I use Dropbox because it works well, is priced reasonably for a 1 TB of storage and it has near ubiquitous support.
That being said, it does follow symlinks, but AFAIK it doesn't automagically update symlinked folders without pausing and unpausing the client to force a re-scan.
And in a lot of ways, the use of symlinks wouldn't be necessary if they would allow you to add more than one top-level sync folder (the "dropbox" folder). Symlinks are just a (useful) kludge to not be forced to break your own existing folder hierarchy to sync with Dropbox.
I'd like to see more features along the lines of security/encryption, but I also can see where that might be hard. If I have something sensitive I want to store there, I encrypt it myself.
Strawman. Haven't seen anyone, much less some imaginary group you refer to as "the left", who has suggested bringing "anyone and everyone" into the United States.
You're being deliberately disingenuous.
The political left has been extremely supportive of nearly every refugee and illegal immigrant group in the United States, on the local level going so far as to declare "sanctuary cities" where they refuse to aid in the enforcement of Federal immigration laws.
Where the political right has called for limits on immigration, principally from Mexico and central America, the left absolutely has used the cudgel of racism to defend illegal immigration.
So you can expect over a 30-50 year period it will make sense to replace old panels with new ones, and recycle the old ones. The average age of installed panels in the US is only 3 years, because the installation rate has been rapidly growing. So it will be a while before the replacement business will be significant.
But I could also see some changes in panel efficiency or other aspects of them that make replacement make sense outside of the usual 30-50 year life span, making a replacement wave happen before the natural aging out of panels.
Obviously any change would have to make economic sense. For a massive farm the economics may not work until they wear out, but for smaller installs some incremental improvement may make replacement prior to end of life make sense.
I didn't read TFA, but my off the cuff interpretation is that solar is still very much in the build-out phase of its life cycle. I would bet that a huge amount of the labor involved in the "solar" side of the equation is electrical construction -- actually setting up and wiring the panels.
Those are great jobs, but they aren't forever. At some point, we will have built all the major solar installations we will build, but it could be a long time -- 20-30 years, and then there will probably be a drop off to some fraction of that installation labor force for upgrades and retrofits of older installations to newer panels, which may continue for some longer period, along with perhaps some low level but near indefinite continued installation of localized rooftop or other small-scale solar.
I don't know, but I'd guess that averaged over 75 years solar may have a slightly higher "overhead" labor cost associated with panel installation, maintenance and retrofit than large-scale coal or gas plants.
It would be more interesting if they could drill down to the amount of labor involved with only ongoing operation and subtract out anything related to installation. On one hand, it may end up being lower than large-scale gas/coal plants since you dump a lot of jobs associated with fueling, steam plant maintenance and so on. On the other hand, solar may have more intensive monitoring requirements or maintenance like cleaning panels.
...and competing with PayPal and possibly some smaller countries' national currencies.
There isn't much they don't sell so if you decided to accept Amazonians instead of Dollars for something, it's almost like it's not even a barter, but an actual usable currency.
...Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions -- everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.
I still do. I go through about a pack a week of light ("Silver") cigarettes smoking 1/3-1/2 at a sitting - The mass market things you don't like. The little nicotine rush is nice, but I think it's the act of smoking that brings me back - I just enjoy relaxing with a smoke.
[...]
Vaping I guess is an option - I've tried it and enjoy it, but it lacks something that I get from a nice smoldering lung-dart.
I've also tried vaping and found it remarkably like smoking, but not quite the same. I think there's a physiological response from an actual burning cigarette that vaping can't really replicate. But I can see that it would also be an easy replacement for smoking, especially considering there's absolutely no odor. You could vape at home or in the car or even in the office, and unless someone saw you, they'd never detect it, your clothes, car and house wouldn't stink.
Towards the last year or so that I smoked, I tried the occasional cigarette routine which didn't quite work. My wife tolerated a pack of cigarettes in the liquor cabinet, to be consumed on occasion, but I found myself too drawn to them and cheated the system quite a bit (spare pack, smoked from and used to replenish the cabinet pack when it was pilfered).
