You didn't actually read my comment except for that one bit did you? Yes, Windows is approximately 90% of the PC market share, however a public campus wireless system isn't catering to entirely, or possibly even mostly, PCs. Phones, tablets, e-book readers, gaming consoles (in dorms), etc all want wifi and I think that in a normal campus system those devices combined probably outnumber the PCs (using this term generically to describe Windows, Mac, Linux, BSD, etc computers), let alone the Windows PCs. I wasn't even trying to comment on OS wars.
I suppose I can see where a university might have a legacy system setup as you describe. The proliferation of non-PC wifi devices is a fairly recent development as is the proliferation of 64bit Windows. Macs have been popular on University campuses for while, but from the sounds of things you had at least moderate Mac support. I wouldn't have done it that way, mainly becasue I was a CS grad student and know how many of us used Linux either full time or dual boot; but I can see where it seemed like a least a reasonable solution at the time to university IT. For a new system like the poster was talking about though? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Not only are there a huge variety of wifi enabled devices on the market that students will want to use, but more are being released all the time. Just use something standards based and be done with it.
Seems to me (and I'll grant you I might be entirely to logical for all this University network overlord stuff), that a "public wifi" system in this day and age that won't work with iOS, Android, Kindles, B&N Android, PS3s and X-boxes (assuming it covers the dorms), and MacOS at the very least is pretty much pointless. Once you support all of that, you pretty much support all open standards anyway, so adding Linux into the mix shouldn't be an issue. There was a time (not so very long ago) when supporting Windows was enough to cover 95% or more of your users. These days I'd be surprised if Windows covered even 50%. Between all the non-PC devices that use wifi now and the popularity of Macs on university campuses, I can't see why you'd even bother to maintain a Windows only wifi system.
We had MAC address filtering, but nothing that would stop a Linux or Mac system (or indeed a phone or any other device you register the MAC for) from connecting.
I meant more "advocating for changing the system they've spent the last decade abusing". Doesn't change your point though. I totally agree. I'm not an anti-IP fanatic, I think the existence of copyright and patents are fine and good for society overall, but several things about he current system clearly need to change. Shorter copyright terms, more controls on what is or isn't patentable, these and many others need to be implemented before posterity loses it's access to our cultural and scientific heritage.
Well I guess YMMV, but I directly upgraded my box from XP to 7, I didn't just buy a new box with better hardware. I did upgrade the RAM from 2 to 4 GB since I was going to a 64bit OS. Everything seems to run as well or better. Games definitely run better if they have DX10 support. DX10 is a clear upgrade to DX9 on games that support it.
I think most of the big software vendors are starting to really believe this. MS has been advocating for patent reform in more than just lawsuit defenses. They're paying lobbyists to say the same thing. That doesn't mean they won't keep filing patents, and filing lawsuits based on those patents, until the day any reform takes place though. There's a difference between seeing something needs to change, or even advocating for those changes, and letting the currently unchanged rule bite you in the ass. No corporation is going to take a moral stand on the issue in a way that opens it up to potential liability or disallows potential profit. All the big players (except maybe Oracle), seem to be realizing that the current system doesn't favor them, it favors the patent trolls.
Say whatever bad things you want about MS, Apple, Google, and the like, but all of them are in essentially the same boat. They actually make real products, that they release and sell. Whether those products are pure software or software and hardware synergies, they are real products which really make money one way or another. Patent trolls don't make anything, they just patents stuff and wait around for someone to do something similar so they can sue. The patent portfolio based "mutually assured destruction" pacts that keep the big players off each other's backs simply don't work on the trolls, and it's going to start costing the big boys more and more money. So now they have a good reason to change the system they've been abusing for the last decade.
Did I say everyone was going to run out and buy Windows 7 tomorrow? No. As more and more stuff requires it, more and more people will find a reason to upgrade. Maybe for one guy it's IE 9, another guys it's iCloud, a third guy it's DirectX10. Eventually most people will be on Windows 7 (or be off Windows entirely, which is also happening). I'd guess well before security EOL in 2014.
