Re: @Big John - these emails are not from Hillary's server
You really need to go back and read the SCOTUS decision in the 'Ellsberg' case.
3097 posts • joined 11 Apr 2006
You really need to go back and read the SCOTUS decision in the 'Ellsberg' case.
You really need to get out more and actually learn the facts of the case.
The Clintons have a long history of pay to play and enriching themselves at the taxpayers expense.
There's more, but I doubt you could stomach the truth, not to mention, I have a day job and don't have the time to write the books which detail their criminal activity.
What act has Assange done that is illegal?
Yeah. That's right.
He's actually protected by the US law when it comes to distributing Podesta's emails and the DNC emails... unless he took part in the actual hack or theft.
The Trump recording was taken from NBC and given to the WaPo because NBC couldn't run the story without facing legal consequences, yet WaPo could since they were given the tape from an unidentified source and was not involved in the creation of the tape.
Then there is Trump's IRS return that the NYT reported on. The NYT wasn't in trouble... just the source of the IRS filing who gave it to them...
Assange and the other news organizations are protected by the Ellsberg decision.
Note that the reason Assange fears the US isn't because he released Manning's stolen material, but that there may be evidence that he partook in the theft. If true... he's definitely on the hook. Especially if Clinton is elected.
Sorry, Ecuador could have let it go.. but Clinton and Soros are part of the new world Order and of course the Clinton Foundation has ties to the region...
That's actually a bad example...
Clinton was assigned the case pro bono meaning she didn't have a choice but to defend the rapist to the best of her abilities.
Had she done anything illegal, things would have been different.
Don't get me wrong... she's a complete slime ball with no moral compass.
But there isn't any evidence she did anything wrong.
However... lets look at her intimidation of Broderick whom her hubby raped and all of the other women who she harassed to protect her hubby and her political future.
In her recent scandals... she has yet to tell the truth. Seriously. Every statement she has made in public has been proven to be false. She even lied to Congress when she could remember the facts...
Waste of time? No. However a bit premature.
The premise of the article is also misleading. Just because Apple enters a niche and it fails to generate profits or viable products in the short term doesn't mean its a wasted effort.
Think of why Google is getting in to this space in the first place...
While the tech companies are still in R&D, think of the ethical and legal challenges on the back side.
Suppose you buy a google self driving car... you own the car so you should have an expectation of privacy. But what happens if Google, in the name of improving the user experience, tracks your trips and sees that you make a lot of late night calls to a couple of different addresses. Then you start to see a lot of ads for Trojan Condoms as well as mail flyers (old school targeted adverts)
Is that a legal use of invading your privacy? After all you purchased the vehicle.
And then there's other questions... what happens if it is known that they are tracking your trips. Does that mean your wife's attorneys could subpoena your trip data?
(I guess you could replace Google Car w Uber service. )
My point is that it would be nice to have the law in sync with the devices rather than years behind trying to figure our your rights...
If you don't understand the problem... you will in less than 4 years when the world goes to sh$t.
The real irony is that Wikileaks showed how the Clinton campaign and the MSM were complicit in getting Trump in to office.
LOL... little boy.
Cookbooking a mail server isn't the smartest thing to do and since you mentioned it... Her IT guy, with little experience put an unsecured Windows NT Exchange server on the net. While it was up and running... security was an issue. Even El Reg posted some articles on it.
As to Trump... he never broke any laws or violated the US's National Security. When you have 100's of former military officers and DoD employees who say that they would be in jail for what Clinton did... you have to start to think that the FBI investigation was fixed. Oh wait. More emails being released from the State Dept along with the FBI notes do point to this... What's the stuff Assange has? We'll just have to see.
Trump may be a lot of things... but to be sure... he's less harmful to the US than Clinton.
As to Trump's deals... yeah... I can look at old articles in the Chicago Tribune about the clawbacks he did on the 'friends and families' contracts... Oh yeah... he's no Saint. However he's no criminal like Hillary. ... Note: We haven't even talked about her illegal arms deal in Libya... Do you really want to continue?
