Hmmm... so it's bad ass because it's fast, but not because it's any use as a wagon? Lousy cargo space and horrible MPG aren't exactly selling points -- in fact, they're kind of the opposite.
"bad ass" meaning it handles well and yes is fast. I agree that the lack of cargo space in a wagen and the overall poor MPG is the opposite of a selling point which is why I said it was a non-starter for me. I like the idea of it and it really does drive like I want a performance based car to drive, but it just fails in the more important aspects of what I needed. There is just something about a 500hp wagen that makes me want one though;-)
Not because it's American, but because it's well out of my price range, and nothing like what I'd be looking for in the first place -- mostly because I'm not qualified to drive 500+ HP of car. A friend took me for a drive in his M5 once, and I quickly realized that would be way too much car for me even if I could afford one.:-P
The implication was that one is considering that price range (and higher) vehicle (which you specifically already said that you weren't) and my point was that if you are considering something like the M5 then the CTS-V shouldn't be ignored. Personally if I had that type of cash to spend I'd still take the new M5 though as I think it's still the better car.
While I considered the CTS-V (until I saw it's cargo "space"), all our vehicles are sub-300hp which is more than enough for us to still have fun when we want (and more than is needed outside of the rare Auto-X events we run).
You're absolutely correct, with a list price of FROM $64,515 - $74,910, it's a lot more than I'd spend on a car unless I suddenly became a lot more well off. And in that price range, BMW has some fine offerings.
Actually it is an exceptional price for what it is compared to the German options. Speaking of BMW the CTS-V is a competitor with the M5 which costs about a third more. If you are looking for a high performance (but not track) coupe or sedan, it shouldn't be ignored. And here in the States if you want a bad ass wagen then it's the only game in town. Unfortunately the wagen's cargo area is ridiculously small and the horrid MPG made it a non-starter for me when I needed a new "traveling with the dogs and kid, but have fun the rest of the time" car.
And, really, my perception is that, like most North American cars... it can go hella fast in a straight line, but can't corner worth shit. I'm sure that's not true any more, but the few Cadillacs I've ever driven in have that overly mushy ride which I can't stand.
This is still true for most American "sports" cars, but GM has been doing wonders with the Vette for a few years now so that it is actually a real competitor on the track and they took much of that knowledge into the CTS-V. It performs on par with the BMWs (and I'd argue better than the Mercs).
Personally I like the German cars as they fit what I want the best, but the CTS-V is nothing to ignore simply because it's American.
Funny how replying to a post mentioning the Misfits with a quote from one of their songs gets you modded Offtopic.
Him being a 'sonofabitch' entirely depends on if it's the original music or the rotting remains Jerry continues to push around. If it's the later, then I'll be happy to mock him publicly.
Now I have to go dig out my albums. It's been far too long since I've listened to 20 Eyes or Mommy...
Imagine if CBS could get $16/month from all of their viewers... oh wait, they could, if they didn't have their heads so far up their asses.
Actually they probably couldn't due to simple economics. Most people don't watch just one channel anymore. Even if they only watched 5 non-premium (ESPN, HBO, etc..) channels, a $16 subscription for each puts it up in the realm of the cable subscription where you get far more options even if you don't use them all. It gets even worse when you throw in the premium channels (because if an OTA channel could get $16 ESPN would charge $30 or more). For the premium channel shows I watch throughout the year, if I subscribed to all of them that are available on iTunes I'd spend 2/3rds of my cable bill. I still wouldn't have access to all of those shows, would have to pay more for the back catalog (if I came into something after a season or two which is more difficult when you don't have channels to surf when you are bored) where they are typically rerun at no additional cost on cable, and it doesn't include all the other non-premium shows I or my wife watch that would run that total well past the cost of what our cable bill will be for quite sometime (taking yearly increases into account).
Really I just need to get off my ass and stop watching so much TV. That's the real solution to the problem with the system. We've (collectively) lost interest in what is outside our doors unless it is brought to us through the TV and even then we're more interested in the fantasy rather than the real.
Unless said company is a government contractor (in which case yes they do have lots of requirements, but that is more of an issue of the entrenched companies like Northrop and Lockheed lobbying for such restrictions to raise the bar of entry and protect their turf) there are no certifications or red tape you have to have to start or run your business. You have to file you incorporation paperwork (LLCs are even easier and cheaper) and pay your taxes. And if your head count is below a certain size you skate under a bunch of personel related regulations.
Certainly there are a bunch of laws/regulations that you need to be aware of, but there are a bunch of laws/regulations you are supposed to be aware of just to be an average citizen (that most have no idea about).
