|
Alright, alright, I was under the impression that was you in the video and it isn't.
I'm sorry if I offended you by categorizing hunting (for sports) as 'American lifestyle'.
It's just something I never understood (being a vegetarian myself) and that Americans (among others) seem to do (once in a while).
I could also strongly disagree with your view on guns, but let's just agree to disagree 
No politics in the lounge after all!
I'd say let's focus on the things we have in common (we're both on CP!) and drink to that!
But then I read that coder interview and it seems you're an Apple user... 
Just kidding about the Apple sigh! 
Cheers! ![Beer | [beer]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: you're an Apple user.
Yuck! Maybe hunting is a good thing?!  Die Apple users, die! 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Amen!
|
|
|
|
|
Fer da record: As an Apple Employee, I "founded" the then International HyperCard User Group in 1989, of which was officially internally sponsored/sanctioned/funded by Apple as a "service".
The short name for the user group: iHUG.
Yes, I'm claiming I started the "i"-naming usage/convention at Apple.
 And all I got was this lousy t-shirt! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
I gotta give credit where credit is due:
Sergeant Schulz, a character on the 60's TV sitcom "Hogan's Heros", actually came up with the first-ever "i"-naming product or service:
"iSeeNuthink!" and "iKnowNothink!"[^]
|
|
|
|
|
MacSpudster wrote: Sergeant Schulz, a character on the 60's TV sitcom "Hogan's Heros", actually came up with the first-ever "i"-naming product or service:
"iSeeNuthink!" and "iKnowNothink!"[^]
iDon'tKnowThat... Waaaay before my time!
|
|
|
|
|
Fun? It is not. Delicious? You can bet on it!
GCS d--- s-/++ a- C++++ U+++ P- L- E-- W++ N++ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t++ 5? X R++ tv-- b+ DI+++ D++ G e++>+++ h--- ++>+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP. -- TNCaver
"When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page." -- Mike Hankey
|
|
|
|
|
I've got two four port hubs and 3 ports on the laptop, making for:
- keyboard (laptop keyboard is not for high speed typing)
- mouse
- laptop USB 1 to DVI converter for 3rd monitor
- 512GB external SSD
- printer
- laptop USB 2 to hub
- laptop USB 3 to hub
- powering crappy speakers
- credit card reader
- ID scanner
- Verifone pinpad
Item 9-11 are related to my current job (writing ATM software)
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Item 9-11
That's an unfortunate notation...
Anyway, I'm on my laptop and only have a mouse and iPod attached (just detached my external HD).
Got speakers, but not on USB.
Now go away and leave US B 
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: That's an unfortunate notation...
Hah, didn't even notice. My PO Box is 911 too. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: 512GB external SSD
Did not know this existed. Approximate price?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nish Nishant wrote: Did not know this existed. Approximate price?
What Yusef said. 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be as fast as an internal SSD? Would the USB interface slow it down?
|
|
|
|
|
Nish Nishant wrote: Would it be as fast as an internal SSD?
Like many question, the answer is 42 it depends. most internal SSDs use eSATA and external SSDs use USB, but not all interfaces are created equal. For starters there is a difference between USB2 and USB3 throughputs. In many cases USB3 (external) will be faster than eSATA ( assuming head-to-head comparison ), but USB3 will be dependent on how may other devices are connected.
In general, for low - mid data access you won't see much difference between internal and external SSDs but for heavy data access internal has slight advantage.
These sources are bit outdated, but the point is still valid http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2413310,00.asp[^] and http://www.itworld.com/article/2693284/usb-3-0-vs-esata-is-faster-better.html[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that very few internal SSDs use e(xternal)SATA. As for USB3, it still uses 8/10bit encoding; meaning that 5 gigabits/sec translates to 500MB/sec max. Good SATA SSDs will send data faster than that in sequential reads. USB 3.1's speed doubling could push an external drive over the top; but only if it's a PCIe model internally.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
USB3 is theoretically in the same speed class as sata, so it could be as fast as an internal (non-PCIe) SSD; with 3.1 being comparable to 2 PCIe 2.0 lanes. In practice, even devices marketed as USB SSDs generally are 4 flash chip models (laptop or budget desktop equivalent) not 8 chips like higher end desktop SSDs and fall short of high end models. Ones marketed as just high capacity flash drives generally have only 1 flash chip and a crappy controller and are much slower. Cheap USB3 flash drives use bottom binned flash and crappier controllers and make the former look good. USB2 is slow enough that all flash drives will suck similarly.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's the advantage to having more flash chips, aside from perhaps higher capacity?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Parallelism. Reading from/writing to 8 chips can be twice as fast as 4, although normally a bit less in practice because especially for reads you rarely get the data equally spread out over all the chips and on sata devices sequential IO is bottlenecked by the bus. 4 vs 2 or 1 is more dramatic because even easy cases can end up not saturating the bus before maxing the flash out.
(If you want to go deeper into the weeds, for a lot of things its the number of flash dies that really count not the number of chips, and 8x8 die chips will perform similarly to 4x16 die ones. This is a big part of why small capacity SSDs are slower than larger ones: as the individual flash dies get denser the bottom end doesn't have enough to keep up with what the controller is capable of. Generally this is only a significant factor with the lowest size drive in a lineup, with the middle and upper ones performing similarly. The SSD makers seem to've learned their lesson when a round of die shrinks meant that 128GB SSDs were feeling the too few die bottleneck, while 64GB ones were performing awfully.)
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Dan.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Kinda like RAID-0 for flash chips I guess.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
