How about quitting cold turkey? You know if you take caffeine free aspirin or ibuprofen for that whole week that you'll have headaches, you'll be free thereafter?
Seriously, even with sustained high levels of coffee over years, it shouldn't take much more than a week to beat a caffeine addiction. One drink and you'll be back, but it's not nearly as hard as some people make it out to be. It's not heroin, people. It's not even cigarettes.
With any luck, the headaches will convince you of what a stupid idea it was to have caffeine in the first place, and bingo, you're cured for life.
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, back when IPOs were flush and the beer flowed like wine, there was a flash comic that depicted Lars Ultrarich and James Hetfield as two goons sue-happy against Napster users.
Hetfield, being a big, dumb idiot, was depicted as a big, dumb idiot relegated to simple phrases, such as "NAPSTER, BAD!" He was rather cave-man-like. I believe one full phrase went, "MONEY, GOOD! NAPSTER, BAD!"
And yet you choose to select a very rarely used RAID implementation?
With RAID 5 you get...
4x250GB = 750GB of storage
7x146GB = 876GB of storage
Now let's assume the backplane only supports a total of ten drives:
10x250GB = 2.25TB of storage
10x146GB = 1.31TB of storage
Gee, which solution scales better?
And let's say we wanted to be really crazy and implement RAID 6, a more practical solution than RAID 5+1, and more likely to be implemented in the real world:
10x250 = 2TB of storage
10x146 = 1.2TB of storage
The fact of the matter is the needs for storage space are growing, particularly for small to medium business who have a desire to retain data for longer periods of time. When they go to Dell and order their server, which supports a maximum of four drives, are they going to be happy knowing that their server is going to be limited to 438 GB, and that to upgrade from that would require ditching all four drives and purchasing four new drives of a higher capacity a year from now?
Not many small to medium businesses are jumping at the opportunity to purchase external storage solutions to give them the expandability that they need, either, primarily because of the cost. They're also not going to be implementing RAID 5+1 (or even RAID 6). 90% of them are going to end up using RAID 5.
Even with all that said, there's only one salient point: given an equal number of drives, larger disks translates to larger arrays. Larger arrays = GOOD, Napster = BAD.
While it's true that it will increase the speed of the array, it isn't true that the array scales as well. You're limited by the size of the disks for the total size of your array; it all depends on what type of controller you can get, of course, but you're hard pressed to find many controllers that will support more than ten drives.
I think the point is that they can pile 4 250 GB drives into a server to have a terabyte array, or they can pile in 7 146 GB drives to get the same result.
Being limited to 146 GB drives means you are limited in scaling, which, of course, is what RAID is all about, as you've pointed out.
What other nasty tactics are spyware authors using that you've noticed?
One particular tactic I've seen is that they integrate themselves with the host software and say that it's impossible to sell without selling both. They do this to try to push competitors out of business, then once they succeed they stop development of their software despite the fact that it's poorly written and full of security holes and causes massive problems.
It reminds me of something, but I can't remember what.
The income of one person cannot support the family of 4 unless you have a really good job.
Now is a good time to point out that maybe if these coffee chugging, SUV driving soccer moms would use a fucking contraceptive every now and then they wouldn't HAVE four kids. People who have as many kids as they damned well please epitomize the American way: fuck everyone else, I'm doing what *I* want.
Maybe when their kids, who will probably live to be 80 years old, are suffering in a world of over 35 billion people near the end of this century, the geometric growth of the world will start to slow down juuuuuuuust a little bit.
This is just like the Nintendo case a long time ago. Nintendo was puttin' the squeeze on the little guy, in a blatantly illegal manner, and the remedy was that they were forced to provide coupons for their own products to the consumers.
See, their punishment was that they received more sales. Which is kind of what has happened here. The RIAA's punishment is to clear out old inventories as a part of a tax writeoff. The old "You've been bad, here's a dumptruck full of money" punishment.