I'm not saying there aren't a bunch of things the government could do better in regards to businesses of all sizes (though by your comment I think we'd drastically disagree on what those points are), but blaming the "high" gas and food prices on the government is just stupid. It's actually because of the government subsidies and tax breaks for "farmers" and the oil companies that stuff is as cheap as it is here (look at the costs in the rest of the world where such handouts aren't in place). Yes part of Europe's higher gas prices is due to their taxing of it, but (arguments about the funds being properly used aside since that's a universal problem) that's really where your road use taxes should come from. That idea sends the average American into a tizzy and a half though...
Uhhh...dumbass? yeah the speed limits on our freeways is 70MPH with a minimum in most places of 55MPH. Do you honestly think a 37HP vehicle is even gonna be able to meet the minimum speed?
I'm with you.
The reason they can get away with this cracker jack toy in India is because frankly India don't have jack shit for laws when it comes to their streets. Its well known that in most cities there that street lights and signs are treated more as "suggestions" than any kind of rule and we've all seen the truly crazy shit you'll see strapped to bikes and scooters over there, shit that if you tried it here in the USA you wouldn't make it a block before being busted.
You're being a bit of an ass and not an entirely correct one at that, but I'm still with you.
So please keep your elitist Eurotrash attitude to yourself, mmkay? This is an American site, with an article about a car coming to America, If you would allow that tinker toy on your roads that's YOUR business.
Nope. Now you've lost it. This site may be owned by an American company, but I don't recall ever seeing it stated (by the owners) that it was only intended for the US market and the rest of the world wasn't welcome. There is a large IT world outside of the USA and "nerds" too. There is some argument about it being an article specific to the US market, but isn't the USA all about freedom of speech and expression?
Of course you've let your politicians tax you to the point you pay 3 times for a liter what we pay for a gallon so frankly why anybody should listen to a people that would put up with getting assraped like that is beyond me.
Oh now I see. You wanted to show that you're ignorant of polotics in the USA and abroad. Sorry for the confusion.
Gas prices aren't jacked up due to taxes in Europe. They are deflated here because politicians refuse to put proper road use taxes on the gas because ignorant people like you get all up in arms and because we've been literally giving money to the oil companies (subsidies and tax breaks) to keep them lower than they should be.
I only hope that you aren't in one of the countries that use the Euro, as it looks like that little experiment is gonna hit the shitter, might want to exchange your currency for USD now before the only thing its good for is wiping your ass. Mark my words, Greece bails by Feb, followed by Spain and Portugal, after that stick a fork.
And you really think that the US Government is going to point and snicker if the European economy collapses like you predict? Europe and the US are the main consumers of the worlds goods. If either of their economies fail the impact will be felt through the entire world (that participates in the global economy anyway). And the US isn't exactly in a position to be laughing at other country's economic problems since we have a government (both parties are doing it) that has all but bankrupted itself and little tangible manufacturing that is desired by the rest of the world (either because we want to much for it or the "American" companies have off shored their actual manufacturing to cheaper parts of the world). And since that worked so well with tangible goods, we've been in a constant race to do it with our intelectual goods too. So yeah, we have lots of room to talk about other countries...
ozmanjursi didn't post any fact and yes I dispute their claims. The nuclear industry in the US has proven to be safe, they promptly report even minor incidents, and to the best of my knowledge have never lied about conditions at their plants or the scope of an event. What happened in other countries has no bearing on what happens in the US until there is evidence to the contrary.
As osmifra points out, the fossil fuel power supply industry (mining up through the power plants themselves) do have a long history of raping the natural resources, not providing safe working conditions for their workers (miners), being horrible polluters, and having massive lobbying arms to make sure that any regulations that do get passed to curb these things have no teeth to actually stop them. Nuclear power, on the other hand, is very tightly regulated (see lobbying power of the fossil power as a big part of that) and does none of those things.
Although there was some truth to this, much of this is mythological these days.
My main issues are with presentations where the text/images end up being outside the slide area (this happens both directions) and graphs not displaying (entirely or incorrectly) in spreadsheets (Excel -> LO, I can't say I've seen issues going the other way). Documents work fine unless images are added or pages are split into columns, then the formatting goes to hell on them too (again both directions).
LibreOffice is reasonably good. Apple's office apps are Microsoft's Apple Office app.
I believe they were referring Apple's iWork suite of office apps. While they are still lacking compared to MS Office (even the Mac version) I would agree that it is still better than OpenOffice/LibreOffice (and I really do try to use it).
No, it doesn't have the number of users or integration with other tools, but it works (well) for many user's applications.
