>>To you, anyway. Sounds to me more like they didn't think it through.
Did you read the community rep's post on the forum?
Getting a post reported on the forum is grounds for having your EA account temporarily or permanently disabled. Which is what you need to activate a game or DLC.
He could have created a new account, but would have lost all of the DLC he'd built up in his normal account. Waiting 72 hours for the ban to end was a better choice.
Regardless of the fact that BiowEA's actions violate consumer protection laws in most countries.
>>If it is an accident, and EA agrees that it is wrong, and fixes it... then there is no reason to attribute malice to EA.
Except it does sound like working-as-intended.
But then again, this is the same company that jumped onto the social media bandwagon, merged their accounts with EA, corrupting them in the process so that I both couldn't log on and couldn't reset the password (it would fall into an infinite loop). And did things like tying their server uptime during the demo into getting exclusive items in DA2, which promptly killed their servers and forced (well, if that's the right word) people to play the demo over and over until the damn servers stayed up long enough to get credit for it. If it dropped even once during the demo, you wouldn't get credit at the end.
And so forth. I believe they're both incompetent *and* filled with hate and malice.
Probably a new thing Bioware got from the EA merger.
>>The Sports leagues have an incentive to keep games fair and sportsmanlike for the fans so its not really self-regulation in the sense that they are in danger of being regulated. I suspect sports leagues would be self-regulating without any government pressure.
Well, yeah. Voluntary regulation doesn't mean there's no incentive to do so.
>>However, do you really think that ISP or any telecom company will opt-in to net neutrality when there are buckets of money to be made by behaving in a monopolistic or oligopolistic way?
My magic 8-ball is murky. But given the fact that engaging in bad behavior will call down the regulators on them... maybe.
But Comcast / Verizon / etc are pretty bad already at these sorts of things.
>>Citation needed. I have yet to see any voluntary regulation work on any corporation when profits are at stake.
If the ESRB isn't a good example for you, then you can look at most professional sports leagues (FIFA, MLB, NFL, etc.) that regulate themselves to avoid having the government do it for them.
>>It has worked very well with Union Carbide, Goldman Sachs, BP, and many more.
Well, I'm pretty sure that net neutrality one way or the other isn't going to gas and kill an entire town's worth of Indians, hyperbolic debate aside. You should also realize that India had a 49% stake in Union Carbide, so your socialist belief about "government-run industries being more responsible" is complete bullshit. The USSR was the very worst nation on earth for the environment.
Voluntary self-regulation is typically a step an industry will take to prevent the government from regulating them. Oftentimes, the government actually prefers this, and will only step in to regulate if the industry fails to police itself. This threat is often good enough to keep the industry in line.
>>Most of those pensions and benefits are the results of unions bargaining in good faith with the government.
I hate it when people can't see the fundamentally absurd nature of government unions negotiating with "the government" for more money. Who is going to tell them no? The taxpayers?
There's a reason FDR was against the essence of public unions, writing (http://republicmainstreet.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/fdrs-letter-to-union-president-luther-steward-regarding-public-unions/):
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress...
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."
In other words, he didn't mind them forming organizations, but he was definitely against collective bargaining and strikes for public employees. The mess in Wisconsin shows how exactly right he was.
>>Now look where we are: America has a military budget that's larger than that of all other countries combined, yet at the same time a substantial number of Americans live below the poverty line.
The income at the poverty line in America is also known as "rich" in other countries. A family of four making $22k/year (i.e. at the poverty line), even when adjusting for purchasing power, makes twice the income of the average Brazilian, and three times the money of the average Chinese.
Income inequality is likewise a nonsense measure, which communist fucktards use to justify societies where everyone makes 10 bucks a year, and then wonders why nobody has anything to eat. You need to try to focus your addled brain more on *median household income* measures. If the poor and middle class are making 20-30% more income (in inflation adjusted dollars) since the 1960s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States), who gives a flying fuck if Bill Gates has a silo filled with gold coins?