That's the American way. Of course, if I stiff someone out of thousands of dollars (or even steal one dollar from thousands of people), it's off to ol' pound-you-in-the-ass prison for me. Maybe I just need to wear a tie, smile, and not pay taxes while I do it.
a game coded specifically for the Xbox, if done well, looks better than a game coded for a PC of the Phantom's specs
Total fucking bullshit. Compare UT2004 or Far Cry or Painkiller or any other recent game (fuck, even older games) -- which flies on my XP 2400 and Radeon XT -- to any goddamned Xbox game and we'll see who the winner is.
A 2500 and 5700 Ultra kick the shit out of the Xbox, even with the shitty resolution that the Xbox provides. FSAA, FSAF, 1280x1024, DX9, and not to mention raw power that outpaces the Xbox by miles.
Mod parent down for this -- anyone spending two seconds on an Xbox can see it can't keep up for shit with today's gaming experiences on PCs.
They're not seeking government approval, they're seeking equal rights. There are many rights given to persons that are married that are denied those who are not, especially when it comes to taxes. It boils down to "They get to pay less taxes than I do because they're straight." That, in essence, becomes a gay tax. Not quite equal.
Common law marriage is a ridiculous social construct that shouldn't be necessary, and in many states does not even exist. Further, degradation into beastiality and polygamy is a straw-man argument, so take that shit where others won't notice.
If you're so against sodomy, then never ask for a blow job again. For health reasons, of course.
It's amazing how you go from saying "gays should want the government out of their business" to "the government should make it their business to stop sodomy for health reasons."
Finally, being gay is not something you do, it's who you are. It's in your being. You can't not be gay if you're gay. It isn't a choice. If it were a choice, you could choose never to get a hard on during a titty dance again, because you chose to be gay that night.
The problem I see with your argument is that it's conservative; you're trying to maintain the status quo of marriage being what it is and civil union being what it is. A dynamic society, which we irrevocably are, must adapt to change. One of those changes is that unhappy but "societally necessary" marriages are good, and all others are a detriment to the society. Why don't we embrace change rather than fight it? Hasn't anyone learned that change is the only constant?
And despite your fairly well-worded argument, it fails its own test: people used to say that miscegenation was detrimental to the institution of marriage and would damage society, but without it there would be far fewer marriages at all and far less movement towards procreation (a sadly unnecessary component of many marriages). It's simply a matter of embracing change. There was a time, long ago, where only marrying "your kind" was an important thing to do for the overall success of the societal unit, but times-they-are-a-changin', and once they've-a-changed, certain things don't hold the validity they used to. Just like arguments against gay marriage.
At the very least, reasonable people should understand that across the board decisions against it should be stopped at any cost -- what's good for you ain't always good for me, and when there are almost 300 million people in the US, it's a very bad idea to say everyone should do one thing the same way or not at all, forever.
Get a grip, man! "Two dudes butt-fucking" and gays having the right to marry are about equal-rights. Anyone who says "Straight people should be allowed to do things that gay people should not" is not in support of equal rights.
There is absolutely no difference between saying gay people are not allowed to do something and black people are not allowed to do something -- it is all discrimination. If you're going to complain about the courts "legislating from the bench," a horribly worded assault on the courts, and at the same time deride them for not following the "will of the people," then you should have been in support of them putting Gore in office and not Bush -- after all, they only followed the constitution when putting Bush in office, just like they're only following the constitution to say that two dudes butt-fucking is no one's business but the two dudes.
I would strongly encourage you to say out loud, proudly, to everyone that you think will listen, that you do not support equal rights. Get banners, go protest in front of the Supreme Court, go protest at San Francisco's city hall, rally your friends together and get all sorts of chants:
No more equal rights! Gays should go without a fight!
No more equal rights! Gay is wrong and straight is right!
Jesus fucking Christ, there's one everywhere, isn't there?
Try reading the whole thread, then take your trolling crap elsewhere. I do know what a pedant is, but you don't seem to understand that without a foundation it's a hard climb to a successful argument, or in this case to the successful application of a word in a sentence.
A pedant is one who displays their learned state in a high-faultin' manner; the parent's parent's parent, being in a decidedly uneducated state, lacks the credentials of a pedant. I would tend towards classifying said person as a poseur.