Overall I like OO/LO as they've done a lot of work to make it work like MS Office (similar icons/menus, etc..), but it's biggest draw back is that it still doesn't handle MS Office documents correctly. At work I invariably have to revert back to MSO because the formatting is all messed up when I look at documents from other people (MSO users) and the ones I create in LO that look and print just fine end up looking like crap in MSO. This is true with documents, spreadsheets, and presentations (don't use the DB tools so no idea about that).
Given that the majority of Office suite use is in the corporate environment and that a wholesale overnight change is pretty unlikely, OO/LO won't gain much ground until it can seamlessly work in a MSO environment.
high on looks and weapons but vulnerable to modern weapons
Just how many carriers have we lost to these modern weapons they are vulnerable to? This obviously must have been written by someone with no concept of modern (since the birth of the Carrier) naval warfare. It's always been known that the Carrier is one of (if not) the most vulnerable and weak ships in the fleet in a straight fight. This is why they travel in groups with subs and other smaller craft that are there specifically to protect the Carrier from assault. So while they might be the least able to directly protect themselves, there is usually little risk of them needing to do so from a threat that could sink them.
Furthermore, the purpose of the Carrier itself is to transport air power into a region of conflict to be able to launch sortes from a stable and safe location. Until we have fighters and bombers that can effectively make it halfway around the world, conduct their mission, and return home on a single tank of fuel and do it in a short enough timespan for the intelligence to still be actionable, the Carriers won't be going away. On top of that, they are also (due to so much open space on deck and in the hangers when planes are cleared) one of the most versatile ships we have for moving large amounts of people and/or supplies.
You can't hold territory without troops on the ground, but they can't first take it without proper air support. And unless the conflict just happens to be "next" to your pre-existing airbases (and they continue to remain secure) then you need some way to get the air power to where it needs to go.
Political issues that get us involved in conflicts aside, the Carrier will remain a key piece of our military capability for some time yet.
How are they alleged to be able to "forcibly remove" funds from a person's bank account, exactly? I presume we're talking about taking funds that they had not received any authorization to take.
I (and I gather you as well) believe that they should require my direct involvement to withdraw funds from my account (e.g. making a purchase, using their transfer services, etc..), but they believe that because you provided them your billing info that they can take the funds whenever they please. For example you sell something to a fraudulent buyer that goes to them and claims that they returned the merchandise but you haven't refunded the money. Then even though this is the first you're hearing about it they suspend your account for investigation, ultimately side with the lying "buyer", and withdraw the funds from your billing account if there aren't enough sitting in your PP account already to cover it.
I call removing funds from my account without my permission (over at best a "he said she said" argument, at worst outright ignore contrary evidence) with no legal proceeding and little recourse "forcible".
It'd be like having service suspended for not paying your bill.
Except with eBay/PayPal, it's more along the lines of having your service suspended and the funds forcibly removed from your bank account (as well as taking anything that was still sitting in your PayPal account) without direct consent all because someone said you were a bad person and they didn't bother to get your side of the story. Sadly that isn't make believe and has actually happened. Many times.
So it may not be news that a big company does this, but it is news that eBay is paving the way to abuse more of their customers with even less repercussions when they already have a history of doing bad things.
Either way if contested will not survive in court.
Contracts are void if found to be illegal.
Dude. They even linked to it in the summary. This crap has been upheld by SCOTUS. The argument is over. Even worse than allowing companies to force you into arbitration, they also allow the company to choose the arbiter as well. Under those rulings they can now get away with all kinds of illegal crap so long as they aren't flagrant enough about it to draw the ire of the DoJ or one of the states. Even then, because you can't be part of the complaint (unless you are the "lucky" one that they feel has enough merit for them to win) you will get exactly bupkis of any damages that are awarded.
Your only hope is that if you have a problem with them that goes to arbitration, the result is in your favor and they ignore that result. Then you *might* be able to sue them, but since they (I haven't read eBay's new EULA, but I know it's true for AT&T) get to pick the arbiter just how likely do you think the result will be in your favor?
I played with having a computer in my car for a few years and it is shocking what you can do once you have access to the CAN bus. I mean it's cool that I can plug a device in and program it so that it will catch the commands from my window switches and have them instead activate my blinkers, but that (theoretically as far as I know) a compromised update to your radio could let it do the same thing is a bad thing and that there is a growing trend for cars to be more connected (e.g. wifi hotspots, etc..) is outright scary.
Maybe they could start by separating networks for the critical functions and entertainment systems. The only possible access to the critical systems should be by a physical connection. They don't need (bad) software security experts to help solve this problem. They need good network architects. It shouldn't simply be a matter of the engine verifying that the "more gas" command came from the ECU and not the radio. The radio should simply never be able to get a message to the engine without wiring changes.