No, the Americans do sarcasm. It's the Germans who don't.
The problem is that most of those across the pond don't know enough about the issue and don't realize that the majority of the press is in Clinton's hip pocket.
Yes, Hillary is so smart, she can and should charge $500k for an hour talk that requires you to sign a no disclosure before you can hear her speak....
Now that's sarcasm.
Btw you won't see Clinton in space. She wouldn't survive the launch. She'd stroke out
Trump is an easy read. He is very thin skinned and he talks in hyperboles. So you learn to take what he says with a grain of salt and don't take him literally.
Clinton? She is a complete work of trash.
Setting up her private server as a matter of convenience? Really?
How many out here have and set up their own email server? And are still running it?
Brother it ain't convenient. Getting a hotmail or a gmail account is much easier.
As more documents from the fbi investigation and the leaks from ASSange, we learn that not only the fix was in, but that the Clinton campaign attempted to rig the RNC and the press to push the Republicans to the right. The press were in collusion (well some of them) to get trump the nod...
But unfortunately we can't change that. We have to choose between Trump/Pence and Clinton/Kaine and it's an easy choice. Trump is the least harmful of the two and Pense seems to be the most Presidential of the four.
Clinton is a criminal. You can't spin the email scandal that is still unfolding and the only reason she isn't on trial is thanks to Obama and Biden not running. Had Biden ran... Hillary would have been indicted.
But I digress... Trump in space? Sorry but the Muppets beat you too it.
See Pigs in Spaaaace!!!
Nobody bases coverage on geo but on percentage of population. (You can see that little fine print in their marketing claims. )
As to geo coverage... funny thing... we all pay in to a fund that is supposed to provide parity to those living in the rural sections of the US. While they aren't so last century... there's still a huge gap.
I remember 15 years ago that people still bought analog bag phones for their trucks because they couldn't get a signal from their digital phones. That's slowly changed.
I also remember my father-in-law, begging to lease a small 1 acre patch to the phone company to put up a tower on his land so that we could get good cell coverage in the area. They refused ...
That's because no one wants to live in Canada. ;-P
You could say the same for the UK in Scotland...
I was near a cell tower and could only get 2G during peak times due to so many punters on the trains.
That meant no data but voice only... So during these periods, my hotspot was useless.
Can you say X Windows and their widgets?
So you have chip and pin...
Now lets add either one of the following:
So sort of authenticator like Google's authenticator that is synced to your account so that you need the physical card, your 4 digit pin and then the 6 digit code from the authentication app. So you can use your bank atm, if you have your phone or PC with you...
The other would be just having the bank sms you a text w a 6 digit code that you have to then type in... you set up a phone number associated with the card so the crooks would have a harder time breaking the system.
Note: this wouldn't work well at the stores or restaurants because it adds to the time it takes to pay. (think longer queues at the checkout counters....)
Uhm you do realize that the memresistor was theorized back in the late 60's right?
I agree and hate the hype cycle as much as everyone else, however all I want is a component that I can touch and eventually buy.
Xpoint in a DIMM package would be disruptive technology.
When this technology hits, you'll see changes to how PCs and servers are designed. The impact on the PC thru to the data center in terms of design will be changed.
I'm sorry to hear that... you do realize that there's an app for that. ;-)
The slide says 2us.
While this sounds good... 4TB per DIMM, the problem is that its still vaporware.
If it works... 4TB per dimm. Consider a Supermicro motherboard that has 24 Dimm slots.
Its possible to put 1TB of DDR4 Memory and then put in 40TB in the extra slots.
(YMMV based on memory density. )
Or if you want to scale down... a blade w one or two == 8TB of storage per card in a blade server.
No need for SSDs or a small M.2 Flash drive for OS and Swap.
If real, this could be a game changer in the short term.
Sorry if I seem skeptical, but we've seen a lot of hype in this space.
