If you have 8 TB of capacity in the form of two 4TB drives, you can trade speed for capacity via RAID. With RAID 0, each druve gets half of each KB, doubling throughput.

I've often wondered about building a drive with TWO sets of read/write heads. All drives going back decades read one cylinder at a time. Why not add another set of heads intge other side of the platters and read two cylinders at a time. Rotational latency eould be cut in half. One set could be used for the inner tracks and one for the outer tracks to reduce seek time.

Expanding on that, why does the head read from ONE point. The arm could be lined with a row of ten read heads. We can put millions of pixels on a four inch screen, why can't we put ten reading sensors on a two-inch arm?

lol let your mind go and imagine how many terms become legal terms by that definition. "She ______ on the Judges' _____ in his ____"

It was an experiment. One that was successful enough that they've decided to do 38 cities for the next phase. Gmail was an experiment. So was [insert long forgotten Google project here ]. Some of their experiments don't turn out, and Google shuts it down. Others take off, like Gmail. At this stage, Google has invested a couple hundred million dollars or so, so that shows a significant level of commitment- they're probably not going to shut it down tomorrow.

One of the criteria Google uses to decide where to go next is the local competition. Comcast can probably convince Google to stay out of Milwaukee by offering 100 Mbps for $80. If Comcast is offering 10 Mbps for $80, Google knows they can get all of those customers. For consumers, we win if Comcast and AT&T keep Google at bay by offering a decent service at a different price, which is in fact happening in cities that Google is considering. Google wins by scaring the ISPs into offering faster service too - that means Comcast is providing a faster connection to YouTube, Gmail,and Google Docs.

As with many things, some regulations are good, and some are bad (if that idea gives you problems, then you need to reconsider your life).

With taxis, we can clearly see two kinds of regulation:
1) Regulations that make customers (and drivers) safer and less likely to be ripped off.
2) Regulations that are designed to limit competition.

Obviously, we want to keep the first type of regulation, because they achieve good results. We want to reduce the second type, because they drive prices up for everyone and reduce quality.

if you're trusting a drive, "you're not doing it right(tm)"

They should have fixed the bug as soon as they realized it was there, and not waited until someone proved it was an especially bad bug.

Customers must pay more if they exceed limits â" but it's not a cap,

That's fine with me, if they'll also give me a refund if I don't reach my limit. After all, fair's fair, right? They estimate how much data I'll use when I sign up, and if I exceed it they charge me extra, if I don't reach it they charge me less.

Right.

The way Slashdot hid a -1 comment made it appear as if the post I was responding to was intended as a "the government would be worse" post, while in truth it was in response to such a post.

I'm not actually sure what your point is. My water bill is less than half of my recently-cut-by-$60 Comcast bill. Heck, until we cut back on our Comcast "services", their bill was threatening to approach our electricity bill.

Of course they will, while comcast is telling them this, they are stuffing wads of money in the senators pockets. The longer they talk the more money goes into their pockets... Senators need to keep warm during the upcoming winter....

Well, C++ wasn't exactly what I had in mind. That's as broken as Perl.

Or, you could simply use a good compiler which ultimately doesn't see the difference between the two.

Breach of contract is not a criminal offense. Entering into a contract with the intent to breach it from the onset is fraud, and a criminal offense. Obviously the threshold of proof for the latter is a lot higher.

I do not believe that "bork" is a legal term with any validity.

that Uber is really opening itself up to legal risk by doing this. This is essentially organized fraud. It's one thing to intend to purchase a lift and then cancel it at the last second, but by actually organizing mass cancellations when you really have no intention of purchasing a ride, you are really going down a path of massive fraud. I