I think I ultimately cut back during this phase, since while I smoked *more* than the "occasional cigarette" routine assumed, I wasn't smoking at will as I had before, and I think it probably contributed to making just quitting work, along with the public smoking ban in bars (the last public bastion here). I had basically run out of places I could get away with smoking with any regularity.
While our son was in elementary school, we attended a series of charity parties for the school and I was surprised to see the dilettante casual smokers among the other parents (mostly 5-10 years younger). I would try one from them (usually ghastly lights of some kind or other) and feel absolutely no desire to smoke cigarettes again.
Not me. I loved cigarettes. I rolled my own using either Dutch tobacco or rolling tobacco from the tobacconist. Conventional mass-market cigarettes I found intolerable, and I would actively refuse them in when I ran out of my own tobacco.
I also smoked far fewer cigarettes than my peers who smoked conventional pre-rolled cigarettes. In a typical day I maybe only smoked 6-7. Partly because they were stronger than conventional cigarettes, and partly because it took some effort to roll them and you couldn't just reflexively grab the next one out of the pack.
I think "light" cigarettes made people more compulsive smokers because they provided so little nicotine that you had to smoke another. I'm sure it was a known side effect of light cigarettes which Big Tobacco was aware of and why they helped promote them as somehow beneficial.
I was also self-conscious as a smoker, and tried to avoid smoking at all around non-smokers or even in my own residence.
I quit about a dozen years ago, which I found relatively easy to do. I'll admit that laws barring smoking in bars made it easier because there were just so few places you could smoke. But when they announce the asteroid strike and we all have 6 months left, I will start smoking again.
College degrees still ought not to be necessary, but the problem is that our public schools have so dumbed down what is expected of high schoolers, and so many schools are failing, that the high school diploma tells you nothing about the student anymore.
I agree. Every so often the local newspaper runs some kind of nostalgia piece and reprints essays written 75-100 years ago. Often these were essays written by 7th or 8th graders and they are better writing than I see most adults produce. Kids in those same grades (and I have one..) can't write nearly that well these days, and I think the educational system is responsible for it.
I'm not always sure it's a pure *quality* issue, though. I think a lot of it is dilution -- just too many subjects being covered and many of them entirely superfluous, often filled with PC indoctrination and busywork.
It's an interesting theory, but what point did American cars become unreliable due to planned obsolescence?
The problem I have with this argument is that ALL cars were inherently unreliable through the basic components of them. I'm just barely old enough to remember when tuneups were totally mandatory -- changing the points in the distributor, checking the timing, frequent plug and wire replacements, fairly frequent carburetor adjustments and so on. That was every American car through the advent of fuel injection and electronic ignition, and I'm sure the transition period before they got those features right was an issue, too.
The only crisis in reliability I can think of that wasn't outright tied to mechanical nature of their components was the 1970s when emissions requirements hit. Detroit had nothing but giant V8 engines and struggled to make them meet emissions, strangling them performance wise and slapping on emissions controls. I think this hurt reliability a lot.
It was probably made worse by ham-handed attempts to address fuel economy through lighter materials, which in turn could have affected reliability -- making metal parts thinner and lighter has to hit some tolerance threshold where they just didn't wear well.
I also remember Japanese cars in the 1970s not being entirely perfect, either, being prone to overheating and as bad or worse at corrosion as Detroit models.
College has long been a kind of social finishing arena, with education as kind of a secondary accomplishment for many.
It wasn't that long ago that nobody needed a professional degree, even for a lot of occupations we would assume were necessary. In a lot of places you could practice law if you passed the bar exam, and a law degree wasn't required. Even basic medicine wasn't that complicated because there weren't many things that could be done anyway besides give pain killers, set bones and close and clean wounds.
Only highly technical fields like engineering and serious, in-depth areas of study required anything like an advanced degree, and often the people who did some of that kind of research work just did it self-directed (didn't Einstein come up with General Relativity working as a patent clerk?).
People went to college to become more worldly and get exposed to liberal arts concepts and classics by and large. Often larger purpose was explicitly social, a place to practice serious public etiquette and possibly meet a mate. For women the latter was often the principal goal, you sent your daughter to a good school not because you cared if she could recite Shakespeare or read Tacitus in Latin, but because it exposed her to a range of potential husbands of suitable social standing. Even for men, the education (outside of a small number of highly technical fields) was largely superfluous, outside of the benefit of exposing them to worldly ideas beyond their parochial upbringing.