The sad thing is that this is real.
I've had my domain for 22 years and I have to wonder when some numbnutz tries to sue to take my domain name away because I don't run a public facing web site.
This should have been dismissed on the face of it.
Its really a no-brainer, but in the US, the court system is designed to keep the lawyers employed.
Google is a monopoly even though they haven't been declared a monopoly.
They can track you now without using cookies.
But the scariest thing was a friend was surfing the web on his phone and when he walked in to his bathroom to use the throne, he got served an ad for toilet paper. I kid you not.
Sorry, but when you have a single phone, and if you burn out the chip the data is lost then you are screwed.
In your example, you removed the old NAND, but is it still functioning 100% of the time? Can you then put it back in too? 100% of the time?
If not 100% of the time, then you have risk and if you have only one shot... you would want to seek other options.
They probably overpaid, and overpaid by a lot, and trumped-up the figure to make headlines. But they could not have done it in a proper way for $100, either.
What exactly did the FBI pay for when they hired this company to crack the phone?
I mean how many PhDs helped design the tool set used. (This was an in house developed system)
How much for the guy who's using it and doing the work?
Compute time on hardware that is custom designed? (Even with COTS hardware there is always some tweaking)
All of this is part of the cost.
And again, there is a time value to the solution. Could the FBI and NSA build a comparable solution?
Sure, but it would take N months of X man years of resources, plus the hardware...
And that's why you see the $$$$ being charged. Because they can do the following:
1) Show value
2) Cheaper than the alternative
3) Have a solution in place
4) If they failed, there was always a riskier plan B of pulling the chip.
The in house 'expertise' is limited.
Unlike TV in house expertise tend to be more 'Jack of all trades, and master of some'. When you need deeper technical expertise in a specific area, you hire outside staff.
Going for unpaid advice is one thing. Going for advice where you have a high risk and a short time period is another. That's why they went to that company.
While at client sites, I routinely am asked to look over the shoulders of their in house expertise (software architects). I either bless their design, or I tweak it. Sometimes I tell them to start from scratch and give them a high level view of a solution that fits. I am that paid voice who gives them the expert opinion.
No. Sorry. Not true... Use Occam's Razor...
1) You remember the joke/story about the old engineer who charged 10K to fix an assembly line?
2) If you don't know the solution and you can assess the value of the solution... if the price to solve the problem is less than the value, you pay it.
Occam's Razor, this is the simplest solution. The FBI didn't have a clue on what to do, and the options... were too risky... they paid the $$$ because the potential value found on the phone was worth more.
The other issue... there is a lot of risk in desoldering the chip, especially since you only have one chip to work with. You have to balance that risk against alternatives... like software hacking.
Assange has a simple choice: if he wants fame, he'll have to call the US embassy and ask them to send a car round, at that point he can play the hero and get the martyr fame he wants (which he'd like to have without having to go through the actual suffering in jail part, but that's not how that works). If he wants continued infamy, it doesn't matter where he is: stuck in the Embassy desperately trying to ride along on other people's efforts (who DO take risks) or standing in front of a Swedish court getting confirmed that he's so sad a fucker that he has to sleep with a girl whilst she is still asleep. Either way, he's irrelevant.
Actually, not quite. He can go to the US Embassy where he will be detained and handed over to the Brits who will then process him and hand him over to the Swedes. Forget bail. (That's pretty obvious).
Remember that the US doesn't want him. (Officially) There are no charges against him or any extradition warrants. His offer is fluff and he's getting scared. Manning is getting his gender reassignment surgery.
So all this does is let the actual course of law play out.
He faces the courts in Sweden. He may or may not spend any time in Sweden but he will most likely be barred from the country. He goes back to the UK. He faces time for his bail jumping. Probably what... a year? Then the UK tosses him from their country. If he were your garden variety pratt, he would get to choose his destination. But Saint Julian being the most ambitious sort of pratt, will get tossed back to Australia and they will have some choice words for him. They also have the option of baring him from leaving the country and recinding his passport.
