Android has had this option since approximately forever.
You asked "why does the boat (infrastructure) need to be in the ocean (internet). You said very specifically that you were talking about ALL commerce, NOT just about critical infrastructure. Would you like to flip-flop a third time and go back to critical infrastructure? If so, refer to my explanation of why public health services are connected.
Along with the longer articles mentioned, here's a one sentence summary of the ruling:
Adding the words "on a computer" doesn't change the patentability of a supposed invention.
In Alice, someone basically tried to patent "do escrow on a computer". The court ruled that "do escrow" isn't new or patentable, and adding the words "on a computer" doesn't change anything.
Some in the Slashdot crowd may be tempted to, through wishful thinking, add meaning that the court rejected. The court did NOT rule that having that you can't patent anything that can be done on a computer. They ruled that:
(not patentable) + (on a computer) = (not patentable)
The wording of the opinion also suggests that probably:
(patentable) + (on a computer) = (patentable)
In other words:
X + (on a computer) = X
They said that whether or not it's done on a computer doesn't change the patentability, if the computer part is standard, normal computing processes on a generic computer.
That implies that a new invention which uses a computer in a new, different, and useful way may very well be patentable. So for example it leaves the door open to the idea that a method of doing calculus on the GPU instead of the CPU might have been patentable a few years ago - that was a new, inventive way of using the computer, different from how computers had been used before. Alice talks specifically about "wholly generic computer implementation" as not adding anything to the application.
> no court in the U.S. has the authority to order a specific change to a product.
Not that they'd actually order that a backdoor be developed, but most courts can order specific performance. In many states, small claims courts are limited to monetary damages, but any other court of general jurisdiction can issue a specific performance order. You see this used in custody cases where the father is ordered to provide health insurance, for example. It's also common to have specific performance ordering a government official to take some action, such as issuing a title for a car that didn't have the normal documentation. In general, a court can order whatever the court thinks is equitable, subject only to the prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment ".
I think I answered them quite clearly. If there are English words you're unfamiliar with in my answers, I'd be happy to explain those words to you.
Here are two questions for you:
Why would you blame and punish the victim, rather than holding people accountable for what they do?
The attacker committed a crime / act of war. The victim tried to provide important services to people and was attacked while doing so.
Do have any idea what level 4 preparedness costs, or even what it is? If not, perhaps you're not qualified to speak on the subject.
> TRIM does impact endurance in that it CAN reduce write amplification
Yes. Like I originally said. Trim, by avoiding write amplification in some cases, increases endurance. However, it only helps for otherwise unused blocks, so the impact of trim is application dependent, as I said right in the subject line of my original post.
> TRIM has nothing to do with endurance. TRIM erases cells that are scheduled for erasure anyways; all TRIM does is try to time that erasure such that it occurs at a time that will not effect performance.
I guess you now realize that's wrong. The main purpose of trim is to avoid reading and writing pages that are unused anyway. The SSD doesn't need to reallocate trimmed blocks, because the OS isn't using that data anyway. Less physical reading and writing == more endurance.
> to say that TRIM fixes write endurance problems is highly misleading.
Which is pretty much the subject line of my original post.
> Not to be harsh, but there is if you actually took the time to understand the tech.
Now that you've agreed with what I said (trim affects endurance, but in an application dependent way), are you ready to admit YOU had forgotten exactly what the tech does? Maybe YOU would like to read the wikipedia article to refresh your memory?
1> Why should the boat (infrastructure) be in the Ocean (attached to the Internet)? As previously stated, "profit" is not an answer.
A ship should be in the ocean to bring bananas to North America, and generally get things to people eho need them. Foreign governments should not fire missiles at those ships. The internet made up of infrastructure , and can itself be considered to be critical infrastructure. It makes no sense to ask why it should be connected to itself. I see now you must have read the phrase "critical infrastructure " a lot and forgot that the word "critical" is there for a reason. Kind if like "fighter jet" - most jets aren't fighters, and most infrastructure isn't critical, so if you mean to distinguish critical infrastructure from Sony's PlayStation infrastructure please do so. The stock exchange should be network- connected so you can save fir retirement without paying a broker $150 transaction fee every month. Public health systems should be connected for fast, effective response to a public health crisis.
> Someone breaks into your house and rapes everyone inside, then steals everything of value you have no recourse
If that happens, you should be imprisoned. You failed to protect your family from armed attack. If you disagree , there's your answer to #2. We hold people accountable for what they DO. We don't hold people accountable and imprison them for getting raped or otherwise attacked. We imprison (or kill) the rapist, not the victim.
The attacker is at fault, not the victim. (The victim may have been foolish in the case of some crimes, but no amount of street smarts will protect you against a hostile super power on the rise.) You cannot protect yourself against China. They have zero-days, they have moles, and no company has the resources to fight China single-handedly. In this, I know of what I speak.
