Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:For the percentage impaired... (Score 1) 85

This is more a matter of how the phrase should be read, as jargon, and not how the phrase will be (mis-)understood by the general public in casual conversation.

As a writer, if you can't count on a technically-minded audience, you're (unfortunately) best served by avoiding relative multiples entirely, as well as relative percentages at or above 100%. Unlike "two times faster" or "330% faster", there is no confusion, generally speaking, about how to read "three times as fast" or "430% as fast".

As a reader, in the absence of evidence of the author's intent to the contrary, if you encounter the phrase "X times faster" or "X% faster" I believe you should treat it as equivalent to "(X+1) times as fast" or "(X+100%) as fast".

I understand that linguistic relativism is in vogue at the moment, and even agree with it to an extent. The point of having language is to communicate, after all, which implies that the meanings and customary use of phrases are not fixed in stone; they change depending on the speaker, audience, and context. However, by the same token, I think prescriptionism is warranted in cases like this one for the sake of preserving our ability to communicate clearly and concisely. Ambiguity serves no one, and we don't need another inconsistent way to say "X times as fast", whereas maintaining the regular structure of the language ("X00% = X times" and "X faster = original speed plus X", regardless of context) helps to reduce the reader's cognitive load, leaving more energy for the real content. While there is no inherently right or wrong way to design a tool, some tool designs are more fit for purpose than others, and the same is true for the tools of communication, i.e. languages.

Comment Re:I'm getting old. (Score 1) 139

I understand your concerns, but these adapters are basically just wiring and physical supports. There are hardly any electronics involved (perhaps a discrete voltage regulator, judging from the images). If you would be willing to trust a non-OEM SATA cable and mounting bracket then I wouldn't see any reason not to trust a non-OEM M.2 to SATA adapter.

There are some higher-end models which provide a full 2.5" enclosure for your M.2 drive for $20-30, if you want the extra peace of mind.

Comment I'm quite ignorant of the KKK (Score 1) 2

All I know about them is they hate blacks, Jews, and Catholics (presumably all non-protestants, but as I said, I'm ignorant). What views do they have that aren't hateful? I'm curious.

As to BLM, the entire reason that movement HAD to happen was because there really ARE people who think black lives DON'T matter, including black gangsters and bigoted whites. You have some citation for BLMers advocating hatred or violence?

Like the late humorist Will Rogers said in the 1930s, "all I know is what I read in the papers" and I have a LOT more newspapers available than he did, thanks to the internet.

Comment Re:I'm getting old. (Score 1) 139

I get the M.2 format's advantages, but I don't understand why they wouldn't offer the same drives in SATA packaging.

If you need the SATA packaging to fit existing hardware you can get M.2 to SATA adapters for $8-10:
Oley Laptop SSD NGFF M.2 to 2.5" SATA 3 PC Converter Adapter Card
AD905A SATA III 3 to M.2 (NGFF) SSD 7+5 pin Connector Converter Adapter Card

Here's a higher-end dual-M.2 to SATA adapter with integrated hardware RAID for $40:
Ableconn ISAT-M2SR 2.5" 7mm SATA III to Dual M.2 SATA SSD Adapter with Hardward RAID

Has anyone heard of NAS or SAN devices that now feature rows of M.2 slots instead of SATA sleds?

They don't appear to be commonplace yet, but here's one example:
Qnap 4-Bay M.2 SSD NASbook with Built-In 4 Port LAN Switch

Comment Advise you get a "throwdown phone" (Score 2) 42

Because putting your phone number out there will probably pollute it and soon you'll be getting telemarketing calls 24x7 effectively killing the number.

They'll promise to take care of your number but they'll sell it to a "business partner" or they'll lose the list due to poor security or when they go bankrupt it will be sold as an asset.

I've had multiple email and one phone number polluted like this so far. I don't trust'em any more.

Comment Re:For the percentage impaired... (Score 1) 85

Can you link to something authoritative so I can cure my ignorance?

Sorry, I didn't find anything definitive either. However, it follows from the normal use for ratios less than unity. The only difference is the magnitude. Taking "two times" to be equivalent to "200%", and "1/2 times" (or simply "1/2") to be equivalent to "50%":

50% as fast (as the original) = 1/2 (times) as fast = 0.5 * original speed
100% as fast = one times as fast = 1 * original speed
200% as fast = two times as fast = 2 * original speed

50% faster (than the original) = 1/2 (times) faster = (0.5 * original speed) + original speed
100% faster = one times faster = (1 * original speed) + original speed = 2 * original speed
200% faster = two times faster = (2 * original speed) + original speed = 3 * original speed

The expression has two parts. The first can be either "X%" or "X times", both relative to the original amount. If the second part is "as fast" or "as much" (etc.) then this is the final result. If the second part is a relative term like "faster" or "more" then this implies addition, and the first amount, after multiplication, is the difference between the result and the original amount.

Few would disagree with the statement that "50% faster" is equivalent to "150% as fast", and not "50% as fast", but for some reason many become confused by "200% faster" when the formula is exactly the same.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 2) 680

The trend towards war is down.

But as we run out of non-renewable resources over the next 100 years, global warming won't matter.

The loss of pesticides, fertilizers, stainless steel, etc. all will limit our growth, lead to population declines, and possibly pretty terrible war (we have a lot of ugly stuff we agree not to use but as history shows, we will use during total war).

80 years from now, we may be at 12 billion and 80% likely to still be rising.

200 years from now, the earth is more likely to have a population of 3 billion than 20 billion. To avoid that we'll have to invent a lot of new technologies really fast as we hit multiple limits. Consumption of non-renewable resources by a population of 12 billion will be terrific.

I think most of the breakdown happens after I die. But I think we do have a breakdown- things have gotten visibly more brittle over the last 20 years. There's not as much slack in the system as their used to be. Which is fine until you have a problem.

Comment Re:I read the version with the photos (Score 1) 4

Yes, it was. I had the maid show me how to work the coffeemaker later. I'd have known if I'd bothered to read the coffee packet.

Some of the blur may have been because I was so shaky after hiking outside with all those books and falling down. That last photo is bad because there wasn't much light,

Comment Re:I read the version with the photos (Score 1) 4

The blurry pics are from Patty's new Samsung. I reduced resolution as well, because when I run out of hosting space at mcgrewbooks.com where the photos actually are (they won't fit in the mcgrew.info's 10 megs) it will cost a lot more. The Sith is cropped way down, he was across the room.

That first picture, the worldcon logo, came from Google. The covers to "Random Scribblings" are GIMPed photos I took with the same phone I took to Worldcon.

I would have probably made a fool of myself if I'd gone to the first Midamericon in 1969 in St. Louis, but I was seventeen.

Slashdot Top Deals

If we could sell our experiences for what they cost us, we would all be millionaires. -- Abigail Van Buren

Working...