Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:not really (Score 1) 247

by nabsltd (#46779491) Attached to: SSD-HDD Price Gap Won't Go Away Anytime Soon

Not in real world use. There are no 1M IOPS SLC SSDs (single drive), but there are plenty of 100K IOPS MLC SSDs.

As a matter of fact, this seems to show that with the exception of the Fusion-io ioDrive2 SLC variant, all the top-performing single drive SSDs are MLC. And, the MLC variants of the ioDrive2 are only about 10% behind the SLC variant.

You can see from the Wikipedia article that what truly affects final throughput is the bus width and number of channels of SSD controller, just like I said. The fastest systems are just many MLC SSDs connected to a very fast bus.

Comment: Re:oh how wrong this is (Score 1) 247

by nabsltd (#46779229) Attached to: SSD-HDD Price Gap Won't Go Away Anytime Soon

That comparison is meaningless because a 4TB is at a premium price. If you think you need 500GB, use should compare a 500GB HDD with an SSD (480GB being close enough).

Although 4TB drives are still at a premium, I don't think it's unreasonable to compare a much larger spinning disk, as you can get a 3TB drive for around $110.

I can get a 500GB 7200RPM SATA drive for about $50. A Crucial M500 is about $120.

And the problem here is that you're comparing a 500GB spinning drive to a 240GB SSD. If you truly want to compare space to space, then you'd need to spend around $240 for a 480-500GB SSD. That makes the SSD 4.8x as much money, and around 10x more per GB. And, it's even worse with a 3TB disk, as it's still half the price of the ~500GB SSD, but has 6x the space, making the SSD cost 12x per GB.

That said, I've got SSDs as boot disks in all my systems, but obviously use hard drives to store large amounts of data.

Comment: Re:not really (Score 1) 247

by nabsltd (#46779123) Attached to: SSD-HDD Price Gap Won't Go Away Anytime Soon

So for a given number of dollars the smaller drive will have better performance.

First, this is a red herring, since the price you pay for an SSD in a given size class won't buy you any significantly larger drive. So, a 60GB dog of an SSD for $60 is still far faster than the zero IOPS you get from a $60 120GB SSD. What you really need to compare is the cost per GB, because then you can compare things like the performance of a pair of 60GB drives in RAID-0 vs. a single 120GB.

That said, the primary factor in SSD speed is the number of controller channels that can be connected to the flash chips. For an example, see pretty much any review (like this one). Because of this, smaller drives always have lower performance. Even crossing manufacturers/lines can only rarely make this untrue, as a doubling of size doubles the channels, so the flash on a smaller drive would have to be more than twice as fast to make up the difference. And although you are correct that SLC is faster than MLC, it's not twice as fast.

So, if you can find a larger drive that costs less in total dollars than a smaller drive (and it is possible...there are a few 120GB drives that cost less than 60GB drives), in every case you will get astoundingly more for your money, as you get more storage and more channels used on the controller, which gives you more performance.

Comment: Re:Nonsense (Score 1) 283

by nabsltd (#46778573) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: System Administrator Vs Change Advisory Board

You could, for example, send all links on one page and have that be signed.

Since we don't know exact details, it's possible that the official wording was something like "each link has to be individually approved".

Even if that wasn't the case, with 400 or so new links per day, that would be 5-8 pages depending on font size, margins, etc. Sure, the powers that be could just rubber-stamp the process without actually reading and investigating each link, but then what happens when one of links is an issue (points to porn, material copyrighted by big media, etc.)? Before, they could just write it off as a mistake by some low-level web coder. With the signature of the vice-chancellor on it, it pretty much becomes officially endorsed by the university.

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1558

by nabsltd (#46769807) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

When the constitution was ratified, the militia was the only defense that the United States had, and all able bodied men were expected to be ready to serve.

Now, whether the militia is the intent of the second amendment is a question that we have been asking for a long time now. The wording of the second amendment is not particularly clear on that.

And yes, I know that this opinion is not popular on a site as conservative as slashdot.

I don't see where you wrote any opinion.

It's a fact that the definition of "militia" at the time of the writing of the Constitution was radically different from what we think of today. A modern day wording might be "anybody who is eligible to be drafted into the military". With the 1770s definition of "militia" in mind, the proposed change in TFA really means nothing. "Militia" was just everyone who wasn't presently in the army but could be if needed.

It's also a fact that the wording of the 2nd isn't as clear as it should be, and likewise that we can't be 100% sure whether the "militia" part was intended as a comment or a limit for the right.

Even if it was a limit, though, with the definition of "militia" at the time of the writing, it would limit to something like any male older than about 14. Since that time, women have been defined as equal to men in most ways, and since they can serve in the military, and we treat 14-year-olds as children instead of adults, the current definition would be something like "any person 18 years or older". And, since "regulated" meant "trained" at the time of the writing, we end up with:

People well-trained in the handling of firearms being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of persons 18 years and older to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Comment: Re:huh? (Score 1) 322

by nabsltd (#46760225) Attached to: Netflix Gets What It Pays For: Comcast Streaming Speeds Skyrocket

43 minutes of show. Plus 6 (count 'em) 2-3 minute commercial breaks when you see four ads back to back.

Granted, that's only about 28% (when TV is 36%).

Your math is wrong. Both examples you give have 17 minutes of ads in an hour show, which is 28%.

So if Hulu isn't any better than regular network TV, no wonder nobody uses it.