> I don't restrict the argument to just infrastructure. It's commerce as well, where some person/company accepts responsibility for another person's wealth or property (as with the original post and their stock exchange comment). All of these things are the same, and the argument is the same.
Okay, so the dry cleaner DOES need a private army to defend your clothes in case of attack by China.
A minute ago you shifted to "society absolutely cannot function without", but now we're back to all commerce. I can go either way, I just wish you'd pick one and stick with it. It's kind of annoying when you change your position with each post as your previous post is shown,to be ridiculous.
So now we're at "anyone in commerce is negligent unless they have a private army capable of standing their ground agains attack by the Chinese government ", correct?
Well we're kind of getting somewhere.
Infrared: below red
Infrasound: below sound
Infrastructure: below structure
> "Infrastructure" means that everyone relies on this, and society can not function without it.
Not in any way, shape or form, not even a litle bit close or related.
Infrasound does not mean "sound that society cannot function without", and infrastructure does not mean "structure that society cannot function without".
Infrastructure means parts and pieces which are underneath structure. A wire is not itself a structure, but an underlying part of a structure, such as my home network. Wiring is therefore infrastructure. A building's infrastructure is it's wires, beams, etc - all of the stuff that underlies the structure.
You seem to be silently adding "nationally critical " to the word infrastructure. From there, you've decided it's okay for China to attack nationally critical infrastructure.
> For posterity, "the Ocean" is at least close to the function of the Internet, where "New York" is not.
Okay, let's go with that, then.
> If a person runs a boat on the ocean are they not required to have gear to operate safely? If a boat owner had no lifeboats, no radar, no radio, not enough people to staff the boat would they not be held accountable if the boat had an accident?
An attack is not an accident. The government of China is _attacking_ US resources via the internet. We're not talking about accidents - someone didn't trip over the power cord. It's an attack by a foreign force. Having enough people to staff the boat, and a radio etc doesn't do much good when your ship is attacked by a foreign government. Your argument is that the ship (or web site) should have armament capable of defeating an attacking state, a rising superpower no less. "If they can't defend themselves against an attack from China, they deserve to be attacked and it's okay for China to attack them." That's your thesis, right? In the case of shipping, that would mean that each cargo ship should have anti-aircraft missiles, a squadron of fighter jets escorting it, etc. That's what it takes to defend a ship against an attack.
Other people think that operating fighter jets and otherwise defending the citizens against attacks by foreign nations is the proper role of the national government. "To raise and support armies", as the constitution says. Your idea that each citizen should have a private army capable of defending them against China is an interesting one.
> In the corporate world no-one's manipulating huge spreadsheets or writing 500 page legal documents on an iPad.
I'm guessing that in your corporate world, nobody HAS huge spreadsheets because they're putting the huge stuff in the RDMS whre it belongs. iPads aren't the right tool for significant datasets, and neither is Excel. In my world, most people do not use the right tool for the job.
Did you read rhe article? Micron claims their write endurance isn't a problem because of the way they implemented trim. That could make sense, if they avoided erasing and writing at all sometimes.
The internet isn't safe, so it's all the victim's fault, and we should ignore the attackers. Hmmm.
"Anyone in any business who doesn't realize that the internet^H^H^H^H^H^H New York isn't a safe playground.
That's your theory, right? Because the internet / New York / the ocean isn't a safe place, anyone attacked on the internet or in New York had it coming. The government of China is attacking our internet infrastructure, but theyget a pass because the internet isn't perfectly safe, right? The high seas also are not perfectly safe, so it would be okay for China to attack our shios at sea?
> and then suddenly we completely ran out of IPv4 addresses, so everyone, even Microsoft, had no choice but to get moving on IPv6
Ftfy . Most computing devices sold in the last three years don't run Windows. Microsoft is now a minority player. Android is #1, iOS #2.
So which companies have influence? Android is the most popular operating system, so it's support of IPv6 is important. Most end points that need new addresses get those addresses assigned by one of the major mobile carriers, while older equipment is still using the same old IPs on Comcast and Time Warner. The equipment on the backbones is mostly Cisco gear, so it matters what Cisco supports the best, but they'll provide whatever Comcast and Level3 want to buy.
Making assumptions about how often trim might be used for any given workload only obscures the actual write endurance. Much like a 100GB capacity tape that's marked as 200GB because dome data that the manufacturer chose compressed 2:1 before being sent to the tape drive. Your mpeg movies aren't going to compress, so you'll be able to put 100GB of movies on that 100GB tape. The 200GB number is pure marketing BS.
At least with tapes, all if the companies use the same 2:1 bs factor, so they can be compared. There's no telling what assumptions Micron made about the use of trim, so there's no way to compare this drive's endurance to any other, or to estimate it's actual endurance for any real workload.