Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:No such thing (Score 1) 308

How does one block images from a web site that's in your address bar of your browser? You ask the web server for *some* of the images from a web site, but not others? That's my whole point. If I'm going to whatever.com, I'm fine with seeing content from whatever.com, whether it's "content" or advertisements. I'm not OK with seeing content from shittyadnetwork.com.

Comment Re:Price Is Still Just One of Two Sticking Points (Score 2) 156

Oh, while we are at it, SSD tend to fail spectacularly: i.e. usually when they perish you cannot extract any information at all vs. spinning platters which usually fail gradually.

Most newer SSDs are designed to fail gracefully. When they die, they become a read-only device. All your data is still accessible. Many USB flash drives are designed to fail the same way - if you've ever had a USB flash drive mysteriously become "write-protected", it probably died and set itself to read-only mode. Unfortunately, Samsung seems to be one of the SSD manufacturers which hasn't yet adopted this philosophy for failure. But I can understand their reasoning because...

P.S. If you wanna counter my first argument, fill your SSD up to 99% and then try to work with it continuously for quite some time. That 1% will get overwritten multiple times and your whole SSD will be prone to a failure.

That problem was solved in the 2000s with wear-leveling algorithms. Basically, the "sectors" the SSD presents to the computer aren't actual physical locations. They're virtual locations stored in a table. If the SSD senses certain blocks being used too much or other blocks sitting unused, it moves the data around behind the scenes so that writes hit all flash memory cells about equally. It updates the virtual table every time it does this, to fool the computer into thinking the drive is physically the same as it has always been.

The rated endurance on most consumer SSDs is around 2000-3000 cycles. For a 250 GB SSD, that means you can write 625 terabytes to it before expecting a failure. If you write 100 GB of data to the drive every day, you can expect it to last nearly 20 years. In torture tests, most SSDs have lasted about 2-3x longer than their rating. And no, the first cell failure is not catastrophic. Pretty much all SSDs have a number of reserve cells sitting on the sidelines to take over for cells which fail early.

If your duty cycle is higher than 100 GB/day, they make special enterprise SSDs rated for 10k-100k writes per cell. The price is correspondingly higher of course, primarily due to using SLC (one bit stored per cell) instead of MLC (2 bits) or TLC (3 bits).

Limited number of writes were more of a problem in the early days of SSDs when they were like 32 GB in size. In that case, the exact same characteristics as the above 250 GB SSD would yield only 2.2 years of longevity. But the problem has pretty much become a non-factor as capacities have increased.

Comment Re:No such thing (Score 1) 308

The problem is that you seem to think that the "virtual" world somehow is different than the "real" world. It isn't. I know lots of people who listen to NPR and very few people who listen to "regular" radio. Why? Partially, because they don't have screaming ads about gold scams and dick hardening pills. It's the same thing.

Tens of thousands of visitors should mean "take some time to earn money from this or I'm going to run out of money really fast." You didn't, and it fell over. I'm sorry. Your'e continuing to insist that what you did was the correct answer, when it obviously didn't work. If you can't learn from your own mistakes...

Comment Re:No such thing (Score 2) 308

You're right, that fraud was possible, but less so than with TV or Radio or Print. Hell, I spend $$ on radio advertising, even that I have zero way to validate how many people are hearing those radio broadcasts. Advertisers will pay for unvalidated advertising.

If you had something that accidentally blew up on line, then you could have picked up a phone, called a big company that did something related to what this site was about, and ask them to advertise. That's how business works. You can't expect to sustain something that popular with spending zero effort on bringing in some kind of revenue. By using an ad network, that's what you're doing, and that's completely unsustainable. You're producing a service that a LOT of people are consuming, but you're spending zero effort to bring in any income from your work.

Comment Re:The technical problems with this are immense. (Score 1) 324

Why not go all out and just evacuate the wings for maximum lift? Moron.

AFAIK the problem is if you make it big enough for the effect to be meaningful, it takes up too much space. So my question phrased more properly is, can you just stack them, or is there some property which makes that infeasible?

Comment Re:No such thing (Score 1) 308

$1K/month to serve a community need is an outlier. If you somehow had to pay that without having tens of thousands visitors a day, then I don't know what you're talking about.

If you had tens of thousands of visitors a day, then it would have behooved you to sell your own ads. That means:
1. Call big company that may be interested in advertising on your web site.
2. Tell them that this many people will see an ad for them if they pay you $$ per month.
3. You write HTML (with your fingers) that say, "Buy something from this company", and put it on your web pages.

What you did:
1. Copy-Paste "http://someshittyadnetwork.com/;asdiofulewrn.,n321412341324oip????&&&&"

Comment Re:No such thing (Score 1) 308

Well, I am. But any site that gets more traffic than can be handled by a $10/month host can also afford to sell some of their own ads. That's my point. Web sites that are that large/popular need to call advertisers, ask them to advertise, create ads, and put them on their web sites. Same thing that's been happening in print for hundreds (thousands?) of years. Ad networks are a cheap shortcut that don't work as well as people hoped they would.

Comment Re:Establishment clause (Score 1) 257

No, sorry, that's not true. "Your community" has no input into whether you build 300 ft structures on your 1000 ac of private property out in unincorporated land.

HAW HAW HAW

Tell you what. Go forth and give it a shot, and see how it goes — make sure to defend it to the bitter end. You won't have to get back to us to let us know how it went, because you'll be on the news.

Comment Re:No such thing (Score 1) 308

Sell it and host their own ads. Like print publications have been doing for hundreds (thousands?) of years. If you have thousands of people visiting a web site a day, it's worth it, financially, to hire a salesperson, and sell some ads, and put those ads on your web site. Instead, modern websites say, "Waaah, we don't want to spend money on ad salespeople. We'd rather spend 10 seconds to paste in some HTML from some ad network and let them pay us." I don't think that this is rocket science.

I block every ad. Any web site that can't figure this out can die, and I really don't care. Slashdot is getting sold every three weeks these days, so it's value is dwindling fast, and that's probably because 90% of it's visitors are using ad blockers. If whoever owns it today doesn't figure this out, oh, well.

Slashdot Top Deals

Money cannot buy love, nor even friendship.

Working...