

They didn't address the "what if everything changed in an instant" case in their article.

So you would pay $1200 for a hard drive "without hesitation"?

100% Yes for that storage space that ran at Samsung's claimed 1.6GB/s speed...

It would make a huge difference for image management where I'm often loading many 60MB TIFF files in the course of looking over processed images.

Now mind you I'd be backing that up on the cheaper "real" hard drives, but for working with that speed would be fantastic and easily worth the money in terms of saved time and frustration over the life of the drive.

The thing is, that drive will probably be more like $5k which is a much harder amount to take... probably $2k is the edge for my own use.

What's the alternative motivation besides profit? How do you get some people to do what you want without paying them?

Fear won't work. People can just decide not to be afraid. And, since doomsday predictions have always been wrong, they would be wise not to fear the end you're warning them about. Altruism won't work either.

People focus on profit/money because its a clear way to motivate others. Everything else is just salesmanship, putting a gun to someone's head, or asking "pretty please".

That's not what the original article says.

Yes.

6TB drives can be had for $250-300

That's really nice I agree, I have a few 4TB drives that I use for photography... but I would without hesitation pay 4x the price for the speed of an SSD (especially one not bound by SATA speeds, like the Samsung PCiE SSD...)

Real-world limits tend to preclude taking "every" opportunity. A more realistic approach would be to do things that might help a lot and not do things that take time and effort and won't help much.

It wasn't one statement or even just one editorial. It was at least ten article across as many sites, all synchronized to launch a smear campaign that's still going on.

Most of the gaming press still tries to throw the word "mysogyny" around like a "Get Out of Journalistic Ethics Free" card. Your use of it doesn't fool anyone either.

The sad thing is you were apparently down voted for posting utterly irrefutable truth.

Sometimes the internet just wants to hang somebody, and it's sad that the people trying to halt the lynch mob get hurt for protecting the innocent.

Pretty surge a purge of cheaters and revelation of what tools to look for is the BEST THING to happen just before a serious tournament. Probably a week earlier would have been ideal.

That's not how free, democratic societies make policy.

I believe you, but in this case I was referring to the investigators being libeled, not the players

Not true. The customer revolt exploded the day practically the entire online gaming press coordinated to declare their core audience "dead," in a clumsy and transparent attempt to cover-up their corruption. This signaled the end of the previous failed attempt, a universal news media blackout, which must be one of the most intense occurences of the Streisand Effect on record.

Is there evidence to conclude that enough people in democratic countries and enough leaders in undemocratic countries would support sufficient political action for long enough to solve the problem (according to the climate models)?

The opposite conclusion seems to be true so far.

A common argument is that climate change can be avoided if everyone makes a number of small changes in their lives. These guys have determined that marginal, easily affordable changes in people's lives are insufficient according to some climate models. (Unless there's are large, unforeseeable technological advances.)

In other words, a specific approach or category of approaches won't work if you believe the forecasts of some severe climate models. The obvious response would be to stop advocating the unworkable approaches and/or re-examine the climate models to see if they might be overestimating the challenge.

Perhaps the article communicates this poorly. It's still useful info though.