Now if the US wants to... again it may depend on who wins the White House... they have the option of picking him up and charging him... and maybe Manning will testify against him. I have no idea... its possible, but unfortunately my crystal ball only works on probably events I cannot predict the future.
"3. The version of events are absolutely nothing like what you say."
Normally I wouldn't say this but you seem to be pretty thick.
Its not what I say, but what the court documents say.
Go back and read the testimony from the Swedish Prosecutor when asked about "questioning Assange".
Here again, she reiterated that its not just questioning (interview) but part of the formal process to charge Assange with the crime. To be clear and blunt, she was asked by the Judge if she intended to charge Assange and her response was yes, he was to be charged.
While not a lawyer, I've seen some slime ball attorneys do some questionable things. Stuff where they get sanctioned and disbarred. Assange and his lawyer played the percentages that he could flee and not face an EAW and the case would be dropped. Had it been a normal bloke and not some pratt (Assange) that might have been the case. Just not worth the effort. But when you go around tweaking the nose of some very powerful people and play politics, you end up pissing the wrong people off.
Oh and this is really all about the issue of his alleged rape of those girls. Again if the US wants him. They can grab him in Australia.
Wow. Your logic leaves me speechless. (Julian is that you?)
"2. It is not illegal to abscond."
Oh but it is illegal to flee jurisdiction while under investigation. Assange's lawyer was in communication with the prosecution when they were asking for him to bring his client in for the formal interview which meant he would be charged.
The lawyer gave Assange the heads up. Assange flees jurisdiction while the lawyer dodges phone calls from the prosecution. Only he couldn't dodge the text messages left by the prosecution nor claim he didn't receive them. (He did and the phone company can prove it.)
Again, Assange's Swedish lawyer admitted to this under oath in the UK to the Swedish Prosecutor.
You can't argue point by point because the evidence is against you.
Here, lets save some time... Assange had not one, but three appeal hearings. <u>HE LOST ALL THREE. </u>
The courts even went a step further in establishing the validity of the warrant by looking the the reciprocity of the charges. Meaning would he still be guilty of breaking the law in the UK assuming the facts in evidence were true. NOTE THE FOLLOWING: The EAW treaty specifies something like 32 criminal act/charges that do not require reciprocity. The charge of Rape is one of those that does not require reciprocity. (I think its #22 on the list, so if under Swedish law he is to be charged with rape, then what the say is rape goes. )
Yet to give Assange the benefit of the doubt, they looked at the evidence presented (again assume it to be true since this isn't a trial) and under UK law, he too would be charged with rape.
Bottom line, you can make any claims you want, but the actually law (courts in the UK) upheld the warrant and Assange then compounded the issue by jumping bail.
Look, you really need to learn something about the case and Swedish law.
Assange goes to Sweden to be questioned and charged. Its a formal process. This would have occurred except that Assange's original lawyer in Sweden ran interference while Assange left the country. He admitted to this under oath in the UK during the first extradition appeal.
Sorry, but for someone claiming to know something... the only thing stinking in this is Assange. You can easily google and read the transcripts which I believe are still online where the case against him was spelled out.
Assange had not one but three extradition appeal hearings and each one said he was to go back.
The law works. Assange had his day in court. Now the women he allegedly raped should have theirs to get some closure.
"6. The UK has absolutely NO SAY whatsoever in what Sweden does once Assange is in Sweden."
Uhm this is wrong. Flat out wrong.
Because of the EAW and extradition proceedings, if any country made an extradition request to Sweden, the UK would have some input on the request. Depending on the situation, they could object.
This had been pointed out during the first extradition hearing where Assange put forth the insane idea that this was a plot by the CIA to get him.
Again the truth... when this all blows over, if the US wanted him in connection to Manning's theft, they will have plenty of time to get him in Australia, assuming he doesn't flee.