I'd say you haven't tried it then. Honestly it's a much better operating system (feel free to check my comment history, I'm not a shill for any OS vendor and own computers that use all three of the majors). I resisted upgrading to 7 for quite a while too, but now that I have done so on my home machine I'm just waiting for license purchase to upgrade the work box (No, my company doesn't have volume licensing. Why, when we have a ton of Windows machines? I have no idea. At least we're going that route for the Windows 7 upgrade.) Performance is on par with or better than Windows XP (it is a bit of a RAM hog, but nothing like Vista), 64 bit actually works, lots of under the hood improvements, and honestly after a short adjustment period I like the new UI better. With reasonably modern hardware you will see performance improvement out of 7 over XP. Especially if you game or have 3GB or more of RAM. The new DirectX is starting to be worth it all by itself.
Do you really think that? I seem to recall people standing in lines the night before Windows 95 release. I think the main reason people haven't jumped to upgrade since XP is the simple fact that there hasn't been a compelling reason too. That's starting to change. XP is coming out of security update coverage in a couple of years, it can't use the latest Internet Explorer, and other software is starting to require at least Vista. Adoption is going to start to pick up as it becomes more and more a matter of you need X to do Y. Apple is just following on to that trend.
I also think you're being kinda of unfair to Apple with this comment: "I think non-Apple land is little different, and people tend not to buy toys just because the master asked them to." One of the advantages of Macs and MacOS is that the hardware tends to be able to run the latest and greatest OS for a long time. My Wife's Macbook is first generation Intel hardware and it runs Snow Leopard just fine. There's been no indication that she won't be able to run Lion too. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that Snow Leopard ( and Leopard before it) runs better than Tiger did. Unlike typical MS releases, Apple's tend to clean up inefficiencies. Since the last two updates have been $30 each, there's been no good reason *not* to upgrade.
If you're still watching this (doubtful I know since you're AC, but it can't hurt), and you actually want to get out of Birmingham, message me. Lots of good stuff going on here in the great white (OK, rarely white, mostly hot) northern tip of AL.
My problem is that I don't do that. I say I'm going to do that, occasionally I even make little piles of books that I intend to sell or donate. Once in a great while, when my wife threatens death or divorce, I part with ten or twenty books. Being nearly the bibliophile I am, she considers that "progress" and and wanders off, then we go to B&N next day and buy another five or six books. This works out way better for me. Also, the books aren't any more expensive that I've noticed. Most are a dollar or so cheaper than a paperback; which granted, seems unfair since there's no publishing or shipping costs. On the other hand, they aren't on my already groaning shelves.
Just FYI, since you may not be interested, but Nooks also allow trivial e-book "exchanges" with other parties who have Nooks. If you and your father both get a Nook, or you get a Nook and he gets a Nook App for a phone or tablet, you can loan books to each other. In some ways it's better than physical loaning, becasue as soon as you mark the the book "loaned" in your library (where ever you are in the world), it appears as available in his (where ever he is in the world). It's go disadvantages too of course, but overall it's a nice feature. I seem to remember Kindles getting this too, but I'm not sure. You almost certainly can't exchange between to two devices.
Do you have an e-paper Nook? or a color? I've got both (well technically my wife and I have one each), and while the e-paper one lasts a *really* long time on a charge, the Color is more like a tablet. Which makes sense, since it's essentially a tablet with a book-centric UI. I get about 10-12 hours worth of use from a full charge, which is quite decent considering all it can do, but nothing like the black and white.
A lot depends on where and how you go to college. A state school, attended while living at home, is not likely to leave you with crushing debt. A poor or lower-middle class student could probably cover most of it with grants, and very minimal loans. A wealthier student's family can probably pay for a reasonable percentage outright. Some state schools are quite good, few of them are less than middle of the road. Conversely, going to U of Phoenix is likely to leave you crushing debt under almost any circumstances and the degree is all but worthless; both in the amount it's going to add to your long term earning potential, and in its "raw" educational value. I wouldn't necessarily recommend someone who has a good job drop it to go get a degree, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend against it either if the job is a dead end or whatever. I'd never recommend a place like U of P unless your job is paying for it.
Personally I went to small liberal arts university and lived in the dorm. Thanks to a scholarship, grants, and a very small infusion from my parents, I graduated debt free and have found that my degree opened a lot of doors. YMMV, but college doesn't have to involve soul sucking debt, and is quite useful in the job market. Not to mention I enjoyed the Hell out it. It was intellectually stimulating, socially advantageous, and yes I enjoyed my share of parties (not so many that I didn't graduate with a good GPA though).
Dude. Move an hour north. Huntsville is nothing but tech jobs. I have a great job, and get near weekly inquires from recruiters about whether I'd like a different one. In a pinch you could commute here, though it'd be a bit of a dozy.