For better or for worse, this mindset has continued with college. People often go because it's expected of them, and the thing you do. The middle class believes it not only gives them the vocational skills they need but some kind social access.
According to some people's logic you're already racist because you're white but can't be racist if you're not.
The desire to recast racism -- prejudicial or discriminatory behavior against a group due to their ethnic membership -- as a power phenomenon practiced solely by whites is really grating to me.
I'm even willing to buy into the idea that many people (not distinguished by race) have racial preconceptions, based mostly on inexperience, which may be unfair, but the idea that whites are always racist in a material sense just isn't believable. That non-whites don't or aren't capable of racial discrimination is just factually false. Some of the worst ethnic conflicts in history have been between non-white ethnic groups.
Legalized drugs: Widespread use of anti-depressants and tranquilizers is a lot like soma.
Sorting people into classes based on intelligence: Socioeconomic pecking order based on which degree you got, which college you went to, your SAT scores, your GPA, etc.
Purely centralized economy: Federal reserve monetary policy, Wall Street, investment banking, transnational corporations, Davos, private equity, regulatory capture. I'll cede that this is a weak comparison, but all of those organizations tend to be incestuous in membership and switching between organizations is common.
Procreation: In-vitro fertilization, genetic screening, scheduled c-sections. We're not yet decanting our offspring, but among the moneyed classes the reproductive process is industrializing.
Perhaps as a whole the real world isn't a literal comparison to BNW, but I think the metaphorical comparisons are striking.
he result is that you simply cannot ANSWER the question "is government data reliable" - there's just no single answer.
And partly because there's no single data set or even data repository, in the government or out of the government. A lot of data is gathered elsewhere specifically to sanity check other data, and in some cases data is gathered for another purpose but happens to overlap with data gathered for another purpose, allowing comparisons and checks for sanity.
It's probably not even within the realm of the possible to cook the raw data even if you wanted to because there's just too much of it in too many places and significant deviations from comparison data would expose it.
The larger risk isn't corruption of the data itself or even its gathering, it's false narratives built with good data. You can't challenge the veracity of the data itself, you have to argue against the conclusions made and that's much more difficult.
The problem with really good backup strategies is they are also really expensive, being demanding of disk I/O and disk capacity. We joke sometimes that based on usage patterns, many customers should run production on backup storage and backups to production storage because backup uses more IOPS, throughput and capacity than primary.
I don't know what their systems or processes are like in St Louis or what they had to restore, but a smaller library I worked with once had something like 5 TB of production data (basic LUN consumption for their VM environment).
A total restore from disk backup capable of aggregate throughput of 100 MB/sec is in the neighborhood of 13 hours for that much data, and I would say for most places a backup storage, system and primary storage environment capable of running restores at that rate is pretty impressive, usually it bogs someplace in the backup software (assembling data from incremental chains, decompression or something).
Improving on that can be done, but it's never cheap -- secondary production-quality storage that holds frequent replicas, for example, but it requires more storage and more money, and even if its not right, budget realities often prevent a customer from buying 2-3x needed production-quality capacity to store this.
I know it's a terrible way to negotiate a car *price*, but I often find myself thinking about some of these bigger ticket items in terms of cash flow and "how little can I pay per month?"
There are some risks with this thinking, especially with depreciable assets with a limited lifetime, but there are times where I wish I could refinance my mortgage for a 50 year term just to cut the monthly payment down as low as possible to increase my cash flow here and now.
I'm biased, because my mortgage is half paid and I figure even if only added another 5% in equity over the next 10 years the present value of the extra cash would be more valuable than the savings on interest payments, plus by the time I sell the overall appreciation in value will still result in getting my purchase price back in cash.
Super overpriced. I got 30 days of unlimited talk/text and 10 gb of data for less than 20 GBP from ASDA mobile when I was in the UK.
The only drawback I saw was that I didn't get LTE speeds, "only" 4G. I wasn't sure if that was a radio limitation of my US-bought iPhone 6 plus or a limitation of the plan. It also didn't allow for tethering.
