Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Constant writes such as backups, security camer (Score 1) 430

by silas_moeckel (#48464519) Attached to: How Intel and Micron May Finally Kill the Hard Disk Drive

Streaming block writes, a 15k has about the same average write speed as a 6tb 7200 similar cost and 10x the capacity.

Now if your backup or DVR app effectively makes that random writes, sure there is a point but get an app and/or file system that is not broken by design.

Comment: Re:Spinning media can't go beyond 7200 rpm (Score 1) 430

by silas_moeckel (#48462309) Attached to: How Intel and Micron May Finally Kill the Hard Disk Drive

Would you buy those 15k's new today? What usage pattern would favor 15k's vs ssd's? Space is similar if not in favor of the ssd's. IOPS SSD's win hands down. Price really depends on how much vendor gouging is going on, but if you need enterprise storage you tend to need IOP's so far fewer SSD's can do the same job as a lot of 15k spindles.

Sure enterprise bulk or near line enterprise 7200's give you a ton of space.

Comment: Empty article.. (Score 5, Informative) 430

by Junta (#48461885) Attached to: How Intel and Micron May Finally Kill the Hard Disk Drive

I don't know why Intel and Micron get any special consideration given that right in the summary the fact that Samsung has already announced the same move.

Also incorrect assertion that drives don't go faster than 7200 (there are 15k drives, just they are pointless for most with SSD caching strategies available).

Comment: Re:Flip Argument (Score 1) 1088

by Junta (#48460871) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

a) The prosecutor wants to bring a prosecution if the evidence allows

I'm assuming that if the prosecutor doesn't *want* to get a trial, they similarly would not *want* to win a trial. I'm not saying they are trying their best as a given, I'm saying that their effort in trying to get a trial should be indicative of their effort in winning a trial. One should not expect a prosecution team that did not get a trial would do a better job of incriminating a guilty party *at* trial should one have been hypothetically held. I'm trying to ascertain who the hypothetical party would be presenting the defendant in a *more* negative light than the prosecution.

Breaking down how this thread has proceeded, it *sounds* like you are saying that the prosecution wanted the grand jury to think that the deceased was being aggressive, and that somehow during trial some other party would convince them that the deceased had surrendered. The defense would not do that. If the prosecution willfully did that in the hearing, why would they change mind in a trial?

Comment: Re:Flip Argument (Score 1) 1088

by Junta (#48457641) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

As did the decision not to indict.

I don't think anyone interprets this to mean a person should be *forced* to face trial when they otherwise wouldn't actually face charges at all. I cannot say whether the defendant *should* have faced a trial in this specific circumstance. However imagine you have pissed off a district attorney in a perfectly legal way (dated their ex-spouse or something). If that DA could retaliate with malicious prosecution and force you to be in a trial without any cause whatsoever, I don't think you would appreciate that your right to a fair trial of the accused was not interfered with when it could have otherwise would have been completely dismissed.

The US justice system is designed such that it resists being used to harass an innocent person to the point that it errs on letting the guilty off in some cases. This is not to say innocent people manage not to face abuses at the hands of the system, but that things are just set up to mitigate that risk and there are tradeoffs.

Comment: Re:Flip Argument (Score 1) 1088

by Junta (#48457537) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting

A trial, while imperfect, is adversarial and offers the chance to present more evidence and make counter arguments on any terms. The grand jury was limited to what the prosecutor decided to allow.

If the prosecution is not going to make a strong enough case to even *get* a trial, they sure as hell wouldn't make a strong enough case to *win* a trial. Who do you imagine would present stronger evidence than the *prosecution* implicating the defendant? Do you think the defense is going to do that?

If the prosecution was sympathetic to the defendant as you imply, then a trial wasn't going to do any better, because the only party interesting in proving guilt is by definition the prosecutor. I frankly haven't followed the facts of the case well enough to agree or challenge that implication, but the logical consequence of the implication doesn't suggest a trial would have gone differently.

Comment: The point of such a service has evolved. (Score 2) 55

by Junta (#48421339) Attached to: Nielsen Will Start Tracking Netflix and Amazon Video

In the TV market, they were valued because the cable/broadcast/satellite services had no idea what frequency band users were paying attention to and thus no idea what was effective and what was not without some proactive examination of the viewer base. This was important for the program producers to value product placement, integrated advertising, and for the cable/satellite people to know what content was worth/not worth licensing.

For unicast streaming, the streaming service knows *precisely* what the users are paying attention to. For content producers, they control the licensing terms so they should be able to force Hulu, Amazon, and netflix to provide data as part of the deal of licensing it, in order to have data for soliciting things like product placement.
The streaming services themselves have all the data they need to entice advertisers that are independent of the content. Additionally, the advertisements are in no way hard linked to the streaming media. If the service wants to show you that ad, they don't need to give a rat's ass about *which* program you are watching.
Certainly the people providing the service know which pieces of content they license and how much they are watched to evaluate relative value of their library.

So the two remaining purposes are to let Amazon know which parts of Netflix library are valuable enough to fight for versus not bothering, and academic curiosity of the viewership. Of course, the former might be workable by requesting the data from the content owners as part of negotiations, and the latter doesn't really mean revenue...

Comment: Simple... (Score 1) 575

by Junta (#48417661) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

Neither side is being particularly constructive in helping fix systemd's issues.

Those in the systemd camp largely plug their ears and just think doubters are merely stubborn or unsophisticated enough to understand just how *awesome* it is and that it is worth the downsides (if they'll even admit something is a downside).

On the other side, mostly the criticism is just roll back and leave things as-is. Which leaves systemd advocates unhappy because they don't get their shiny capabilities at all. Not much discussion is had on how to amend certain strategies to placate the sensibilities of today while delivering the capabilities of something new. For example, if journald simply made plaintext logging alongside (not as a downstream add-on by piping to syslog, natively doing it alongside binary data), people would probably not balk nearly so much. If a systemd unit could degrade to start without being able to talk to pid 1 or cgroup support available (with loss of function), then some debug activity is made more straightforward in a rescue environment that may chroot (yes, spawning a container is usually possible, but why not degrade to cope to the extent possible). If open ended init scripts were better accommodated and didn't try to forcibly constrain sysv init scripts to force it to fit the only models that systemd understands.

Of course some concerns are more fundamental (bringing everything possible under one monolithic development effort rather than modular design that has discrete owners using simplistic yet consistent vocabulary to communicate with each other). But a lot of the specific technical issues could be alleviated by modification of systemd while preserving the stuff that there is to like.

Comment: Re:cost/price per kW hour comparison is nonsense (Score 1) 516

by silas_moeckel (#48416571) Attached to: Rooftop Solar Could Reach Price Parity In the US By 2016

That is the problem your getting free "storage" from the grid. Traditional generation can not spool up and down as fast as wind/solar output changes. So in effect grid tied solar is getting a free ride as everybody else pays for that excess peeking capacity required. Better long distance transmission can help be balancing the system but it still requires a good amount of overbuilding to meet instant demands.

Now there is a good option for this. EV's have big batteries and plenty of computing and connectivity, making them a great fit to soak up baseline plant generation in the middle of the night and pump that back as needed. Go far enough down the line and hydro could be used to fill the gap since it's a fast responding clean base load generator.

Optimization hinders evolution.