OK, how about Europol? That's the 2009 report. Interesting stuff starts around page 14 where they start with the charts that break down events, arrests, etc by type of terrorist group. There's reports from earlier years too, but nothing quite as nice as the 25 year breakdown in the FBI report.
Right, and Google is poor and lacks lawyers. Gunboat diplomacy is less effective when the enemy actually has a few aircraft carriers. I think Oracle sees this more as a risk vs. reward thing. File the suit. If you win you get a whole lot of money. If you lose, you got a couple invalid patents that probably weren't worth much to begin with (or you would have won), and you paid some lawyers you were probably paying anyway. Small risk, big potential reward.
Here is a nice study on the FBI's web site about terrorism from ~2005. Scroll to the bottom. There's a list of every officially classified terrorist act on US soil since 1980 (up till the 2005 study date obviously). While 9/11 is certainly by far the single largest and most destructive (both to life and property) of these acts, I think you'll find that nothing even close to half of them were committed by Islamists. Even if you add in the Islamist stuff that's happened since 2005, you still won't get them to half of the total or even close to it.
Yes, extremist Islamic terrorism is currently on the upswing. Yes, thanks to the huge body count of 9/11 they've killed more US citizens than any other type of terrorist (though not for lack of trying by other groups in some cases). Yes, their attempts are more spectacular in general than simple arson, pipe bombs, or vandalism. No, Islamist terrorists have not committed the majority, nor even close to the majority of terrorist acts on US soil. Not even in recent years.
And on average people who go to college earn way more than a mid-range sports car worth of extra money in their lives. Note "on average". Sure you, personally, have a great job and a million dollars despite having never earned a high school diploma (I'm exaggerating the typical story that goes along with this sort of post), but the vast majority of people who don't go to college don't get that job. Almost universally people who tell you not to bother with college cite anecdotes, while people who say the opposite cite statistics. Certainly, if I randomly reach into the population of non-college graduates, then randomly reach into the population of college graduates, I could pull out an anomalous situation where the former makes more than the later. It's not likely though.
Why does the terrorist always have a Muslim name? People get so wrapped up in the idea that Al'Queda is going to kill us that they seem to forget that the *second* largest terrorist attack ever on US soil was conducted by a corn bread white guy with an Irish name, and not all that long ago. Muslim extremists are actually responsible for a minority of terrorist activity (though granted it's a large minority).
That's a severely over hyped idea for many-if-not-most airports. An hour is plenty early for most regional airports during non-peak flight times. Sure if you're flying out of Kennedy or trying to travel on the Weds before Thanksgiving you need to get there two (or more) hours early, but out of Huntsville I never get there more than an hour early unless it's holiday travel. It was the same out of Lafayette, LA. Even going out of Boston-Logan I rarely do more than an hour and a half and could probably get away with an hour (though I get nervous with that one).
How else would it work? The things change every minute: that's 31.5 million different numbers across a year, and yours have to be different than anyone else's. You think they just fire up the old pseudorandom number generator and cat 30 million numbers into a file, then keep track of which set of 30 million numbers needs to go onto the fob for any given company that might order one? The numbers are calculated based on an algorithm, a seed (which is unique to every company) and the current time/date. Since the seeds are compromised, they has got problems.
I thought that was because they got no benefits. I mean I hate to ruin a perfectly good troll and all, but do you have any idea what your health insurance costs your employer? Unemployment insurance? 401K matching? That contractor who's making 25% more than you is saving the company money. The one making 50% more than is probably close to breaking even. Why do you think people are reluctant to take these jobs despite the money being offered?
I just got a recruiter contacting me about a contractor position in Boston. I *really* want to move to Boston (my wife already lives there and LDRs suck), it's also a substantial raise. Despite that, the only reason I'm even considering it is that my wife gets good benefits from her company and I can get on her insurance and shit. No other way I'd even give it a second thought.
Oh I agree, I just don't see the need to compulsively organize the files. The metadata is stored in the music file, so while certainly having your own personal copy of the file stored somewhere safe is a good idea, I don't see any good reason to come up with an elaborate organization for the files themselves. As soon as you reimport them into iTunes or your media player of choice, the player will reorganize them based on metadata. iTunes default filesystem level organization structure is "$rootmusicfolder\$artistname\$albumname\$musicfile", but for all I care it could just be one folder full of songs as long as the player knows how to organize them.