The practical drawbacks of that were nil for me, speeds were just fine for maps, email, web and every other smartphone thing I wanted to do and the hotel had free and quite good wifi.
And using a local SIM is hardly novel, either, you about trip over people trying to sell SIM cards in the arrival area of the airport.
Maybe explain it to me like I'm 5 how RICO doesn't cover an organized conspiracy to facilitate money laundering.
If these guys were named Juarez or Gambino they'd have so many bugs and wiretaps on them the fucking ISS could detect a warp in the Earth's magnetic field.
But because they're corporate executives they get to pay a fine and nobody goes to jail.
Isn't that the fucking FBI's job? To investigate all that shit, with their high-powered forensics and iPhone cracking, etc?
I mean, I can accept that nobody gets charged (in the same manner that a battered woman takes the next beating, because she's used to it), but at the same time the FTC announces a half-billion dollar fine for money laundering and we don't even HEAR about the ongoing FBI investigation into criminal culpability?
And spare me the "who committed what specific act" -- isn't the point of being an officer of a corporation accepting general liability for misbehavior?
It's a large fine, but my question is why weren't the senior executives charged under the RICO laws and given the 20 year jail sentences and $100k per incident personal fines?
Why is it that if you're running under a corporate charter that you're excluded from being defined as running an ongoing criminal enterprise?
For 1987 HyperCard seemed like a pretty easy way for someone with casual knowledge to produce what amounted to something close to a GUI application without climbing the super steep learning curve involved in writing a native Mac application. I think Inside Macintosh was up to about 5 volumes by then and event-based programming was a bit of mind fuck for people who had come out of general programming creating menu-driven designs, not to mention the headaches of generating GUI interfaces.
I seem to remember running an NNTP reader on the Mac ~1999 that used Hypercard.
Slashdot Mirror
I use Dropbox because it works well, is priced reasonably for a 1 TB of storage and it has near ubiquitous support.
That being said, it does follow symlinks, but AFAIK it doesn't automagically update symlinked folders without pausing and unpausing the client to force a re-scan.
And in a lot of ways, the use of symlinks wouldn't be necessary if they would allow you to add more than one top-level sync folder (the "dropbox" folder). Symlinks are just a (useful) kludge to not be forced to break your own existing folder hierarchy to sync with Dropbox.
I'd like to see more features along the lines of security/encryption, but I also can see where that might be hard. If I have something sensitive I want to store there, I encrypt it myself.
Strawman. Haven't seen anyone, much less some imaginary group you refer to as "the left", who has suggested bringing "anyone and everyone" into the United States.
You're being deliberately disingenuous.
The political left has been extremely supportive of nearly every refugee and illegal immigrant group in the United States, on the local level going so far as to declare "sanctuary cities" where they refuse to aid in the enforcement of Federal immigration laws.
Where the political right has called for limits on immigration, principally from Mexico and central America, the left absolutely has used the cudgel of racism to defend illegal immigration.
So you can expect over a 30-50 year period it will make sense to replace old panels with new ones, and recycle the old ones. The average age of installed panels in the US is only 3 years, because the installation rate has been rapidly growing. So it will be a while before the replacement business will be significant.
But I could also see some changes in panel efficiency or other aspects of them that make replacement make sense outside of the usual 30-50 year life span, making a replacement wave happen before the natural aging out of panels.
Obviously any change would have to make economic sense. For a massive farm the economics may not work until they wear out, but for smaller installs some incremental improvement may make replacement prior to end of life make sense.
I didn't read TFA, but my off the cuff interpretation is that solar is still very much in the build-out phase of its life cycle. I would bet that a huge amount of the labor involved in the "solar" side of the equation is electrical construction -- actually setting up and wiring the panels.
Those are great jobs, but they aren't forever. At some point, we will have built all the major solar installations we will build, but it could be a long time -- 20-30 years, and then there will probably be a drop off to some fraction of that installation labor force for upgrades and retrofits of older installations to newer panels, which may continue for some longer period, along with perhaps some low level but near indefinite continued installation of localized rooftop or other small-scale solar.
