Who cares if you have to give money to Redhat? Chances are that you are going to be giving Redhat less money for the same part of the stack. Plus Redhat is actually a Linux specialist and a pillar of the community rather than just some 3rd party that want's to exploit everyone.
You would write a check to Redhat now for the same reason you would write one to IBM or Sun before.
Oracle is just a big wannabe and their sociopathic attitude is driving all of their good talent away.
Flash is far more accessable to me as a non-PhoneOS user than anything being sold in the App store.
Flash for all it's evils is more platform neutral than any of the things that are replacing it now.
HTML5 is just a distraction in this respect. It provides a nice "open standards" talking point for Apple while they turn back the clock to how things were before the web.
> Everybody on *nix has observed this so much that this has become a cult phenomenon [xkcd.com].
I don't have that problem. Not sure I ever did.
Flash is a pig on any OS. It doesn't really matter what you're running it on. It can be IE under Win7 and it's still a pig.
The idea that anything not-Windows is any worse is just mindless nonsense....and yes an overpowered core WILL help the whole Flash thing. That level of brute force will be quite useful for dealing with Flash regardless of the platform.
I wish these fanboy delusions were really true. Really I do. Flash gets used in contexts where there's really no call for it and it's annoying. It also makes using an iDevice a bit of a drag.
Open standards are better when they can do the job.
Unfortunately, there are certain areas where no Open Standard can do the job because the powers that be fear the users being in control.
So, HTML5 will never completely displace Flash or things like it.
> Well, iOS proves you totally and completely wrong. Although your bigoted ignorant tone is somewhat entertaining to other slashdotters, I'm sure. >... > An iOS is running on a workstation class core
This is just funny. You clearly have no clue what's going on under the hood. If you had ever jailbroken an iDevice and put it through it's paces, you would know better.
Then again, you could just be a mindless fanboy and no amount of contrary direct observation would matter.
Moving from one storage technology to the next is pretty damn trivial actually. You just have to do this when the actual transition occurs rather than 20 years later.
While you were busy fixating on corner cases like Adrian Monk, you could have actually been providing some level of protection for yourself rather than NONE AT ALL.
Even an imperfect system is better than none at all.
That's funny because I've already got a simple and nicely automated setup for something of this scale. Besides my approach (rsync in a cron job), you could use something like Time Machine and a ready made storage array. You just have to be willing to bother. I could see how old Tivo recordings might not seem that important.
Your problem seems to be more about "can't be bothered at all because the data really isn't worth anything actually"....as far as a complete non-differential backup taking a coon's age goes: it's not like you have to move the bits manually yourself.
The more copies you make, the less likely you will suffer a catastrophic failure.
As long as the process is in your control, you can determine what level of redundancy your data has and you don't have to trust any cost cutting corporation to do right by you. Although you could certainly include such an option in your collection of copies. I just wouldn't have blind faith in someone you don't know that doesn't really have any reason to care about your data.
While it is true that digital data needs to be maintained, it's not a lot. If there ever comes a time when you won't be able to cheaply and easily store your digital files, you will have much more serious things to worry about than preserving old photos.
Over time, data gets smaller relative to storage devices. Something that seemed like a lot 15 years ago can easily sit in the slack space on your phone.
> No, the conflict between science and religion is a false conflict created by atheists as a way to denigrate religion
Clearly you've never read any of the newsletters from the American Family Association.
If not bothered by theocrats, I don't think you would ever hear form atheists.
You are mainly whining about SKEPTICS that rightfully won't accept things without evidence. This is the same reason that Troy was originally thought a myth and why it took about 80 years for plate tectonics to be widely accepted. You have to make a compelling case when it comes to a scientific argument. You can't just depend on blind faith and appeals to authority.
A very small vocal minority of fundie protestants object to the the philosophy of science in general.
They seek to alter the majority rather than tolerate what they view as heresy and don't have sufficient moral courage to separate themselves from the rest of the society that they find so disturbing.
The AFA and similar groups love to play victim and false martyr. The "moral majority" is actually a very noisy minority.
Your rationale is flawed. It benefits from a relatively stable secular society.
If you lived in a theocracy, it would be far more likely that there would be religiously motivated warfare. The severe consequences of this kind of thing is a big part of why the concept of "separation of church and state" is ingrained into the governing philosophy of the US and various states.