>>Unfortunately, I'm not certain that there is much reason to believe that America can get out of this rut, which is like an extreme experiment in unbridled free-market capitalism that has gone badly wrong.
If by "badly wrong" you mean "all of your communist predictions failed" then yeah, free-market capitalism has gone badly wrong. But if you actually care about people, you can see that free market capitalism is the best engine for wealth creation the world has ever seen.
Pro tip: Your mindless rants would work a little better if the data didn't completely disagree with your assertions.
>>Afghanistan; a country to which we've tried to introduce democracy, but whose citizens do not recognize the value of it
Haven't been paying much attention to events in the Middle East recently, have you?
Chomsky just called me - he says he wants to meet you back in the 1960s, where you two can pretend you're right again.
Our politicians ARE all right-wing. That's the only way that abortion of a "health care" plan could possibly have been passed last year. You know, the one that funnels billions of taxpayer dollars to the insurance companies? And the fact that all politicians in both parties will only ever talk about cutting taxes, never about the need with our huge deficits to, oh I dunno, INCREASE income to pay for things?
Your first sentence contradicts the last. Democrats are constantly trying to raise taxes. It's that Republicans have been consistent at *blocking* tax increases that makes it look like we can't do that.
Not that we really need to - the government takes in plenty of money, at all levels. They really do have spending out of control. And the media are in on it. Case in point, look at the LA Times "balance the budget calculator": http://www.latimes.com/news/local/budget/
Even if you check every single check box for cutting back programs, it will not allow you to take more than a third out of the budget, forcing you to raise taxes if you leave even a little money left in education.
>>That is, allowing people to drive at energy-inefficient speeds will in fact make the U.S. more dependent on oil and therefore foreign oil
Yeah, those damn Canadians will take over any day now.
I drive 75MPH on freeways, and average about 31MPG, which is 1MPG less than I get driving at lower speeds. (It's actually not that large a difference, due to rounding errors.)
At 25k miles, $4 gas: $3125/year at 32MPG $3225/year at 31MPG
Since it's closer to a half MPG difference, that works out to about $50/year for driving 75 on the freeways instead of 55MPH.
Contrast that with the time value saved -
At 25k miles, $60/hour: 333 hours driving at 75MPH, $20,000 of value lost to driving 454 hours driving at 55MPH, $27,000 of value lost to driving
So the 55MPH speed limit would cost me about $7k/year in lost hours in exchange for $50 in gas savings.
This is why speed limits for fuel efficiency are stupid.
>>even their acts which appear pro-people, will end up being pro-corp in the long run.
That's a very clever way of explaining away anything you don't like.
Not that the Republicans aren't crazy on this issue - because they are - but nonsense statements like the above allow you to continue your two minutes' hate even when they're entirely agreeing with you. It's the kind of nonsense position only a partisan hack could take.
So, for example, the Republicans ended the national speed limit. This appears to be a pro-people stance, right? But secretly it's, what? Benefiting the oil corporations? That was their secret agenda all along. Heh. You funny.
>>Also, the USSR (I'm assuming that's what you meant instead of Russia?) and China were/are both republics by name. The US isn't a republic in the same sense that the rest of the world uses the term.
You have it backwards. A republic is a system of government in which the people elect representatives to govern them. While we democratically elect our representatives, the Utah legislator is perfectly correct - it is better to call our system of government a republic (technically "a constitutional republic of federated states") than a democracy, as we have no direct systems like the referendum, initiative or recall, at the federal level. The US uses the word correctly.
The USSR and China aren't/weren't republics in any meaningful sense of the word (elections are/were meaningless). They are technically socialist states. *They* weren't republics in the sense that the rest of the world uses the term.
You can read more about this in any quality high school government textbook.
>>The list of horrifies is long, but includes de-emphasizing Thomas Jefferson (because he strongly pushed for separation of church and state)
Did you read about the changes that were actually made, or just the "horrifies" that were proposed?
People were flipping out over just the list of proposed changes.
>>You're correct out of context, but it's essential to understand that this *is* about partisanship.