Slashdot Mirror
You didn't actually read my comment except for that one bit did you? Yes, Windows is approximately 90% of the PC market share, however a public campus wireless system isn't catering to entirely, or possibly even mostly, PCs. Phones, tablets, e-book readers, gaming consoles (in dorms), etc all want wifi and I think that in a normal campus system those devices combined probably outnumber the PCs (using this term generically to describe Windows, Mac, Linux, BSD, etc computers), let alone the Windows PCs. I wasn't even trying to comment on OS wars.
I suppose I can see where a university might have a legacy system setup as you describe. The proliferation of non-PC wifi devices is a fairly recent development as is the proliferation of 64bit Windows. Macs have been popular on University campuses for while, but from the sounds of things you had at least moderate Mac support. I wouldn't have done it that way, mainly becasue I was a CS grad student and know how many of us used Linux either full time or dual boot; but I can see where it seemed like a least a reasonable solution at the time to university IT. For a new system like the poster was talking about though? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Not only are there a huge variety of wifi enabled devices on the market that students will want to use, but more are being released all the time. Just use something standards based and be done with it.
Seems to me (and I'll grant you I might be entirely to logical for all this University network overlord stuff), that a "public wifi" system in this day and age that won't work with iOS, Android, Kindles, B&N Android, PS3s and X-boxes (assuming it covers the dorms), and MacOS at the very least is pretty much pointless. Once you support all of that, you pretty much support all open standards anyway, so adding Linux into the mix shouldn't be an issue. There was a time (not so very long ago) when supporting Windows was enough to cover 95% or more of your users. These days I'd be surprised if Windows covered even 50%. Between all the non-PC devices that use wifi now and the popularity of Macs on university campuses, I can't see why you'd even bother to maintain a Windows only wifi system.
We had MAC address filtering, but nothing that would stop a Linux or Mac system (or indeed a phone or any other device you register the MAC for) from connecting.
I meant more "advocating for changing the system they've spent the last decade abusing". Doesn't change your point though. I totally agree. I'm not an anti-IP fanatic, I think the existence of copyright and patents are fine and good for society overall, but several things about he current system clearly need to change. Shorter copyright terms, more controls on what is or isn't patentable, these and many others need to be implemented before posterity loses it's access to our cultural and scientific heritage.
Well I guess YMMV, but I directly upgraded my box from XP to 7, I didn't just buy a new box with better hardware. I did upgrade the RAM from 2 to 4 GB since I was going to a 64bit OS. Everything seems to run as well or better. Games definitely run better if they have DX10 support. DX10 is a clear upgrade to DX9 on games that support it.
I think most of the big software vendors are starting to really believe this. MS has been advocating for patent reform in more than just lawsuit defenses. They're paying lobbyists to say the same thing. That doesn't mean they won't keep filing patents, and filing lawsuits based on those patents, until the day any reform takes place though. There's a difference between seeing something needs to change, or even advocating for those changes, and letting the currently unchanged rule bite you in the ass. No corporation is going to take a moral stand on the issue in a way that opens it up to potential liability or disallows potential profit. All the big players (except maybe Oracle), seem to be realizing that the current system doesn't favor them, it favors the patent trolls.
Say whatever bad things you want about MS, Apple, Google, and the like, but all of them are in essentially the same boat. They actually make real products, that they release and sell. Whether those products are pure software or software and hardware synergies, they are real products which really make money one way or another. Patent trolls don't make anything, they just patents stuff and wait around for someone to do something similar so they can sue. The patent portfolio based "mutually assured destruction" pacts that keep the big players off each other's backs simply don't work on the trolls, and it's going to start costing the big boys more and more money. So now they have a good reason to change the system they've been abusing for the last decade.
Did I say everyone was going to run out and buy Windows 7 tomorrow? No. As more and more stuff requires it, more and more people will find a reason to upgrade. Maybe for one guy it's IE 9, another guys it's iCloud, a third guy it's DirectX10. Eventually most people will be on Windows 7 (or be off Windows entirely, which is also happening). I'd guess well before security EOL in 2014.