The fact that you can be bothered by "self-defined rmorality" is why you don't have to worry about your neighbors killing you over disagreements on dogma.
Xianity is the perfect example of "pick and choose" religion. It has been that way from THE BEGINNING.
So clearly it's possible to adjust what is considered moral to conform better with the times. Also, you are very unlikely to have such a severe revision. This relates to the fact that Saul of Tarsus decided to ignore Jewish law to begin with.
People don't need a 3000 year old book to make excuses for something.
Meanwhile, you don't see so many stonings in Brooklyn.
> Do you believe that people can only be affected by things of which they have "actual memory or experience"?
Pretty much.
If you are a failure as a black person today, slavery really has little to do with it. Even Jim Crow has little to do with it. Your failures are due to you and your immediate surroundings that other people with your skin tone have managed to escape from. If those other people can manage it, then your excuses are far less convincing.
Some black families have a history of higher education or of some profession, or just a history period.
Sources of failure are pretty universal and tend to be far more localized. Some "educator" selling you short is far more relevant. Quite often that "educator" is not some "white oppressor". Consider that a variation of "black on black crime".
I got new life out of an old PC with a 430 which is also very good for HTPC use.
The PC was big and ugly and a bit old but it performs quite well. Where it sits, it doesn't matter so much that it is a full size PC. The noise it generates isn't even a show stopper.
Beats the h*ll out of spending $800 just to get something smaller and a GPU that's less useful for HTPC purposes.
Slashdot Mirror
Big deal. I've seen the same with GUIs bolted onto Linux. Apple has nothing special going on here.
They do have a killer marketing department these days though.
Who cares if you have to give money to Redhat? Chances are that you are going to be giving Redhat less money for the same part of the stack. Plus Redhat is actually a Linux specialist and a pillar of the community rather than just some 3rd party that want's to exploit everyone.
You would write a check to Redhat now for the same reason you would write one to IBM or Sun before.
Oracle is just a big wannabe and their sociopathic attitude is driving all of their good talent away.
I still don't refer to the other platforms as PCs for the same reasons I wouldn't have in 1985.
If PC has become a generic term it's because the market really only allowed one option to survive.
Flash is far more accessable to me as a non-PhoneOS user than anything being sold in the App store.
Flash for all it's evils is more platform neutral than any of the things that are replacing it now.
HTML5 is just a distraction in this respect. It provides a nice "open standards" talking point for Apple while they turn back the clock to how things were before the web.
> Everybody on *nix has observed this so much that this has become a cult phenomenon [xkcd.com].
I don't have that problem. Not sure I ever did.
Flash is a pig on any OS. It doesn't really matter what you're running it on. It can be IE under Win7 and it's still a pig.
The idea that anything not-Windows is any worse is just mindless nonsense. ...and yes an overpowered core WILL help the whole Flash thing. That level of brute force will be quite useful for dealing with Flash regardless of the platform.
I wish these fanboy delusions were really true. Really I do. Flash gets used in contexts where there's really no call for it and it's annoying. It also makes using an iDevice a bit of a drag.
Open standards are better when they can do the job.
Unfortunately, there are certain areas where no Open Standard can do the job because the powers that be fear the users being in control.
So, HTML5 will never completely displace Flash or things like it.
> Well, iOS proves you totally and completely wrong. Although your bigoted ignorant tone is somewhat entertaining to other slashdotters, I'm sure. ...
>
> An iOS is running on a workstation class core
This is just funny. You clearly have no clue what's going on under the hood. If you had ever jailbroken an iDevice and put it through it's paces, you would know better.
Then again, you could just be a mindless fanboy and no amount of contrary direct observation would matter.
Were you computing then? Then STFU.
An Atari user would be insulted by the idea. An Atari user is being insulted by the idea.
Try 1995 and you might be onto something. Although by then other platforms were close to dying out completely (including MacOS too).
Moving from one storage technology to the next is pretty damn trivial actually. You just have to do this when the actual transition occurs rather than 20 years later.
HD wear?
You must be joking.
While you were busy fixating on corner cases like Adrian Monk, you could have actually been providing some level of protection for yourself rather than NONE AT ALL.
Even an imperfect system is better than none at all.
> it is really nice that you shared your method with us.
Copy stuff to a suitably large disk when the opportunity presents itself.
That's funny because I've already got a simple and nicely automated setup for something of this scale. Besides my approach (rsync in a cron job), you could use something like Time Machine and a ready made storage array. You just have to be willing to bother. I could see how old Tivo recordings might not seem that important.