Technically, republic is a better descriptor than democracy for our system of government. We elect people to make decisions at the federal level, and have no federal referendum or initiative system. While it may be about partisanship, I don't see how anyone can argue against teaching kids more accurate information about our government - they're ignorant enough as it is.
>>There is no need to have one rarely needed button with possibly serious consequences directly adjacent to the more benign button that most people intend to click anyway.
Reply-all is very useful. When I work on projects with 5 or 6 people, we tend to all reply-all to each other, and gmail/hotmail handles it just fine.
It's just replying to 50+ people that's problematic, and as TFA says, it's probably best to enable warnings before sending something out to that many people. Though I've occasionally had to do it, too.
>>LVNs are unlikely to make more than $30-40k/year.
In San Francisco, they apparently average $56k/year.
>>You're comparing apples to piles of manure
Well, sure. Obviously UCSF (one of the best medical schools in the world) has a higher quality program. But they do have a LVN program, too.
Doing some digging around, their fees (http://registrar.ucsf.edu/registration/fees/nursing) are comparable with private schools in the area, and there's (less good) public schools that are much cheaper.
>>That said, you should acknowledge that UCSF is offering a valuable degree (and a high probability of passing licensing exams) for roughly the same price as a for-profit is offering
Well, sure. You obviously would want to go to UCSF - it's the getting in that's hard. You go to a for-profit when your other options are eliminated. (My wife was fortunate to get into UCSF for pharmacy, and her education and degree have served her well.) The lower pass rate from the for-profits is probably both a function of a less educated applicant pool and the lower quality education. But I don't think the *fees* are excessive when compared with UCSF.
>>And one has to wonder if it's actually the technology or the person on the other end of the computer that's causing lost sleep.
In 1991, scientists discovered a third type of photoreceptor to go along with the rods and cones we all learned about in elementary school. They were discovered in humans in 2007. They're called photosensitive ganglion cells: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosensitive_ganglion_cell
The kicker is that they detect light and directly wire into the parts of your brain controlling your circadian cycle. So when you're staring into your bright monitor all day and night, you're pushing back your circadian rhythm all the time, and DSPS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_sleep_phase_syndrome
>>We're talking about nursing programs producing not-yet licensed LVNs for ~$100k in tuition and fees
How much do you think UCSF charges in tuition? Hint: it's above $100k to get a degree from there, even though it is supposedly a public university. When you graduate from UCSF, you also don't have a license.
UoP produces the majority of teachers here in California, and for less than what it costs at public institution.
>>The combination of a blazing fast 100GB SSD and huge, slow 2TB HDD seems to be the way forward.
I've tried this before, and it's a total pain in the ass. Some download clients don't even give you a choice where they'll be writing to ("Oh, we never thought about that!" was the response when I sent them an email), and a lot of stuff tries to write to C: by default.
It's an issue I'm wrestling with right now, since I'm tempted to finally replace my 6 year old machine. But 100GB just isn't sufficient.
Hmm, lemme pull up TreeSize (Windows XP on my 500GB primary drive, with a 250GB secondary drive for mirroring important files): 10GB in Windows 100GB of documents 120GB of applications 180GB of media files (images and videos) 8GB of code and related dev stuff not included above...with about 70GB free right now.
Hmm, maybe a 250GB SSD would be sufficient, if I offload the media and documents to a secondary large capacity HDD... I really don't want to screw around with having to move applications between drives.
Slashdot Mirror
You're honestly making the claim that posting on the EA forums entitles EA to sell a game that cannot be installed, and cannot give a refund?
I'd love to watch you try to argue that in court with a straight face.
>>Since the user violated the terms, he is in breach of contract, his license is revoked, and therefore he has no claim.
You still have issues of consideration (you can't get something for nothing) and the fact that EULAs are in a legal grey area.
EULAs also don't trump consumer protection laws.
>>To you, anyway. Sounds to me more like they didn't think it through.
Did you read the community rep's post on the forum?
Getting a post reported on the forum is grounds for having your EA account temporarily or permanently disabled. Which is what you need to activate a game or DLC.