Comment: Re:I prefer to browse real bookstores (Score 2) 83

by nabsltd (#46746551) Attached to: Seattle Bookstores Embrace Amazon.com

Besides, these days the price difference often isn't actually very large anymore, once you add the cost of shipping.

I always have plenty of stuff in my "buy it when I get a chance" list that I never pay for shipping from Amazon.

I used to wander through a lot of bookstores and book sales from colleges/charities/etc., but I don't any more, since I can pretty much always find exactly what I want by searching Amazon. In addition, I don't have to puzzle through the bookstore category system to figure out where a book might be. A great example of this is that I pretty much like everything that Isaac Asimov has ever written, but finding it all in a bookstore is painful. On Amazon, it's a simple search for his name.

Comment: Re:Need something? (Score 1) 181

by nabsltd (#46713761) Attached to: Do Free-To-Play Games Get a Fair Shake?

I'm reminded of Mark Cerny's thoughts on Atari and how arcade machines were run. It was completely brutal. Kill player in 3 minutes. 2 1/2 minutes was better.

Games where everyone always died in 3 minutes didn't get repeat players and lost new players because of word of mouth. You have to have at least some people who can play for a while to entice other players to spend their money.

Back in the day, Pole Position was one of the few games with a real limit to the amount of time you could play. Sure, there were a lot of games that could kill you in a few minutes, but those same games (Joust, Pac-Man, Tron, Robotron, Defender, etc.) could easily be played for 30 minutes on a single credit if you were good, and many hours if you were very good.

Today, a likely reason for the demise of the arcade is because there are very few games that offer the chance of a long play time. Many games have fixed times or are simply too hard to allow long play.

Comment: Re:nope! (Score 1) 496

by nabsltd (#46655191) Attached to: Will Cameras Replace Sideview Mirrors On Cars In 2018?

I assume you never need to drive a rental car then

I have yet to find a rental car that didn't have adjustable mirrors. Do rentals where you live have fixed mirrors?

Once I adjust the rental car mirrors in exactly the same way (to avoid seeing the car), I don't worry about them again, as there are no other drivers.

Comment: Re:Wear the tin foil hat (Score 1) 303

by nabsltd (#46648617) Attached to: Ad Tracking: Is Anything Being Done?

Google Chrome has a feature (or used to, I haven't used it for a while) that allows you to selectively block Javascript by domain. I find this to be a better approach -- everything is whitelisted by default and you selectively block the ones you don't like.

Malware writers like this approach, too, as it makes you more vulnerable to drive-bys.

NoScript requires a one-time click to allow a domain. I don't find this to be much of a burden. If it is for you, you can use "Allow all this page", which will permanently allow JavaScript for every domain the current page references.

Comment: Re:Wear the tin foil hat (Score 5, Informative) 303

by nabsltd (#46648579) Attached to: Ad Tracking: Is Anything Being Done?

IMHO these websites are examples of bad design . Good design should fall back to plain html/css with ideally, minimum loss of functionality

Yeah, but then you wouldn't have to whitelist the JavaScript to see the content and get all the advertisements too. Working as intended.

Most sites don't serve their own ads, so I can generally allow the site itself without getting ads. And, since NoScript has a "temporarily enable..." choice, I do that and only permanently enable sites that I use regularly.

For example, I allow slashdot.com and fsdn.com, but googleadservices.com, google-analytics.com, rpxnow.com, and doubleclick.net (which are all included into the /. pages) are all set to "untrusted".

Comment: Re:nope! (Score 1) 496

by nabsltd (#46648481) Attached to: Will Cameras Replace Sideview Mirrors On Cars In 2018?

I have my side mirrors turned so that while in a natural driving position I just barely can't see my own vehicle.

And I have mine turned so that I just barely can, which provides visual context at a glance in a sketchy situation. You've deprived yourself of that cue, which is fine until something unexpected happens.

If you can't remember where your car is in relation to where your mirror is set, then you likely also can't remember any of the other dozens of things you will need to know in order to drive.

Of course, I do have an advantage in that my mirrors are always set correctly when I enter my car, as it remembers me. If you drive a car that doesn't have such a feature and is driven by somebody that adjusts the mirrors differently, you might need that visible cue.

Comment: Re:nope! (Score 1) 496

by nabsltd (#46648409) Attached to: Will Cameras Replace Sideview Mirrors On Cars In 2018?

A camera could be permanently fixed to view exactly the right area

...for some people. I adjust my side mirrors so that I can't see my car, because seeing my car doesn't help me see other cars. I know exactly how much "off" the car my view is, and know that the tiny blind spot I create is covered by the rear view mirror inside the car.

The way I do it was considered correct by the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) in 1995, but it is not the traditional way that has been taught for decades, and is still taught in many places.

Comment: Re:Its called paying attention (Score 1) 364

by nabsltd (#46640593) Attached to: Your Car Will Tell You How To Hit the Next Green Light

There are many reasons to get up to the stop location (either the line or the car in front of you) as quickly as possible.

One is to clear the intersection you just left. Another is to get past the beginning of the left turn lane so that people who want to turn left (which may be on a radically different cycle than the straight through) can get into that lane. For the same reason, don't stop two car lengths from the line/car. Pull up close and keep your foot on the brake. If somebody rams you hard enough that you hit the car in front, then you likely have bigger worries than hitting the car in front.

TRANSACTION CANCELLED - FARECARD RETURNED

Working...