Your problem seems to be more about "can't be bothered at all because the data really isn't worth anything actually". ...as far as a complete non-differential backup taking a coon's age goes: it's not like you have to move the bits manually yourself.
> Once you fall back behind 2 generations of storage technology
Once you've done that you've already been neglecting the situation for quite a long time.
Doing minimal maintenance is one thing. Completely ignoring it is quite another.
The more copies you make, the less likely you will suffer a catastrophic failure.
As long as the process is in your control, you can determine what level of redundancy your data has and you don't have to trust any cost cutting corporation to do right by you. Although you could certainly include such an option in your collection of copies. I just wouldn't have blind faith in someone you don't know that doesn't really have any reason to care about your data.
I have 15 year old media files already.
Been there. Done that. It's really not as hard as people try to make it out to be.
While it is true that digital data needs to be maintained, it's not a lot. If there ever comes a time when you won't be able to cheaply and easily store your digital files, you will have much more serious things to worry about than preserving old photos.
Over time, data gets smaller relative to storage devices. Something that seemed like a lot 15 years ago can easily sit in the slack space on your phone.
So you've read the Old Testament then...
> There is still essentially zero consensus on ethics as derived from secular philosophy
Consensus? What is this thing? Is this what you get when you use the Xian authoritarian model?
Get 4 Jews together and you will have 5 opinions and lots of arguing.
Your are confusing the philosophers with their followers.
You are also intentionally ignoring any number of other philosophers in the process.
The situation is far more complex and you are intentionally misrepresenting it. Isn't there something in one of those ancient moral codes about lying?
> No, the conflict between science and religion is a false conflict created by atheists as a way to denigrate religion
Clearly you've never read any of the newsletters from the American Family Association.
If not bothered by theocrats, I don't think you would ever hear form atheists.
You are mainly whining about SKEPTICS that rightfully won't accept things without evidence. This is the same reason that Troy was originally thought a myth and why it took about 80 years for plate tectonics to be widely accepted. You have to make a compelling case when it comes to a scientific argument. You can't just depend on blind faith and appeals to authority.
A very small vocal minority of fundie protestants object to the the philosophy of science in general.
They seek to alter the majority rather than tolerate what they view as heresy and don't have sufficient moral courage to separate themselves from the rest of the society that they find so disturbing.
The AFA and similar groups love to play victim and false martyr. The "moral majority" is actually a very noisy minority.
Your rationale is flawed. It benefits from a relatively stable secular society.
If you lived in a theocracy, it would be far more likely that there would be religiously motivated warfare. The severe consequences of this kind of thing is a big part of why the concept of "separation of church and state" is ingrained into the governing philosophy of the US and various states.
The fact that you can be bothered by "self-defined rmorality" is why you don't have to worry about your neighbors killing you over disagreements on dogma.
Don't even go there.
Xianity is the perfect example of "pick and choose" religion. It has been that way from THE BEGINNING.
So clearly it's possible to adjust what is considered moral to conform better with the times. Also, you are very unlikely to have such a severe revision. This relates to the fact that Saul of Tarsus decided to ignore Jewish law to begin with.
People don't need a 3000 year old book to make excuses for something.
Meanwhile, you don't see so many stonings in Brooklyn.
> "enlightened self interest and attachment" and how did you decide to choose them?
I am a typically selfish and self-centered animal, yet not a total idiot.
> Do you believe that people can only be affected by things of which they have "actual memory or experience"?
Pretty much.
If you are a failure as a black person today, slavery really has little to do with it. Even Jim Crow has little to do with it. Your failures are due to you and your immediate surroundings that other people with your skin tone have managed to escape from. If those other people can manage it, then your excuses are far less convincing.
Some black families have a history of higher education or of some profession, or just a history period.
Sources of failure are pretty universal and tend to be far more localized. Some "educator" selling you short is far more relevant. Quite often that "educator" is not some "white oppressor". Consider that a variation of "black on black crime".
I got new life out of an old PC with a 430 which is also very good for HTPC use.
The PC was big and ugly and a bit old but it performs quite well. Where it sits, it doesn't matter so much that it is a full size PC. The noise it generates isn't even a show stopper.
Beats the h*ll out of spending $800 just to get something smaller and a GPU that's less useful for HTPC purposes.