Your comment written by someone with no grasp of the history of technology. There's folks reading your words who remember reading and storing files from cassette tapes in the 1980s. Like me.
I too used tape drives in the 80s, but my grass is not remotely brown enough and my glasses are not tinted nearly enough to begin to think of those as "the good old days" when thinking about storage solutions. I agree with the GP that this question was asked by someone that doesn't have any clue what the linear nature of a tape means and has never been stuck waiting on a restore of a file that happens to be at the opposite end of the tape than the current position.
I would agree with you about "novel solutions" if the question had instead been about how to use a disk and tape combination similar to RAM/swap and age out files with low access rates to tape while keeping the most used stuff on the faster disk or something else equally "out of the box". In this case it is just someone trying to use an exceptionally wrong tool for the wrong job and there is nothing novel about it (unless we are talking about the stupidity of it).
Also, Andrew was talking about transferring large amounts of data between sites in the days when the Internet was slow, HDDs weren't a good/stable transport method, and cross-site replication was expensive and limited in scope. He was not remotely referring to using tapes to solve an inherently random/multi access problem, so while it is still a funny quote it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.
I don't think it would be too hard to get 2/3 of Americans to agree that any amendment or rider to a bill should be relevant to that bill's stated purpose.
Too bad the general population doesn't make laws then (though there are plenty more cases where it is a damned good thing they don't). In this case the people you are trying to restrict are the ones that are creating such laws. Just how likely do you think it is that they will curb their potential of abuse of the system to suit their own ends?
RAID is not a backup if it is your only source of data. If it is a backup of what is on the source, then it is by definition a backup solution and a safer one that backing up to another single drive (assuming level 1 or above). What you describe sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution for the use case you describe.
RAID5 with a stand-by hot spare that I rotate in periodically (speaking of...). Where I see performance issue is network bandwidth due to my choice to use iSCSI so I can use an unsupported (by the NAS itself) filesystem and an authentication/sharing system that is native to the majority of the client machines that use the space. Even with GigE large files can be annoyingly slow even if I'd doing the work on from the iSCSI controller where I can watch and see that the network IO is maxed out.
You might look into Thecus. I've had the N7700 for about 3 years now on the recommendation of someone who has a N5400 (and had it for a few years before I got mine) and (after I got mine) got his sister to buy a N7700PRO that he manages for her. There is no built-in DNS or VPN support, but some quick Google searches show that someone built a DNS module and it looks like there might be a VPN module too (I haven't used either so I can't speak to if or how well they work).
I did have my motherboard die 2 months out of warranty, but their replacement cost was reasonable, they took care of it fast, and they upgraded it to the new N7700PRO board for me.
When I initially set mine up I know they natively supported a Windows format, ext3, and xfs (experimental at the time). If I recall correctly it supports SMB, NFS, AFP, and iSCSI for remote connections. I set mine up using iSCSI so I could format it to a different format (which means my client systems have to talk to the server that manages it rather than directly to the Thecus itself).
3 years ago their interface was horrible, but it's seen a lot of improvements over the years and is much nicer now.
Do make sure you buy decent disk drives for it. "Green" or "Eco" drives from WD or Seagate work for shit in disk arrays.
My WD greens have been running in my NAS for almost 3 years and have been fine. One was bad upon receipt, but the supplier RMA'd at no cost to me. If I ever get off my ass to complete my warm backup array, I'll use the same drives.
And you ignore the fact that most users don't want to dick around with shit just to get back to what should be the sensible default.
This!
I've been an OS X user for almost 12 years now and am firmly expecting to drop it and switch to Linux next month when 10.8 doesn't fix the shit they messed up with 10.7. Apple's been messing with their UI for years now, but it's finally gotten to the level that it pisses me off daily that almost all my "muscle memory" is now broken because they've changed things too much. Sure some things can be reverted back to how they were (or some semblance there of), but little of it is documented and I shouldn't have to waste my time doing it.
I can understand enabling the new interface features for fresh installs, but when you are doing an upgrade is it really so hard to leave shit alone and provide the user information about why these new features are so "cool" and how to enable them if they want them?
On the topic of switching to Linux, does anyone know of good resource that details various window manager features and how to configure them? I've been out of the Unix/Linux desktop scene for a long time (late 90s) and so far I am no fan of Unity.
You appear to be operating under the incorrect impression that they care about PR being good or bad or the attention span to build an armed sub. They'd simply pay off enough congress critters to send the Navy out to sink them and then use mass media to tell the public how good of a thing our boys in white did to help stem the tide of these horrible sea pirates.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm ... so it's bad ass because it's fast, but not because it's any use as a wagon? Lousy cargo space and horrible MPG aren't exactly selling points -- in fact, they're kind of the opposite.