Remember his prior bad acts as a teen will be brought up and used against him in Australia which would pretty much seal the deal. Maybe he wouldn't have ended up such a pratt if that judge had sentenced him to jail instead of probation.
Ah but wrong.
He wasn't fully dressed in a 'rain coat' so he did leak which is why its rape and not consensual sex. Had he worn a 'rain coat', then there wouldn't be an issue because they had consented to protected sex.
Of course had he instead kept to Rosie and her 5 sisters, none of this would have happened and he would already be in US custody if they wanted him.
"This is beginning to sound like a "we don't want him, you take him and he'll be your problem" type of thing."
While Assange is a pratt, there is the issue of law and the fact that while Assange could theoretically face the death penalty, they will not agree to any extradition to the US unless its off the table. Since there is no extradition on the table, the worst case for Assange is if he's being indicted as a co-conspirator to Manning. If so, he wouldn't face the death penalty but something less than Manning.
But even still, Assange would have the ability to fight extradition to the US in both Sweden and the UK since he would be in Swedish Custody and due back to the UK for bail jumping. The UK could waive its right and then if Sweden lets him go... that's it. However that would be a riskier move than just waiting until he's sent back to Australia.
You have to remember as a teen he was convicted of hacking US government and defense systems. This will play against him if the US wanted Assange. Here they could use his past against him. Australia could also remove his right to travel and take away his passport for his antics in Sweden and the UK. (This would be the Australian Government's right. )
So while the UK and Sweden really don't want him... (who does?) ... they still have to follow their laws and give him the opportunity to fight the extradition. Now having said all of this... if you want to consider how the US would act... look at how they handled Guccifer. He was in, testified / cut a deal, got sentenced and then back to fulfill his current sentence. Afterwards he could come back to the US, face his sentence and then get sent packing back home. (I think that there are other options ...)
The bottom line, his fear of the US extraditing him from Europe is in my opinion overblown. Its far easier and more likely that if the US wants him, he'll be taken when he gets back to Australia. A lot depends of course on the winds of politics and world current events.
Clearly you don't know the facts you think you do.
1) Assange jumped bail and is hiding out at the Ecuadorian Embassy. He can leave at any time and face the Swedish Government, along with the UK Government for Jumping Bail.
2) Assange did flee. (Absconded) This was accomplished with the help of his then Swedish lawyer who admitted to this during the first extradition hearing.
3) As identified by the Swedish prosecution, their legal system requires that Assange comes in for a formal interview where after the interview they will charge him. In the first extradition hearing, they made it very clear that this wasn't an "interview" per se, but that Assange would be charged.
4) Assange fled jurisdiction where he needs to be so that they can official charge him, hence the extradition request. He has had not one but three appeal hearings where the extradition request was granted. He then FLED again, jumping bail.
Look, I can go on, point by point, but you're trotting out the old arguments, all of which have been soundly been rebuked.
People would care and many would be happy.
Seriously... if the US wanted him. He will be extradited in Australia and it would be very public.
You also have to ask yourself why the US is paying for Chelsea Manning's Sex change operation... ;-)
Learn the law.
Publishing... the leaks... he has some legal protection and it wouldn't be worth the effort.
Assisting Manning... that's a different story.
BTW, I think you need to understand what said batteries are used for as to why it was illegal.
Assange was asking for blanket immunity because there are no extradition requests in play.
No Government would do that. Period.
Again the US wouldn't extradite from Sweden because now the UK would be involved.
If anything the only thing Assange could be in trouble with is the involvement w Manning in the theft of the material. There the statute of limitations is long. Much longer than Sweden's sex crimes and most likely longer than the patience of Ecuador.
The issue is this.
He surrenders from the Embassy... he goes to Sweden.
Best case for Assange, too much time has elapsed and he gets a plea deal w no jail time... or found not guilty if it goes to trial. Worst case... he is found guilty and because of his stunt they throw the book at him and he gets what? 4 years max?
