Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Cache money (Score 2) 353

by Ken_g6 (#46654345) Attached to: An SSD for Your Current Computer May Save the Cost of a New One (Video)

SSDs aren't actually very good for caching. (Though they sell drives and software specifically to do that.) They're better at WORM (Write Once Read Many) or Write Rarely Read Many (WRRM?) tasks. Like installing an OS and other programs there and not modifying them often. (Where "often" = "every few minutes".)

That said, I do have my computer's swapfile on my SSD. But only because I only have 4GB RAM and can't upgrade.

Comment: Re:Max RAM? (Score 1) 353

by Ken_g6 (#46654269) Attached to: An SSD for Your Current Computer May Save the Cost of a New One (Video)

I disagree on 'maxing' it out. ... 8 GB will be fine for the next 4-6 years at least.

And 640k ought to be enough for anyone.

"Enough" RAM is not noticeable. "Not enough" is very noticeable. What "enough" is is likely to continue to increase. More than enough RAM can also improve disk caching, though this has diminishing returns.

Also, Lorizean said:

Put the 64GB in and use it as a ramdisk. Be blown away by the speeds.

Which is better than caching for something like a temp directory.

Comment: Re:Awesome! (Score 4, Interesting) 103

by Ken_g6 (#46474171) Attached to: Tested: Asus Chromebox Based On Haswell Core i3

Maybe, but in that case you could simply get a NUC instead.

On one hand, an equivalent NUC is cheaper at $290.

On the other hand, the ASUS comes with a (small) SSD, RAM, and "a custom wireless ASUS Chrome keyboard and mouse that are collectively valued at $49." The NUC comes with none of those. Together those probably cost more than the $80 difference in price.

On the other hand, you could get a last-generation NUC with an i3 for $180.

On the other hand, there's a lower-end ASUS Chromebox, with a Celeron, RAM, and an SSD, also for $180. (No keyboard/mouse with this one.)

On the other hand, I'm running out of hands!

Comment: Re:I was in the Peabody coal IPO (Score 1) 712

You'd be better off investing in more efficient coal-burning plants that cause less waste and less pollution, including GHG emissions, from the same unit of coal.

How about taking it one plant at a time? Make a list of the least efficient coal plants in the country. (Or, potentially, the world.) Buy them out and shut them down one at a time.

The industry then has the choice, in each case, of building a much more efficient coal plant, a much more efficient natural gas plant, or building a bunch of wind turbines, solar plants, or solar arrays. Any of which will substantially cut carbon emissions - though some more than others. Hopefully they'll start with the renewable and/or gas solutions. When they start building new coal plants, it might be time to re-think the strategy.

Help me, I'm a prisoner in a Fortune cookie file!