"bad ass" meaning it handles well and yes is fast. I agree that the lack of cargo space in a wagen and the overall poor MPG is the opposite of a selling point which is why I said it was a non-starter for me. I like the idea of it and it really does drive like I want a performance based car to drive, but it just fails in the more important aspects of what I needed. There is just something about a 500hp wagen that makes me want one though ;-)
Not because it's American, but because it's well out of my price range, and nothing like what I'd be looking for in the first place -- mostly because I'm not qualified to drive 500+ HP of car. A friend took me for a drive in his M5 once, and I quickly realized that would be way too much car for me even if I could afford one. :-P
The implication was that one is considering that price range (and higher) vehicle (which you specifically already said that you weren't) and my point was that if you are considering something like the M5 then the CTS-V shouldn't be ignored. Personally if I had that type of cash to spend I'd still take the new M5 though as I think it's still the better car.
While I considered the CTS-V (until I saw it's cargo "space"), all our vehicles are sub-300hp which is more than enough for us to still have fun when we want (and more than is needed outside of the rare Auto-X events we run).
You're absolutely correct, with a list price of FROM $64,515 - $74,910, it's a lot more than I'd spend on a car unless I suddenly became a lot more well off. And in that price range, BMW has some fine offerings.
Actually it is an exceptional price for what it is compared to the German options. Speaking of BMW the CTS-V is a competitor with the M5 which costs about a third more. If you are looking for a high performance (but not track) coupe or sedan, it shouldn't be ignored. And here in the States if you want a bad ass wagen then it's the only game in town. Unfortunately the wagen's cargo area is ridiculously small and the horrid MPG made it a non-starter for me when I needed a new "traveling with the dogs and kid, but have fun the rest of the time" car.
And, really, my perception is that, like most North American cars ... it can go hella fast in a straight line, but can't corner worth shit. I'm sure that's not true any more, but the few Cadillacs I've ever driven in have that overly mushy ride which I can't stand.
This is still true for most American "sports" cars, but GM has been doing wonders with the Vette for a few years now so that it is actually a real competitor on the track and they took much of that knowledge into the CTS-V. It performs on par with the BMWs (and I'd argue better than the Mercs).
Personally I like the German cars as they fit what I want the best, but the CTS-V is nothing to ignore simply because it's American.
Funny how replying to a post mentioning the Misfits with a quote from one of their songs gets you modded Offtopic.
Him being a 'sonofabitch' entirely depends on if it's the original music or the rotting remains Jerry continues to push around. If it's the later, then I'll be happy to mock him publicly.
Now I have to go dig out my albums. It's been far too long since I've listened to 20 Eyes or Mommy...
Is a man laying in front of it holding a towel?
Imagine if CBS could get $16/month from all of their viewers... oh wait, they could, if they didn't have their heads so far up their asses.
Actually they probably couldn't due to simple economics. Most people don't watch just one channel anymore. Even if they only watched 5 non-premium (ESPN, HBO, etc..) channels, a $16 subscription for each puts it up in the realm of the cable subscription where you get far more options even if you don't use them all. It gets even worse when you throw in the premium channels (because if an OTA channel could get $16 ESPN would charge $30 or more). For the premium channel shows I watch throughout the year, if I subscribed to all of them that are available on iTunes I'd spend 2/3rds of my cable bill. I still wouldn't have access to all of those shows, would have to pay more for the back catalog (if I came into something after a season or two which is more difficult when you don't have channels to surf when you are bored) where they are typically rerun at no additional cost on cable, and it doesn't include all the other non-premium shows I or my wife watch that would run that total well past the cost of what our cable bill will be for quite sometime (taking yearly increases into account).
Really I just need to get off my ass and stop watching so much TV. That's the real solution to the problem with the system. We've (collectively) lost interest in what is outside our doors unless it is brought to us through the TV and even then we're more interested in the fantasy rather than the real.
BS
Unless said company is a government contractor (in which case yes they do have lots of requirements, but that is more of an issue of the entrenched companies like Northrop and Lockheed lobbying for such restrictions to raise the bar of entry and protect their turf) there are no certifications or red tape you have to have to start or run your business. You have to file you incorporation paperwork (LLCs are even easier and cheaper) and pay your taxes. And if your head count is below a certain size you skate under a bunch of personel related regulations.
Certainly there are a bunch of laws/regulations that you need to be aware of, but there are a bunch of laws/regulations you are supposed to be aware of just to be an average citizen (that most have no idea about).