The from Sweden, he goes back to the UK.
I don't know what he would get for jumping bail, lets say 2 yrs max?
From there, he's booted back to Australia. He doesn't get the option to choose where he goes when he leaves England.
That's where he will be extradited from if the US does in fact extradite him. (A Clinton Presidency would. Trump may not.)
The US wouldn't attempt to extradite from the EU. They have a better case in Australia due to his prior bad acts as a teen.
You're getting down voted because you're focusing on the wrong thing.
Assange may have tweaked the eagle's beak, but publishing the leaks is the least of his worries and he actually does have strong protection here and could very well fight that thanks to Ellsberg.
The truth is that if Assange isn't paranoid, then there is some merit to the claim he assisted Manning, which is an illegal act.
I think to answer your question you have this:
If Obama grants Manning clemency, Assange will agree to US prison in exchange -- despite its clear unlawfulness https://t.co/MZU30S3Eia
Why is Assange making this statement?
The answer is that while there are no charges pending or extradition request, Assange is fearful of the US.
Its not for publishing the Wikileaks documents. He actually has some legal protections under the claims that he is a journalistic organization. the "Ellsberg" SCOTUS decision back in '71 allows Wikileaks and Assange to claim that they published for the greater good. Any decent lawyer would be able to win that case.
But the larger issue... Assange may have also participated in the break in and subsequent theft which would carry a heavy prison sentence. We know of this because of evidence revealed in Manning's Article 32 hearing, and if true then Assange is an accomplice. Yet this was never produced during his court martial because Manning had admitted to the facts of the theft. Nor did Manning make any public statements concerning Assange. Assange's fear of the US tends to lend credibility to the claim that he helped Manning break in....
The whole mess in Sweden is Assange's own doing. Boys will be boys and that's what he gets for taking women for granted. (When in Sweden, play by their rules...) So the whole issue there is that these women should get their day in court, something Assange has deprived them from having...
The point is that the fear of extradition from the UK or Sweden is over rated. If he did go to Sweden, and he did get found guilty, and he did get prison time... He could be extradited to face a trial in the US, however that scenario would be unlikely. The issue would have to go through both the UK and Sweden. Then there's the issue of bail jumping. Jail time for that. Again the US could extradite him, but he could again fight it and who knows.
After all of this... he goes back to Australia.
And here... he yet again could be extradited to the US. Here, however, unlike in the EU/UK, Assange was convicted as a teen for breaking in to US Systems. This could come in to play and would make the extradition much easier.
So if Assange did assist in the theft. He does have reason to fear the US, except that he will not be rendered in the EU or UK, but in Australia. (I know Brexit won't happen for a while but just getting used to the idea...)
If only it were that simple.
Revenue recognition is a bit tougher in the digital world and what constitutes revenues earned outside of the US. Even there games can be played.
Take a certain global coffee shop....
They ship their products to the EU country with the least amount of taxes, they do this as Company A. The coffee shop in the EU (Company B) buys the supplies from Company A at a markup that sucks up most if not all of the profits. Even though Company B could have bought the coffee, etc ... directly from the same source as Company A so that the revenue rec would be properly recorded in the country where the product was sold.
Note while this isn't illegal, its a way to do business that will reduce their tax exposure.
The thing with Apple, Google, Facebook, is that they undervalued assets that they moved offshore and then recognized the revenue in Ireland rather than were the transaction occurred. Don't be a hater of the tax man. At least not here.
Did you miss his sarcasm.
The one decision Obama still gets to make and needs to make is to keep ICAAN under US control.
As counter intuitive as that sounds... handing it over to some unknown group will be worse. It would be a fracturing of the net.
Here's the shorter version.
Lynch's minion should have recused herself due to her past work for the companies involved.
That said, this case should move forward and will most likely end up in the Supreme Court.
Yet another overreach by Obama's Administration. If Clinton wins... expect more of this and things to get worse. Trump? Now that's a wild card but I suspect he'd walk things back to more normal and rational thoughts.