He could have created a new account, but would have lost all of the DLC he'd built up in his normal account. Waiting 72 hours for the ban to end was a better choice.
Regardless of the fact that BiowEA's actions violate consumer protection laws in most countries.
>>If it is an accident, and EA agrees that it is wrong, and fixes it... then there is no reason to attribute malice to EA.
Except it does sound like working-as-intended.
But then again, this is the same company that jumped onto the social media bandwagon, merged their accounts with EA, corrupting them in the process so that I both couldn't log on and couldn't reset the password (it would fall into an infinite loop). And did things like tying their server uptime during the demo into getting exclusive items in DA2, which promptly killed their servers and forced (well, if that's the right word) people to play the demo over and over until the damn servers stayed up long enough to get credit for it. If it dropped even once during the demo, you wouldn't get credit at the end.
And so forth. I believe they're both incompetent *and* filled with hate and malice.
Probably a new thing Bioware got from the EA merger.
>>The Sports leagues have an incentive to keep games fair and sportsmanlike for the fans so its not really self-regulation in the sense that they are in danger of being regulated. I suspect sports leagues would be self-regulating without any government pressure.
Well, yeah. Voluntary regulation doesn't mean there's no incentive to do so.
>>However, do you really think that ISP or any telecom company will opt-in to net neutrality when there are buckets of money to be made by behaving in a monopolistic or oligopolistic way?
My magic 8-ball is murky. But given the fact that engaging in bad behavior will call down the regulators on them... maybe.
But Comcast / Verizon / etc are pretty bad already at these sorts of things.
Tidal waves (using the common meaning) aren't caused by tidal forces, any more than French frites are made with Frenchmen.
>>It's a tsunami, not a tidal wave.
Same thing, dude.
Though the wikipedia entry does recommend disparaging the term 'tidal wave' if you're a pedantic prick.
Utterly insane footage. I just woke my wife up to show it to her. We had just spent the evening booking a trip to Japan to visit friends in Tokyo.
Fortunately, they're okay.
But, damn. That tidal wave footage left me speechless.
>>Citation needed. I have yet to see any voluntary regulation work on any corporation when profits are at stake.
If the ESRB isn't a good example for you, then you can look at most professional sports leagues (FIFA, MLB, NFL, etc.) that regulate themselves to avoid having the government do it for them.
They seem to make plenty of money.
>>It has worked very well with Union Carbide, Goldman Sachs, BP, and many more.
Well, I'm pretty sure that net neutrality one way or the other isn't going to gas and kill an entire town's worth of Indians, hyperbolic debate aside. You should also realize that India had a 49% stake in Union Carbide, so your socialist belief about "government-run industries being more responsible" is complete bullshit. The USSR was the very worst nation on earth for the environment.
Voluntary self-regulation is typically a step an industry will take to prevent the government from regulating them. Oftentimes, the government actually prefers this, and will only step in to regulate if the industry fails to police itself. This threat is often good enough to keep the industry in line.
>>Somehow, I smell a campaign contribution in all of this...
To be fair, Clinton built his reputation by tacking onto all of his spending bills, "...and this will be paid for by selling off spectrum."
Pretending that money isn't fungible is hilarious.
>>Most of those pensions and benefits are the results of unions bargaining in good faith with the government.
I hate it when people can't see the fundamentally absurd nature of government unions negotiating with "the government" for more money. Who is going to tell them no? The taxpayers?
There's a reason FDR was against the essence of public unions, writing (http://republicmainstreet.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/fdrs-letter-to-union-president-luther-steward-regarding-public-unions/):
"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress...
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."
In other words, he didn't mind them forming organizations, but he was definitely against collective bargaining and strikes for public employees. The mess in Wisconsin shows how exactly right he was.
>>Now look where we are: America has a military budget that's larger than that of all other countries combined, yet at the same time a substantial number of Americans live below the poverty line.
The income at the poverty line in America is also known as "rich" in other countries. A family of four making $22k/year (i.e. at the poverty line), even when adjusting for purchasing power, makes twice the income of the average Brazilian, and three times the money of the average Chinese.
