A few things to point out (and maybe this has changed but it was accurate last I checked):

- the throughput numbers of SSD's are bogus since they are calculated using highly compressible data; HDD performance doesn't depend on compressing data and won't change just because you're writing out a binary file.

- SSD's on notebooks and smaller may make sense because of the lower power and shock resistance

- SSD's on desktops/workstations don't make nearly as much sense. I have an SSD in on of my machines. The machine also has 4 fairly old HDDs striped in RAID 0 (yes with frequent backups). The HDD's blow the socks off the SSD. If I put more modern drives in the RAID array the disparity would be even worse. Yes the HDD's use more power but the point of the desktop is performance.

- seems to me I remember that SSD's are not recommended for paging - although right now I can't remember why or where I read it so YMMV. And yes, many systems don't page.

- some people say it isn't throughput that counts it's IOP's - well again a good RAID system isn't too shabby at that either but even if SSD's were to always win out in IOP's the question of whether that matters really depends on what you are doing with your system. For example when I want that 2GBB stack of images to load I want it to load NOW and throughput is what matters. The same with compiling large sources, etc.

Somebody mod parent up!

That seems like a pretty useless measure.

Researcher 1: 3 papers each cited 700 times, H=3

Researcher 2: 10 papers each cited 10 times, H=10

I'd still be picking researcher number 1.

I realized a day's work of coding meant sitting in one spot, staring at chars/text, thinking, and then more of the same

I have been a programmer (developer, designer, architect... whatever you would like to call it) for more years than I care to count and I have never worked in that manner. My clients come to me with a problem. I make sure I understand the problem. I detail what I will need from them and then I tell them I will call them when I have something for them. I work when I want (as in when I feel I am going to be productive not just because it is some particular time of day) and where I want. Sometimes I don't work for days and sometimes I will work non-stop for days. The only time I go through the process you describe is if I have to use a specialized piece of equipment that cannot be moved off site.

But you're right - there is an awful lot of thinking going on and the fact is the more time you spend thinking, and the earlier in the process you do it, the less time you spend sitting in one spot staring at characters...

A very common problem with programmers is that they see the solution as writing code and really really want to get to that fast... I used to see this with students all the time... but the real solution is thinking. Programming is creating a mental object... a mental sculpture if you will... and once you have perfectly visualized that sculpture and the relationships between all the facets then translating that to code is pretty tivial and doesn't require a lot of debugging.

Also, if you knew about how they actually set it, they set it based on the middle people, with assumptions about the tails. As there is an absolute minimum, and no maximum, the long tail effect will push the "average" (mean) above 100.

Clearly there is a maximum for reasonable purposes. How many people out of a population of 100 Million will have an IQ in excess of 200? Maybe 1? 0? It's pretty safe to cut the curve at 200 and be reasonably sure that the cases, if any, that that cuts off have no noticeable effect on the mean.

It was so long ago I cant remember who but one of (I think it was the first) Wirth, Hoare or Dijkstra said that the best programmers fell into one of two groups: those with good facility with math and those with good facility with their native language.

I just knew that living beside high voltage transmission lines would come in handy someday!

"I have gathered that today's culture is slowly trying to push out the personality types that were common 20 years ago."

I didn't realize "competent" was a personality type but sure, makes sense.

Well thank you for asserting your opinions as if they were facts or even a logical argument for your position. Too bad they're neither.

As for what other countries require of visitors - that is certainly they're right. It seems to me the discussion was what countries/society can demand of its own citizens. So even that comment is irrelevant.

As for your reference to Ayn Rand, I'll refrain from implying you are a known authoritarian demagogue, because see that kind of comment really doesn't add anything at all. Well, wait, I guess it does show the person making it lacks the ability to conduct a proper argument. .

It has nothing to do with the number of people choosing not to be vaccinated. It addresses the logical claim of the increased risk, relative to other people otherwise why even both talking about the compromised immune system, resting with the non-vaccinated person rather than with the one who has no immune system. Read first, think, then respond.

I shall assume that you have no actual response to what I said and being unable to tolerate that you instead are just asserting your opinion as fact.

Look at it this way, there is the child with the damaged immune system, and another child without a damaged immune system. Both are in the presence of the child who hasn't been vaccinated. The risk to the child with the damaged immune system is higher than the risk to the other child - clearly the escalation in risk (which was what was brought up) is due to the damaged immune system.

While I feel sorry for the child with the damaged immune system I'm not convinced that that is sufficient reason to demand that other children undergo a medical procedure, any medical procedure no matter how benign it might seem.

This reminds me of all the schools that send kids home if they bring peanut butter in their lunch... because some kids are allergic to peanut butter. So the kids don't get to eat what they want and the parents have to use more expensive sandwich contents (it's pretty hard to beat peanut butter on price). This has "just happened" with no public debate about it.

I'm sorry you misunderstood what I said. I thought it was clear to what I was referring in your post but obviously it wasn't to you. Do as you please, of course, but if you are genuinely interested in two-way communication I'd suggest a little more consideration of what someone is saying to you before you hit that reply button.

I was commenting on your claim that "It actually amazes people from outside the US that children unvaccinated for things like whooping cough would be allowed into a public school."

Either your claim was irrelevant to your prior claim or it was intended to bolster it. The latter seemed to be its purpose. Thus my comment about popularity not equalling correctness. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear to you.

So basically any time "we" observe that parents behavior may result in developing a child (=> adult) who may endanger others (one day, perhaps) then "we" are entitled to interevene and dictate the way that child is raised?

Wow. OK then... I think kids being raised to believe that "society"/"the state"/"the mob" has a right to tell you what beliefs your children must have (or at least be taught to behave as if they have them) poses a significant danger to humanity and believe that all people who believe in that right should be sequestered. That's ok too, right?