First, this opens a door to another company to create an ad blocker to replace ABP.
(Its a free market)
Second, now ABP can be accused of shaking down sites by saying... Look, we're going to continue to block ads as people look at your site unless you cough up the cash... IMHO that could get them in trouble with the law.
Not a smart thing to do.
Yes, condoms do have expiration dates, no duh.
But since being married, haven't had need to use the little rain coats ...
The sad thing is that you missed the obvious question... why did I still have condoms in the pocket and never taken them out... ';-)
Uhm... let me guess.
You're a 40 year old virgin still living at home with mum and dad?
You share the computer with them so you don't watch porn because they monitor your internet use?
Maybe we should open up a kickstarted account to help you buy a book called the Kama Sutra ?
That may help... assuming your local library doesn't have a copy or anything on sex ed.
Mine's the coat with the old unused condoms since before I was married.
This is why you need to work out and take a statin. ;-)
Now if my wife were truly evil, she'd encourage me to shag women who are barely (1/2 my age + 7) and die from the heart attack so she gets everything!
You're right, its not patentable.
This should not be granted a patent because they aren't really doing anything new or novel.
Vision software has been around for years.
Recognizing traffic signs and speed limits has been around for years.
As to 'flashing light patterns'... its a slight change and really isn't new or novel.
(To your point) BTW anyone with a flashing red/ blue or mix would cause the vehicle to pull over.
Were you talking about the game, or the lawsuit?
Personally I wish the US would adopt more of the loser pays mentality because that would put a freeze on a lot of these dumb suits. But then again... we'd have more lawyers on the dole.
Speed vs reliability?
First the flash SSD is reliable. I think you meant to say resiliency.
Lots of applications and keep in mind, you can always house the data in two locations on different types of media to get the redundancy that will give you the resiliency
I'd love to see pricing and price difference between the low profile and the regular sized.
So if you can use 2U instead of 4U boxes... ok, the issue though would be power and heat constraints.
First, forget about VMware since you wouldn't be virtualizing these boxes.
The idea in my post was to look at tiering the storage so that you had fast storage and slower storage that would be high density and cheaper.
So I thought of spinning rust because SSDs don't match their density and lower cost. Again here, there's a trade off due to heat and power requirements. Assuming raid 10, you would need 2X spinning rust to match the storage in the fast memory.
You do not want to RAID these devices.
Seriously, are you that thick?
Consider that you have possibly 4 PCIe slots in each machine. You now have the ability to tier your storage devices. 1 copy of data on the PCIe SATA disks, and then 1 copy on raided or GFS type set up. (GFS = global file system) which protects better than raid because you have it distributed across your cluster...) This means that you will want to have both SATA and spinning rust to prevent data loss.
Now for the fun part. Data loss / Data corruption is only part of data security. If you're working with PII or other sensitive data, you will need to also encrypt your data. Then also you would need to control who has access and then have role based authorization ...
A bit more than just a raid discussion...
Then you don't have a real need for the tech...
The real important question is how much heat does it generate and how dense can you pack em?
You'll have a 4U rack and 4 to a box so that's ~25 TB of raw storage per box.
With 10 per rack (Depending on power/weight/cooling) , that's going to be 250TB per rack.
4 racks per PB.
Its not that great a density relative to spinning rust, but the response time withing a cluster (think spark/big data) would be incredible. Or if you're going old school, Oracle or Vertica relational db which could also be really cool.
Lots of other cool options too.
These times are changing, provided they can deliver on quantity and pricing is something enterprises can afford.
An invisible fence isn't the same thing.
Really? You have to think about it.
And yes, RFID chips are used in data tracking.
That's not doing anything but marking the animal.
And you have to have a reader. That's usually found on the head gate. (You do know what the head gate is, right?
RFID tags, ear tags, are roughly $2.50 or less in quantity. Calves and Cows don't go to market that high. At least not in the states although YMMV.