Income inequality is likewise a nonsense measure, which communist fucktards use to justify societies where everyone makes 10 bucks a year, and then wonders why nobody has anything to eat. You need to try to focus your addled brain more on *median household income* measures. If the poor and middle class are making 20-30% more income (in inflation adjusted dollars) since the 1960s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States), who gives a flying fuck if Bill Gates has a silo filled with gold coins?
>>Unfortunately, I'm not certain that there is much reason to believe that America can get out of this rut, which is like an extreme experiment in unbridled free-market capitalism that has gone badly wrong.
If by "badly wrong" you mean "all of your communist predictions failed" then yeah, free-market capitalism has gone badly wrong. But if you actually care about people, you can see that free market capitalism is the best engine for wealth creation the world has ever seen.
Pro tip: Your mindless rants would work a little better if the data didn't completely disagree with your assertions.
>>Afghanistan; a country to which we've tried to introduce democracy, but whose citizens do not recognize the value of it
Haven't been paying much attention to events in the Middle East recently, have you?
Chomsky just called me - he says he wants to meet you back in the 1960s, where you two can pretend you're right again.
Your first sentence contradicts the last. Democrats are constantly trying to raise taxes. It's that Republicans have been consistent at *blocking* tax increases that makes it look like we can't do that.
Not that we really need to - the government takes in plenty of money, at all levels. They really do have spending out of control. And the media are in on it. Case in point, look at the LA Times "balance the budget calculator": http://www.latimes.com/news/local/budget/
Even if you check every single check box for cutting back programs, it will not allow you to take more than a third out of the budget, forcing you to raise taxes if you leave even a little money left in education.
>>That is, allowing people to drive at energy-inefficient speeds will in fact make the U.S. more dependent on oil and therefore foreign oil
Yeah, those damn Canadians will take over any day now.
I drive 75MPH on freeways, and average about 31MPG, which is 1MPG less than I get driving at lower speeds. (It's actually not that large a difference, due to rounding errors.)
At 25k miles, $4 gas:
$3125/year at 32MPG
$3225/year at 31MPG
Since it's closer to a half MPG difference, that works out to about $50/year for driving 75 on the freeways instead of 55MPH.
Contrast that with the time value saved -
At 25k miles, $60/hour:
333 hours driving at 75MPH, $20,000 of value lost to driving
454 hours driving at 55MPH, $27,000 of value lost to driving
So the 55MPH speed limit would cost me about $7k/year in lost hours in exchange for $50 in gas savings.
This is why speed limits for fuel efficiency are stupid.
>>even their acts which appear pro-people, will end up being pro-corp in the long run.
That's a very clever way of explaining away anything you don't like.
Not that the Republicans aren't crazy on this issue - because they are - but nonsense statements like the above allow you to continue your two minutes' hate even when they're entirely agreeing with you. It's the kind of nonsense position only a partisan hack could take.
So, for example, the Republicans ended the national speed limit. This appears to be a pro-people stance, right? But secretly it's, what? Benefiting the oil corporations? That was their secret agenda all along. Heh. You funny.
>>I think you mean Alvin Greene.
I thought he was talking about Jimmy McMillan. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4o-TeMHys0 ...my favorite candidate from the last election cycle.
>>In my day, we did have maps, but all they were good for was for finding where the world ended and where the giant sea monsters were located.
To be fair, they were also useful for steering around those giant compass roses in the middle of the Atlantic.
Those sharp edges could gut a ship like a marlin spike on a, uh, marlin.
>>Also, the USSR (I'm assuming that's what you meant instead of Russia?) and China were/are both republics by name. The US isn't a republic in the same sense that the rest of the world uses the term.
You have it backwards. A republic is a system of government in which the people elect representatives to govern them. While we democratically elect our representatives, the Utah legislator is perfectly correct - it is better to call our system of government a republic (technically "a constitutional republic of federated states") than a democracy, as we have no direct systems like the referendum, initiative or recall, at the federal level. The US uses the word correctly.