I'd say you haven't tried it then. Honestly it's a much better operating system (feel free to check my comment history, I'm not a shill for any OS vendor and own computers that use all three of the majors). I resisted upgrading to 7 for quite a while too, but now that I have done so on my home machine I'm just waiting for license purchase to upgrade the work box (No, my company doesn't have volume licensing. Why, when we have a ton of Windows machines? I have no idea. At least we're going that route for the Windows 7 upgrade.) Performance is on par with or better than Windows XP (it is a bit of a RAM hog, but nothing like Vista), 64 bit actually works, lots of under the hood improvements, and honestly after a short adjustment period I like the new UI better. With reasonably modern hardware you will see performance improvement out of 7 over XP. Especially if you game or have 3GB or more of RAM. The new DirectX is starting to be worth it all by itself.
Do you really think that? I seem to recall people standing in lines the night before Windows 95 release. I think the main reason people haven't jumped to upgrade since XP is the simple fact that there hasn't been a compelling reason too. That's starting to change. XP is coming out of security update coverage in a couple of years, it can't use the latest Internet Explorer, and other software is starting to require at least Vista. Adoption is going to start to pick up as it becomes more and more a matter of you need X to do Y. Apple is just following on to that trend.
I also think you're being kinda of unfair to Apple with this comment: "I think non-Apple land is little different, and people tend not to buy toys just because the master asked them to." One of the advantages of Macs and MacOS is that the hardware tends to be able to run the latest and greatest OS for a long time. My Wife's Macbook is first generation Intel hardware and it runs Snow Leopard just fine. There's been no indication that she won't be able to run Lion too. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that Snow Leopard ( and Leopard before it) runs better than Tiger did. Unlike typical MS releases, Apple's tend to clean up inefficiencies. Since the last two updates have been $30 each, there's been no good reason *not* to upgrade.
If you're still watching this (doubtful I know since you're AC, but it can't hurt), and you actually want to get out of Birmingham, message me. Lots of good stuff going on here in the great white (OK, rarely white, mostly hot) northern tip of AL.
My problem is that I don't do that. I say I'm going to do that, occasionally I even make little piles of books that I intend to sell or donate. Once in a great while, when my wife threatens death or divorce, I part with ten or twenty books. Being nearly the bibliophile I am, she considers that "progress" and and wanders off, then we go to B&N next day and buy another five or six books. This works out way better for me. Also, the books aren't any more expensive that I've noticed. Most are a dollar or so cheaper than a paperback; which granted, seems unfair since there's no publishing or shipping costs. On the other hand, they aren't on my already groaning shelves.
Just FYI, since you may not be interested, but Nooks also allow trivial e-book "exchanges" with other parties who have Nooks. If you and your father both get a Nook, or you get a Nook and he gets a Nook App for a phone or tablet, you can loan books to each other. In some ways it's better than physical loaning, becasue as soon as you mark the the book "loaned" in your library (where ever you are in the world), it appears as available in his (where ever he is in the world). It's go disadvantages too of course, but overall it's a nice feature. I seem to remember Kindles getting this too, but I'm not sure. You almost certainly can't exchange between to two devices.
Do you have an e-paper Nook? or a color? I've got both (well technically my wife and I have one each), and while the e-paper one lasts a *really* long time on a charge, the Color is more like a tablet. Which makes sense, since it's essentially a tablet with a book-centric UI. I get about 10-12 hours worth of use from a full charge, which is quite decent considering all it can do, but nothing like the black and white.
A lot depends on where and how you go to college. A state school, attended while living at home, is not likely to leave you with crushing debt. A poor or lower-middle class student could probably cover most of it with grants, and very minimal loans. A wealthier student's family can probably pay for a reasonable percentage outright. Some state schools are quite good, few of them are less than middle of the road. Conversely, going to U of Phoenix is likely to leave you crushing debt under almost any circumstances and the degree is all but worthless; both in the amount it's going to add to your long term earning potential, and in its "raw" educational value. I wouldn't necessarily recommend someone who has a good job drop it to go get a degree, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend against it either if the job is a dead end or whatever. I'd never recommend a place like U of P unless your job is paying for it.
Personally I went to small liberal arts university and lived in the dorm. Thanks to a scholarship, grants, and a very small infusion from my parents, I graduated debt free and have found that my degree opened a lot of doors. YMMV, but college doesn't have to involve soul sucking debt, and is quite useful in the job market. Not to mention I enjoyed the Hell out it. It was intellectually stimulating, socially advantageous, and yes I enjoyed my share of parties (not so many that I didn't graduate with a good GPA though).
Dude. Move an hour north. Huntsville is nothing but tech jobs. I have a great job, and get near weekly inquires from recruiters about whether I'd like a different one. In a pinch you could commute here, though it'd be a bit of a dozy.