I don't know, but I'd guess that averaged over 75 years solar may have a slightly higher "overhead" labor cost associated with panel installation, maintenance and retrofit than large-scale coal or gas plants.
It would be more interesting if they could drill down to the amount of labor involved with only ongoing operation and subtract out anything related to installation. On one hand, it may end up being lower than large-scale gas/coal plants since you dump a lot of jobs associated with fueling, steam plant maintenance and so on. On the other hand, solar may have more intensive monitoring requirements or maintenance like cleaning panels.
...and competing with PayPal and possibly some smaller countries' national currencies.
There isn't much they don't sell so if you decided to accept Amazonians instead of Dollars for something, it's almost like it's not even a barter, but an actual usable currency.
But I'll see it every time I chopper in and out of my seafront villa.
Juvenal, Satire 10.77-81
Politician promises vague outcomes over long timelines to group of people likely get something of the outcome anyway, film at 11.
I still do. I go through about a pack a week of light ("Silver") cigarettes smoking 1/3-1/2 at a sitting - The mass market things you don't like. The little nicotine rush is nice, but I think it's the act of smoking that brings me back - I just enjoy relaxing with a smoke.
[...]
Vaping I guess is an option - I've tried it and enjoy it, but it lacks something that I get from a nice smoldering lung-dart.
I've also tried vaping and found it remarkably like smoking, but not quite the same. I think there's a physiological response from an actual burning cigarette that vaping can't really replicate. But I can see that it would also be an easy replacement for smoking, especially considering there's absolutely no odor. You could vape at home or in the car or even in the office, and unless someone saw you, they'd never detect it, your clothes, car and house wouldn't stink.
Towards the last year or so that I smoked, I tried the occasional cigarette routine which didn't quite work. My wife tolerated a pack of cigarettes in the liquor cabinet, to be consumed on occasion, but I found myself too drawn to them and cheated the system quite a bit (spare pack, smoked from and used to replenish the cabinet pack when it was pilfered).
I think I ultimately cut back during this phase, since while I smoked *more* than the "occasional cigarette" routine assumed, I wasn't smoking at will as I had before, and I think it probably contributed to making just quitting work, along with the public smoking ban in bars (the last public bastion here). I had basically run out of places I could get away with smoking with any regularity.
While our son was in elementary school, we attended a series of charity parties for the school and I was surprised to see the dilettante casual smokers among the other parents (mostly 5-10 years younger). I would try one from them (usually ghastly lights of some kind or other) and feel absolutely no desire to smoke cigarettes again.
Analysis mode. Suspend all affect.
Do you ever question the nature of your reality?
Not me. I loved cigarettes. I rolled my own using either Dutch tobacco or rolling tobacco from the tobacconist. Conventional mass-market cigarettes I found intolerable, and I would actively refuse them in when I ran out of my own tobacco.
I also smoked far fewer cigarettes than my peers who smoked conventional pre-rolled cigarettes. In a typical day I maybe only smoked 6-7. Partly because they were stronger than conventional cigarettes, and partly because it took some effort to roll them and you couldn't just reflexively grab the next one out of the pack.
I think "light" cigarettes made people more compulsive smokers because they provided so little nicotine that you had to smoke another. I'm sure it was a known side effect of light cigarettes which Big Tobacco was aware of and why they helped promote them as somehow beneficial.
I was also self-conscious as a smoker, and tried to avoid smoking at all around non-smokers or even in my own residence.
I quit about a dozen years ago, which I found relatively easy to do. I'll admit that laws barring smoking in bars made it easier because there were just so few places you could smoke. But when they announce the asteroid strike and we all have 6 months left, I will start smoking again.
College degrees still ought not to be necessary, but the problem is that our public schools have so dumbed down what is expected of high schoolers, and so many schools are failing, that the high school diploma tells you nothing about the student anymore.
I agree. Every so often the local newspaper runs some kind of nostalgia piece and reprints essays written 75-100 years ago. Often these were essays written by 7th or 8th graders and they are better writing than I see most adults produce. Kids in those same grades (and I have one..) can't write nearly that well these days, and I think the educational system is responsible for it.