I'm not saying there aren't a bunch of things the government could do better in regards to businesses of all sizes (though by your comment I think we'd drastically disagree on what those points are), but blaming the "high" gas and food prices on the government is just stupid. It's actually because of the government subsidies and tax breaks for "farmers" and the oil companies that stuff is as cheap as it is here (look at the costs in the rest of the world where such handouts aren't in place). Yes part of Europe's higher gas prices is due to their taxing of it, but (arguments about the funds being properly used aside since that's a universal problem) that's really where your road use taxes should come from. That idea sends the average American into a tizzy and a half though...
Uhhh...dumbass? yeah the speed limits on our freeways is 70MPH with a minimum in most places of 55MPH. Do you honestly think a 37HP vehicle is even gonna be able to meet the minimum speed?
I'm with you.
The reason they can get away with this cracker jack toy in India is because frankly India don't have jack shit for laws when it comes to their streets. Its well known that in most cities there that street lights and signs are treated more as "suggestions" than any kind of rule and we've all seen the truly crazy shit you'll see strapped to bikes and scooters over there, shit that if you tried it here in the USA you wouldn't make it a block before being busted.
You're being a bit of an ass and not an entirely correct one at that, but I'm still with you.
So please keep your elitist Eurotrash attitude to yourself, mmkay? This is an American site, with an article about a car coming to America, If you would allow that tinker toy on your roads that's YOUR business.
Nope. Now you've lost it. This site may be owned by an American company, but I don't recall ever seeing it stated (by the owners) that it was only intended for the US market and the rest of the world wasn't welcome. There is a large IT world outside of the USA and "nerds" too. There is some argument about it being an article specific to the US market, but isn't the USA all about freedom of speech and expression?
Of course you've let your politicians tax you to the point you pay 3 times for a liter what we pay for a gallon so frankly why anybody should listen to a people that would put up with getting assraped like that is beyond me.
Oh now I see. You wanted to show that you're ignorant of polotics in the USA and abroad. Sorry for the confusion.
Gas prices aren't jacked up due to taxes in Europe. They are deflated here because politicians refuse to put proper road use taxes on the gas because ignorant people like you get all up in arms and because we've been literally giving money to the oil companies (subsidies and tax breaks) to keep them lower than they should be.
I only hope that you aren't in one of the countries that use the Euro, as it looks like that little experiment is gonna hit the shitter, might want to exchange your currency for USD now before the only thing its good for is wiping your ass. Mark my words, Greece bails by Feb, followed by Spain and Portugal, after that stick a fork.
And you really think that the US Government is going to point and snicker if the European economy collapses like you predict? Europe and the US are the main consumers of the worlds goods. If either of their economies fail the impact will be felt through the entire world (that participates in the global economy anyway). And the US isn't exactly in a position to be laughing at other country's economic problems since we have a government (both parties are doing it) that has all but bankrupted itself and little tangible manufacturing that is desired by the rest of the world (either because we want to much for it or the "American" companies have off shored their actual manufacturing to cheaper parts of the world). And since that worked so well with tangible goods, we've been in a constant race to do it with our intelectual goods too. So yeah, we have lots of room to talk about other countries...
ozmanjursi didn't post any fact and yes I dispute their claims. The nuclear industry in the US has proven to be safe, they promptly report even minor incidents, and to the best of my knowledge have never lied about conditions at their plants or the scope of an event. What happened in other countries has no bearing on what happens in the US until there is evidence to the contrary.
As osmifra points out, the fossil fuel power supply industry (mining up through the power plants themselves) do have a long history of raping the natural resources, not providing safe working conditions for their workers (miners), being horrible polluters, and having massive lobbying arms to make sure that any regulations that do get passed to curb these things have no teeth to actually stop them. Nuclear power, on the other hand, is very tightly regulated (see lobbying power of the fossil power as a big part of that) and does none of those things.
Although there was some truth to this, much of this is mythological these days.
My main issues are with presentations where the text/images end up being outside the slide area (this happens both directions) and graphs not displaying (entirely or incorrectly) in spreadsheets (Excel -> LO, I can't say I've seen issues going the other way). Documents work fine unless images are added or pages are split into columns, then the formatting goes to hell on them too (again both directions).
LibreOffice is reasonably good. Apple's office apps are Microsoft's Apple Office app.
I believe they were referring Apple's iWork suite of office apps. While they are still lacking compared to MS Office (even the Mac version) I would agree that it is still better than OpenOffice/LibreOffice (and I really do try to use it).
No, it doesn't have the number of users or integration with other tools, but it works (well) for many user's applications.
Overall I like OO/LO as they've done a lot of work to make it work like MS Office (similar icons/menus, etc..), but it's biggest draw back is that it still doesn't handle MS Office documents correctly. At work I invariably have to revert back to MSO because the formatting is all messed up when I look at documents from other people (MSO users) and the ones I create in LO that look and print just fine end up looking like crap in MSO. This is true with documents, spreadsheets, and presentations (don't use the DB tools so no idea about that).
