G'day has always been the rendering - since at least Regency times, when t'was spoken aloud as such. ;-)

In general writing to RAM is faster than writing to the disk. However there are things that get in the way of both.
1. OS Memory Management: So you making a small memory string to a big one. So will the os fragment the string, when it comes up to an other systems reserved memory spot. Will it overwrite it (Buffer overflow), will it find a contiguous larger memory block and copy the data there. Will it copy and move the memory slots to a new location away from the memory. Will this be happening preemptively, or when the error condition occurs, will all this stuff happen with a cpu cycle that is not sharing with your app. Also if you are low on memory the system may dump it to the disk anyways.

2. OS Disk management: A lot of the same concerns that memory management has. However a bunch of small request is easier to find free space, then asking for a larger spot. So they may be more seek time.

3. Disk Caching: You tell the program to append to the disk. The OS sends the data to the drive, the drive responds back Yea I got it. then the OS goes back to handling your app, in the mean time your drive is actually spinning to save the data on the disk.

4. How your compiler handles the memory. Data = Data + "STRING" vs. Data+="STRING" vs Data.Append("STRING") vs { DataVal2=malloc(6); DataVal2="STRING"; DataRec->Next = *DataVal2; } You could be spending O(n) time saving your memory where you can be doing in in O(1)

Now sometime I do change my algorithm to write to the disk vs. handling it in memory. Mostly because the data I am processing is huge, and I much rather sacrifice speed, in order to insure that the data gets written.

Except for the fact that many of these representatives represent rural communities, where they need to travel miles to even see a local town government official, or police man. This stuff has limited impact on their lives. While the City Folk who see a Homeland security truck parked outside their home feel more threatened.
They rural folk are more likely to see the PA as something that affects other people.

It appears crazy at first. But it was actually designed rather well as to not have your hand move from the core of the keyboard.
As well vi was one of the first full screen editors. So a lot of terminals had inconsistent keys on the keyboard, you could only really trust the core set. The fact it was using the esc key was pushing it.

People where hostile to people with Cell phones in the 1980's, In college back in my day, if a student went to class with a Laptop we were hostile towards them. Portable technology takes a while to get into the culture.

  Google keeps telling us what the future is going to be ... the problem is that future is designed to profit Google. Well Duh! Google isn't going to try to push a product that will put them out of business?

In general Google Glass may or may not make it. However its failure doesn't mean the end. The Apple Newton failed too, from its experience and lessons learned it became the iPhone, and iPad.

The vast majority of students will never need to know how to analyse literature.
The vast majority of students will never need to know about world history.
The vast majority of students will never need to solve algebraic equations.

Learning to code, isn't about knowing the silly commands, but training your mind into solving problems by breaking them down into elementary instructions. It helps you understand the world and trains your mind into different ways of thinking.

I think we need to get off this GPA concept.
Right now students with strong in Language skills, get a higher GPA than students who has strong analytical skills.

By keeping the system, such students with stronger analytical skills, will not get credit for what they are good at and will penalized for deficiencies in language skills.

I was able to write code at 6 years of age, I knew more about science than most adults. However in elementary school, I was placed as a troubled student group, because my reading and writing performance was behind my grade level. Sure we had science classes, and a few other classes where I was excelling at, but they were pass/fail... So I was still tagged as the stupid student.
 

I am not talking about the money. But how such programs are implemented to get it.

I am all for greater education in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. However when they put it in a group called STEM, that makes me nervous.
Just like in the 1990's when they decided to teach kids how to use computers. They had a watered down process. In the 1980s while I was in elementary school, when they taught how to use computer they showed the class how to program, in the 1990's when they really pushed computer education, the focus was on how to use Windows, Word, and Excel. When you make it a requirement, it means the class needs to be watered down, so the average student can get an A+ in the class, otherwise, they would be making a class that could hurt their GPA. Where before, it was an elective class, where the student can take the class if they knew they could do in it.

Security vs. Liberty, It is always a tradeoff. And basicly we as a culture doesn't want to accept that reality.
If you want the liberty without people spying on you, you will need to be brave enough as an overall population to say, I am willing to accept the Risks to our safety so we can have our liberty. Or if you want to stay secure, we as a population will need to say, We want to be safe, and are willing to trade our liberty for it.

America like to say Land of the Free and Home of the brave. You need to be brave and accept the risks to be free. The more we cower in fear that the popular bad guys of the time will get us, either being the native americans, british, anarchist, communists, terrorists... The more liberties we lose. Or we stand up an say we are willing to take the risks, even it it means those guys will sneak in, but we will have more liberties.

However Efficiency is one of these numbers used to explain the lack of common sense. Sometimes the best method isn't the most efficient one. How much extra power and wasted disk space are you actually using in your RAID 5 Systems? It is more efficient to have everyone live and work in one building.
But efficiency is only part of the issue. Having a lot of small power generation, while say wasting twice as much power generation, means no wide scale power outages. Also easy to heal environmental wounds.

Hydroelectric for some reason is never talked about for green energy. Because of the Hoover dam image. A large structure that completely changes the local environment. The problem is in america, we are still stuck on the idea of Big Energy large grids covering the nation. We don't think in terms of small energy, having a small community powered by modest green sources. And every community can have different sources to meet their needs. Solar is good. But some of us live in areas where there is a lot of tree cover (and cutting trees isn't really the green option), Other areas have a decent wind, and others are near running water. These smaller sections will in agragate may take up more space, their impact is actually a lot less, as a smaller plot of land can heal a lot faster then say plowing down hundred acres.

The government should not be constrained by market assumptions, such as that resources are limited because of efficient allocation.

That's not a "market assumption", it's plain old reality: resources are finite, so you need priorities. If a cop pulls someone over for speeding, then sees an armed robbery in progress, or a paramedic is treating someone's sprained ankle then a bystander has a heart attack, do you want them to stick to what they were doing and reject the notion of priorities as being a "market assumption"? I'd rather they focus their efforts on the higher priority, because that gives the best outcomes.

In this case, the FTC had more pressing enforcement jobs, like telemarketing scams, the fight with cellphone companies over ripoff premium services ... they felt putting their resources there made more sense than fighting Google over the order of search results, and I'm not at all sure they were wrong about that.

By coincidence, I was discussing law enforcement priorities at work on Friday (we teach computer forensics for law enforcement, among other things); unlike the world of CSI, real law enforcement doesn't go spending days testing out an obscure theory, or digging into every possible detail of each case: they do enough work on a case to pass it to the next stage, then get on with the next case. No "market" - there just aren't an unlimited number of hours in each forensic caseworker's day.