The USSR and China aren't/weren't republics in any meaningful sense of the word (elections are/were meaningless). They are technically socialist states. *They* weren't republics in the sense that the rest of the world uses the term.
You can read more about this in any quality high school government textbook.
>>The list of horrifies is long, but includes de-emphasizing Thomas Jefferson (because he strongly pushed for separation of church and state)
Did you read about the changes that were actually made, or just the "horrifies" that were proposed?
People were flipping out over just the list of proposed changes.
>>You're correct out of context, but it's essential to understand that this *is* about partisanship.
Technically, republic is a better descriptor than democracy for our system of government. We elect people to make decisions at the federal level, and have no federal referendum or initiative system. While it may be about partisanship, I don't see how anyone can argue against teaching kids more accurate information about our government - they're ignorant enough as it is.
>>There is no need to have one rarely needed button with possibly serious consequences directly adjacent to the more benign button that most people intend to click anyway.
Reply-all is very useful. When I work on projects with 5 or 6 people, we tend to all reply-all to each other, and gmail/hotmail handles it just fine.
It's just replying to 50+ people that's problematic, and as TFA says, it's probably best to enable warnings before sending something out to that many people. Though I've occasionally had to do it, too.
>>LVNs are unlikely to make more than $30-40k/year.
In San Francisco, they apparently average $56k/year.
>>You're comparing apples to piles of manure
Well, sure. Obviously UCSF (one of the best medical schools in the world) has a higher quality program. But they do have a LVN program, too.
Doing some digging around, their fees (http://registrar.ucsf.edu/registration/fees/nursing) are comparable with private schools in the area, and there's (less good) public schools that are much cheaper.
>>That said, you should acknowledge that UCSF is offering a valuable degree (and a high probability of passing licensing exams) for roughly the same price as a for-profit is offering
Well, sure. You obviously would want to go to UCSF - it's the getting in that's hard. You go to a for-profit when your other options are eliminated. (My wife was fortunate to get into UCSF for pharmacy, and her education and degree have served her well.) The lower pass rate from the for-profits is probably both a function of a less educated applicant pool and the lower quality education. But I don't think the *fees* are excessive when compared with UCSF.
>>And one has to wonder if it's actually the technology or the person on the other end of the computer that's causing lost sleep.
In 1991, scientists discovered a third type of photoreceptor to go along with the rods and cones we all learned about in elementary school. They were discovered in humans in 2007. They're called photosensitive ganglion cells:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosensitive_ganglion_cell
The kicker is that they detect light and directly wire into the parts of your brain controlling your circadian cycle. So when you're staring into your bright monitor all day and night, you're pushing back your circadian rhythm all the time, and DSPS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_sleep_phase_syndrome
>>We're talking about nursing programs producing not-yet licensed LVNs for ~$100k in tuition and fees
How much do you think UCSF charges in tuition? Hint: it's above $100k to get a degree from there, even though it is supposedly a public university. When you graduate from UCSF, you also don't have a license.
UoP produces the majority of teachers here in California, and for less than what it costs at public institution.
>>The combination of a blazing fast 100GB SSD and huge, slow 2TB HDD seems to be the way forward.
I've tried this before, and it's a total pain in the ass. Some download clients don't even give you a choice where they'll be writing to ("Oh, we never thought about that!" was the response when I sent them an email), and a lot of stuff tries to write to C: by default.
It's an issue I'm wrestling with right now, since I'm tempted to finally replace my 6 year old machine. But 100GB just isn't sufficient.
Hmm, lemme pull up TreeSize (Windows XP on my 500GB primary drive, with a 250GB secondary drive for mirroring important files): ...with about 70GB free right now.
10GB in Windows
100GB of documents
120GB of applications
180GB of media files (images and videos)
8GB of code and related dev stuff not included above
Hmm, maybe a 250GB SSD would be sufficient, if I offload the media and documents to a secondary large capacity HDD... I really don't want to screw around with having to move applications between drives.