Given that the majority of Office suite use is in the corporate environment and that a wholesale overnight change is pretty unlikely, OO/LO won't gain much ground until it can seamlessly work in a MSO environment.
high on looks and weapons but vulnerable to modern weapons
Just how many carriers have we lost to these modern weapons they are vulnerable to? This obviously must have been written by someone with no concept of modern (since the birth of the Carrier) naval warfare. It's always been known that the Carrier is one of (if not) the most vulnerable and weak ships in the fleet in a straight fight. This is why they travel in groups with subs and other smaller craft that are there specifically to protect the Carrier from assault. So while they might be the least able to directly protect themselves, there is usually little risk of them needing to do so from a threat that could sink them.
Furthermore, the purpose of the Carrier itself is to transport air power into a region of conflict to be able to launch sortes from a stable and safe location. Until we have fighters and bombers that can effectively make it halfway around the world, conduct their mission, and return home on a single tank of fuel and do it in a short enough timespan for the intelligence to still be actionable, the Carriers won't be going away. On top of that, they are also (due to so much open space on deck and in the hangers when planes are cleared) one of the most versatile ships we have for moving large amounts of people and/or supplies.
You can't hold territory without troops on the ground, but they can't first take it without proper air support. And unless the conflict just happens to be "next" to your pre-existing airbases (and they continue to remain secure) then you need some way to get the air power to where it needs to go.
Political issues that get us involved in conflicts aside, the Carrier will remain a key piece of our military capability for some time yet.
How are they alleged to be able to "forcibly remove" funds from a person's bank account, exactly? I presume we're talking about taking funds that they had not received any authorization to take.
I (and I gather you as well) believe that they should require my direct involvement to withdraw funds from my account (e.g. making a purchase, using their transfer services, etc..), but they believe that because you provided them your billing info that they can take the funds whenever they please. For example you sell something to a fraudulent buyer that goes to them and claims that they returned the merchandise but you haven't refunded the money. Then even though this is the first you're hearing about it they suspend your account for investigation, ultimately side with the lying "buyer", and withdraw the funds from your billing account if there aren't enough sitting in your PP account already to cover it.
I call removing funds from my account without my permission (over at best a "he said she said" argument, at worst outright ignore contrary evidence) with no legal proceeding and little recourse "forcible".
It'd be like having service suspended for not paying your bill.
Except with eBay/PayPal, it's more along the lines of having your service suspended and the funds forcibly removed from your bank account (as well as taking anything that was still sitting in your PayPal account) without direct consent all because someone said you were a bad person and they didn't bother to get your side of the story. Sadly that isn't make believe and has actually happened. Many times.
So it may not be news that a big company does this, but it is news that eBay is paving the way to abuse more of their customers with even less repercussions when they already have a history of doing bad things.
Either way if contested will not survive in court. Contracts are void if found to be illegal.
Dude. They even linked to it in the summary. This crap has been upheld by SCOTUS. The argument is over. Even worse than allowing companies to force you into arbitration, they also allow the company to choose the arbiter as well. Under those rulings they can now get away with all kinds of illegal crap so long as they aren't flagrant enough about it to draw the ire of the DoJ or one of the states. Even then, because you can't be part of the complaint (unless you are the "lucky" one that they feel has enough merit for them to win) you will get exactly bupkis of any damages that are awarded.
Your only hope is that if you have a problem with them that goes to arbitration, the result is in your favor and they ignore that result. Then you *might* be able to sue them, but since they (I haven't read eBay's new EULA, but I know it's true for AT&T) get to pick the arbiter just how likely do you think the result will be in your favor?
I played with having a computer in my car for a few years and it is shocking what you can do once you have access to the CAN bus. I mean it's cool that I can plug a device in and program it so that it will catch the commands from my window switches and have them instead activate my blinkers, but that (theoretically as far as I know) a compromised update to your radio could let it do the same thing is a bad thing and that there is a growing trend for cars to be more connected (e.g. wifi hotspots, etc..) is outright scary.
Maybe they could start by separating networks for the critical functions and entertainment systems. The only possible access to the critical systems should be by a physical connection. They don't need (bad) software security experts to help solve this problem. They need good network architects. It shouldn't simply be a matter of the engine verifying that the "more gas" command came from the ECU and not the radio. The radio should simply never be able to get a message to the engine without wiring changes.
If coding can be learned in a day, why do we have people who suck so badly at it?
Because they learned it in a day?