I'm not always sure it's a pure *quality* issue, though. I think a lot of it is dilution -- just too many subjects being covered and many of them entirely superfluous, often filled with PC indoctrination and busywork.
It's an interesting theory, but what point did American cars become unreliable due to planned obsolescence?
The problem I have with this argument is that ALL cars were inherently unreliable through the basic components of them. I'm just barely old enough to remember when tuneups were totally mandatory -- changing the points in the distributor, checking the timing, frequent plug and wire replacements, fairly frequent carburetor adjustments and so on. That was every American car through the advent of fuel injection and electronic ignition, and I'm sure the transition period before they got those features right was an issue, too.
The only crisis in reliability I can think of that wasn't outright tied to mechanical nature of their components was the 1970s when emissions requirements hit. Detroit had nothing but giant V8 engines and struggled to make them meet emissions, strangling them performance wise and slapping on emissions controls. I think this hurt reliability a lot.
It was probably made worse by ham-handed attempts to address fuel economy through lighter materials, which in turn could have affected reliability -- making metal parts thinner and lighter has to hit some tolerance threshold where they just didn't wear well.
I also remember Japanese cars in the 1970s not being entirely perfect, either, being prone to overheating and as bad or worse at corrosion as Detroit models.
College has long been a kind of social finishing arena, with education as kind of a secondary accomplishment for many.
It wasn't that long ago that nobody needed a professional degree, even for a lot of occupations we would assume were necessary. In a lot of places you could practice law if you passed the bar exam, and a law degree wasn't required. Even basic medicine wasn't that complicated because there weren't many things that could be done anyway besides give pain killers, set bones and close and clean wounds.
Only highly technical fields like engineering and serious, in-depth areas of study required anything like an advanced degree, and often the people who did some of that kind of research work just did it self-directed (didn't Einstein come up with General Relativity working as a patent clerk?).
People went to college to become more worldly and get exposed to liberal arts concepts and classics by and large. Often larger purpose was explicitly social, a place to practice serious public etiquette and possibly meet a mate. For women the latter was often the principal goal, you sent your daughter to a good school not because you cared if she could recite Shakespeare or read Tacitus in Latin, but because it exposed her to a range of potential husbands of suitable social standing. Even for men, the education (outside of a small number of highly technical fields) was largely superfluous, outside of the benefit of exposing them to worldly ideas beyond their parochial upbringing.
For better or for worse, this mindset has continued with college. People often go because it's expected of them, and the thing you do. The middle class believes it not only gives them the vocational skills they need but some kind social access.
According to some people's logic you're already racist because you're white but can't be racist if you're not.
The desire to recast racism -- prejudicial or discriminatory behavior against a group due to their ethnic membership -- as a power phenomenon practiced solely by whites is really grating to me.
I'm even willing to buy into the idea that many people (not distinguished by race) have racial preconceptions, based mostly on inexperience, which may be unfair, but the idea that whites are always racist in a material sense just isn't believable. That non-whites don't or aren't capable of racial discrimination is just factually false. Some of the worst ethnic conflicts in history have been between non-white ethnic groups.
Legalized drugs: Widespread use of anti-depressants and tranquilizers is a lot like soma.
Sorting people into classes based on intelligence: Socioeconomic pecking order based on which degree you got, which college you went to, your SAT scores, your GPA, etc.
Purely centralized economy: Federal reserve monetary policy, Wall Street, investment banking, transnational corporations, Davos, private equity, regulatory capture. I'll cede that this is a weak comparison, but all of those organizations tend to be incestuous in membership and switching between organizations is common.
Procreation: In-vitro fertilization, genetic screening, scheduled c-sections. We're not yet decanting our offspring, but among the moneyed classes the reproductive process is industrializing.
Perhaps as a whole the real world isn't a literal comparison to BNW, but I think the metaphorical comparisons are striking.
Maybe they should have something like:
apps.apple.com/your_official_ios_app_name
And have it be a forum-type page where you could post questions, reviews, get answers, etc.
he result is that you simply cannot ANSWER the question "is government data reliable" - there's just no single answer.