OK, how about Europol? That's the 2009 report. Interesting stuff starts around page 14 where they start with the charts that break down events, arrests, etc by type of terrorist group. There's reports from earlier years too, but nothing quite as nice as the 25 year breakdown in the FBI report.
Right, and Google is poor and lacks lawyers. Gunboat diplomacy is less effective when the enemy actually has a few aircraft carriers. I think Oracle sees this more as a risk vs. reward thing. File the suit. If you win you get a whole lot of money. If you lose, you got a couple invalid patents that probably weren't worth much to begin with (or you would have won), and you paid some lawyers you were probably paying anyway. Small risk, big potential reward.
Here is a nice study on the FBI's web site about terrorism from ~2005. Scroll to the bottom. There's a list of every officially classified terrorist act on US soil since 1980 (up till the 2005 study date obviously). While 9/11 is certainly by far the single largest and most destructive (both to life and property) of these acts, I think you'll find that nothing even close to half of them were committed by Islamists. Even if you add in the Islamist stuff that's happened since 2005, you still won't get them to half of the total or even close to it.
Yes, extremist Islamic terrorism is currently on the upswing. Yes, thanks to the huge body count of 9/11 they've killed more US citizens than any other type of terrorist (though not for lack of trying by other groups in some cases). Yes, their attempts are more spectacular in general than simple arson, pipe bombs, or vandalism. No, Islamist terrorists have not committed the majority, nor even close to the majority of terrorist acts on US soil. Not even in recent years.
And on average people who go to college earn way more than a mid-range sports car worth of extra money in their lives. Note "on average". Sure you, personally, have a great job and a million dollars despite having never earned a high school diploma (I'm exaggerating the typical story that goes along with this sort of post), but the vast majority of people who don't go to college don't get that job. Almost universally people who tell you not to bother with college cite anecdotes, while people who say the opposite cite statistics. Certainly, if I randomly reach into the population of non-college graduates, then randomly reach into the population of college graduates, I could pull out an anomalous situation where the former makes more than the later. It's not likely though.
Why does the terrorist always have a Muslim name? People get so wrapped up in the idea that Al'Queda is going to kill us that they seem to forget that the *second* largest terrorist attack ever on US soil was conducted by a corn bread white guy with an Irish name, and not all that long ago. Muslim extremists are actually responsible for a minority of terrorist activity (though granted it's a large minority).
That's a severely over hyped idea for many-if-not-most airports. An hour is plenty early for most regional airports during non-peak flight times. Sure if you're flying out of Kennedy or trying to travel on the Weds before Thanksgiving you need to get there two (or more) hours early, but out of Huntsville I never get there more than an hour early unless it's holiday travel. It was the same out of Lafayette, LA. Even going out of Boston-Logan I rarely do more than an hour and a half and could probably get away with an hour (though I get nervous with that one).
How else would it work? The things change every minute: that's 31.5 million different numbers across a year, and yours have to be different than anyone else's. You think they just fire up the old pseudorandom number generator and cat 30 million numbers into a file, then keep track of which set of 30 million numbers needs to go onto the fob for any given company that might order one? The numbers are calculated based on an algorithm, a seed (which is unique to every company) and the current time/date. Since the seeds are compromised, they has got problems.
I thought that was because they got no benefits. I mean I hate to ruin a perfectly good troll and all, but do you have any idea what your health insurance costs your employer? Unemployment insurance? 401K matching? That contractor who's making 25% more than you is saving the company money. The one making 50% more than is probably close to breaking even. Why do you think people are reluctant to take these jobs despite the money being offered?
I just got a recruiter contacting me about a contractor position in Boston. I *really* want to move to Boston (my wife already lives there and LDRs suck), it's also a substantial raise. Despite that, the only reason I'm even considering it is that my wife gets good benefits from her company and I can get on her insurance and shit. No other way I'd even give it a second thought.
Oh I agree, I just don't see the need to compulsively organize the files. The metadata is stored in the music file, so while certainly having your own personal copy of the file stored somewhere safe is a good idea, I don't see any good reason to come up with an elaborate organization for the files themselves. As soon as you reimport them into iTunes or your media player of choice, the player will reorganize them based on metadata. iTunes default filesystem level organization structure is "$rootmusicfolder\$artistname\$albumname\$musicfile", but for all I care it could just be one folder full of songs as long as the player knows how to organize them.