"Written by someone with no grasp of technology"
Your comment written by someone with no grasp of the history of technology. There's folks reading your words who remember reading and storing files from cassette tapes in the 1980s. Like me.
I too used tape drives in the 80s, but my grass is not remotely brown enough and my glasses are not tinted nearly enough to begin to think of those as "the good old days" when thinking about storage solutions. I agree with the GP that this question was asked by someone that doesn't have any clue what the linear nature of a tape means and has never been stuck waiting on a restore of a file that happens to be at the opposite end of the tape than the current position.
I would agree with you about "novel solutions" if the question had instead been about how to use a disk and tape combination similar to RAM/swap and age out files with low access rates to tape while keeping the most used stuff on the faster disk or something else equally "out of the box". In this case it is just someone trying to use an exceptionally wrong tool for the wrong job and there is nothing novel about it (unless we are talking about the stupidity of it).
Also, Andrew was talking about transferring large amounts of data between sites in the days when the Internet was slow, HDDs weren't a good/stable transport method, and cross-site replication was expensive and limited in scope. He was not remotely referring to using tapes to solve an inherently random/multi access problem, so while it is still a funny quote it isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.
I don't think it would be too hard to get 2/3 of Americans to agree that any amendment or rider to a bill should be relevant to that bill's stated purpose.
Too bad the general population doesn't make laws then (though there are plenty more cases where it is a damned good thing they don't). In this case the people you are trying to restrict are the ones that are creating such laws. Just how likely do you think it is that they will curb their potential of abuse of the system to suit their own ends?
I know 'raid is not a back-up'
RAID is not a backup if it is your only source of data. If it is a backup of what is on the source, then it is by definition a backup solution and a safer one that backing up to another single drive (assuming level 1 or above). What you describe sounds like a perfectly reasonable solution for the use case you describe.
RAID5 with a stand-by hot spare that I rotate in periodically (speaking of...). Where I see performance issue is network bandwidth due to my choice to use iSCSI so I can use an unsupported (by the NAS itself) filesystem and an authentication/sharing system that is native to the majority of the client machines that use the space. Even with GigE large files can be annoyingly slow even if I'd doing the work on from the iSCSI controller where I can watch and see that the network IO is maxed out.
You might look into Thecus. I've had the N7700 for about 3 years now on the recommendation of someone who has a N5400 (and had it for a few years before I got mine) and (after I got mine) got his sister to buy a N7700PRO that he manages for her. There is no built-in DNS or VPN support, but some quick Google searches show that someone built a DNS module and it looks like there might be a VPN module too (I haven't used either so I can't speak to if or how well they work).
I did have my motherboard die 2 months out of warranty, but their replacement cost was reasonable, they took care of it fast, and they upgraded it to the new N7700PRO board for me.
When I initially set mine up I know they natively supported a Windows format, ext3, and xfs (experimental at the time). If I recall correctly it supports SMB, NFS, AFP, and iSCSI for remote connections. I set mine up using iSCSI so I could format it to a different format (which means my client systems have to talk to the server that manages it rather than directly to the Thecus itself).
3 years ago their interface was horrible, but it's seen a lot of improvements over the years and is much nicer now.
Do make sure you buy decent disk drives for it. "Green" or "Eco" drives from WD or Seagate work for shit in disk arrays.
My WD greens have been running in my NAS for almost 3 years and have been fine. One was bad upon receipt, but the supplier RMA'd at no cost to me. If I ever get off my ass to complete my warm backup array, I'll use the same drives.
And you ignore the fact that most users don't want to dick around with shit just to get back to what should be the sensible default.
This!
I've been an OS X user for almost 12 years now and am firmly expecting to drop it and switch to Linux next month when 10.8 doesn't fix the shit they messed up with 10.7. Apple's been messing with their UI for years now, but it's finally gotten to the level that it pisses me off daily that almost all my "muscle memory" is now broken because they've changed things too much. Sure some things can be reverted back to how they were (or some semblance there of), but little of it is documented and I shouldn't have to waste my time doing it.
I can understand enabling the new interface features for fresh installs, but when you are doing an upgrade is it really so hard to leave shit alone and provide the user information about why these new features are so "cool" and how to enable them if they want them?
On the topic of switching to Linux, does anyone know of good resource that details various window manager features and how to configure them? I've been out of the Unix/Linux desktop scene for a long time (late 90s) and so far I am no fan of Unity.
Oh god! They didn't put him in the comfy chair did they?!?!?! The poor soul..
You appear to be operating under the incorrect impression that they care about PR being good or bad or the attention span to build an armed sub. They'd simply pay off enough congress critters to send the Navy out to sink them and then use mass media to tell the public how good of a thing our boys in white did to help stem the tide of these horrible sea pirates.