And partly because there's no single data set or even data repository, in the government or out of the government. A lot of data is gathered elsewhere specifically to sanity check other data, and in some cases data is gathered for another purpose but happens to overlap with data gathered for another purpose, allowing comparisons and checks for sanity.
It's probably not even within the realm of the possible to cook the raw data even if you wanted to because there's just too much of it in too many places and significant deviations from comparison data would expose it.
The larger risk isn't corruption of the data itself or even its gathering, it's false narratives built with good data. You can't challenge the veracity of the data itself, you have to argue against the conclusions made and that's much more difficult.
The problem with really good backup strategies is they are also really expensive, being demanding of disk I/O and disk capacity. We joke sometimes that based on usage patterns, many customers should run production on backup storage and backups to production storage because backup uses more IOPS, throughput and capacity than primary.
I don't know what their systems or processes are like in St Louis or what they had to restore, but a smaller library I worked with once had something like 5 TB of production data (basic LUN consumption for their VM environment).
A total restore from disk backup capable of aggregate throughput of 100 MB/sec is in the neighborhood of 13 hours for that much data, and I would say for most places a backup storage, system and primary storage environment capable of running restores at that rate is pretty impressive, usually it bogs someplace in the backup software (assembling data from incremental chains, decompression or something).
Improving on that can be done, but it's never cheap -- secondary production-quality storage that holds frequent replicas, for example, but it requires more storage and more money, and even if its not right, budget realities often prevent a customer from buying 2-3x needed production-quality capacity to store this.
I know it's a terrible way to negotiate a car *price*, but I often find myself thinking about some of these bigger ticket items in terms of cash flow and "how little can I pay per month?"
There are some risks with this thinking, especially with depreciable assets with a limited lifetime, but there are times where I wish I could refinance my mortgage for a 50 year term just to cut the monthly payment down as low as possible to increase my cash flow here and now.
I'm biased, because my mortgage is half paid and I figure even if only added another 5% in equity over the next 10 years the present value of the extra cash would be more valuable than the savings on interest payments, plus by the time I sell the overall appreciation in value will still result in getting my purchase price back in cash.
Super overpriced. I got 30 days of unlimited talk/text and 10 gb of data for less than 20 GBP from ASDA mobile when I was in the UK.
The only drawback I saw was that I didn't get LTE speeds, "only" 4G. I wasn't sure if that was a radio limitation of my US-bought iPhone 6 plus or a limitation of the plan. It also didn't allow for tethering.
The practical drawbacks of that were nil for me, speeds were just fine for maps, email, web and every other smartphone thing I wanted to do and the hotel had free and quite good wifi.
And using a local SIM is hardly novel, either, you about trip over people trying to sell SIM cards in the arrival area of the airport.
Maybe explain it to me like I'm 5 how RICO doesn't cover an organized conspiracy to facilitate money laundering.
If these guys were named Juarez or Gambino they'd have so many bugs and wiretaps on them the fucking ISS could detect a warp in the Earth's magnetic field.
But because they're corporate executives they get to pay a fine and nobody goes to jail.
Isn't that the fucking FBI's job? To investigate all that shit, with their high-powered forensics and iPhone cracking, etc?
I mean, I can accept that nobody gets charged (in the same manner that a battered woman takes the next beating, because she's used to it), but at the same time the FTC announces a half-billion dollar fine for money laundering and we don't even HEAR about the ongoing FBI investigation into criminal culpability?
And spare me the "who committed what specific act" -- isn't the point of being an officer of a corporation accepting general liability for misbehavior?
It's a large fine, but my question is why weren't the senior executives charged under the RICO laws and given the 20 year jail sentences and $100k per incident personal fines?
Why is it that if you're running under a corporate charter that you're excluded from being defined as running an ongoing criminal enterprise?
That's a bit harsh, isn't it?
For 1987 HyperCard seemed like a pretty easy way for someone with casual knowledge to produce what amounted to something close to a GUI application without climbing the super steep learning curve involved in writing a native Mac application. I think Inside Macintosh was up to about 5 volumes by then and event-based programming was a bit of mind fuck for people who had come out of general programming creating menu-driven designs, not to mention the headaches of generating GUI interfaces.
I seem to remember running an NNTP reader on the Mac ~1999 that used Hypercard.