No. There's always a deeper story. Ideally, each situation could be treated individually; there wouldn't be far reaching laws that try to encompass everything that is at issue.
If a man is driving his car and hits someone, he should be charged with the appropriate crime. If he's drunk while he does it, the punishment should be more severe because he took the extra step of being careless in his actions. Likewise, if Microsoft ships their OS with a media player they should be treated differently than Apple, because Microsoft has a monopoly control over the desktop operating system; Apple does not. People choose to buy Apple, but people do not generally choose to buy Microsoft--they choose to buy a PC. Microsoft is using their control of the desktop PC operating system market to make sure people get their products with their links to their stores, and no competitors are allowed. The difference is size and control.
If all laws were flat and simple, a lot of good people would get screwed and a lot of bad people would get lucky. The system we haven wouldn't be the way it is if over time special consideration hadn't been given to special circumstances, both when deciding upon laws and upon punishment.
By "most dividing war," I meant the war of ideas, not a war in the traditional sense.
Democrats and republicans work very hard to maintain an "us vs them" war of ideas, which helps keep everyone nice and tense, full of fear and worry that helps them push their agendas. Fear is a great motivator.
I live in SF as well. It's always nice to see people from the same place as you.
While they may piss you off, the only problem that I have with libertarians is the attitude of "do whatever you want, regardless of the consequences" when it comes to economic matters. Unfortunately, that runs counter to the minimum harm ideology behind green.
I know that's a broad generalization of libertarian thinking, but what isn't.
Perhaps you don't understand. The music industry pays to put people in office, particularly congressmen--who write the laws--and the president--who signs them into law.
Where is the FTC? Right where the music industry wants them: secure in their pocket.
You want to change this? Don't vote democrat or republican, vote green. Don't agree with the green party's stance on other issues? Time to examine how much you agree with republican and democrat stances. They don't seem to be doing you many favors.
Democrats and republicans officiate the most dividing war in the history of this country. It's always us vs them, which works out to you vs me. How does the green party work into this? The green party is a party of minimal harm--you don't fuck with me and I won't fuck with you. In this case, it would be one of those few instances where corporations being viewed as people would work to our advantage; you (a music industry corporation) don't fuck with me, and I with the power of a government that respects me doesn't fuck with you.
Slashdot Mirror
How about quitting cold turkey? You know if you take caffeine free aspirin or ibuprofen for that whole week that you'll have headaches, you'll be free thereafter?
Seriously, even with sustained high levels of coffee over years, it shouldn't take much more than a week to beat a caffeine addiction. One drink and you'll be back, but it's not nearly as hard as some people make it out to be. It's not heroin, people. It's not even cigarettes.
With any luck, the headaches will convince you of what a stupid idea it was to have caffeine in the first place, and bingo, you're cured for life.
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, back when IPOs were flush and the beer flowed like wine, there was a flash comic that depicted Lars Ultrarich and James Hetfield as two goons sue-happy against Napster users.
Hetfield, being a big, dumb idiot, was depicted as a big, dumb idiot relegated to simple phrases, such as "NAPSTER, BAD!" He was rather cave-man-like. I believe one full phrase went, "MONEY, GOOD! NAPSTER, BAD!"
And yet you choose to select a very rarely used RAID implementation?
With RAID 5 you get...
4x250GB = 750GB of storage 7x146GB = 876GB of storage
Now let's assume the backplane only supports a total of ten drives:
10x250GB = 2.25TB of storage 10x146GB = 1.31TB of storage
Gee, which solution scales better?
And let's say we wanted to be really crazy and implement RAID 6, a more practical solution than RAID 5+1, and more likely to be implemented in the real world:
10x250 = 2TB of storage 10x146 = 1.2TB of storage
The fact of the matter is the needs for storage space are growing, particularly for small to medium business who have a desire to retain data for longer periods of time. When they go to Dell and order their server, which supports a maximum of four drives, are they going to be happy knowing that their server is going to be limited to 438 GB, and that to upgrade from that would require ditching all four drives and purchasing four new drives of a higher capacity a year from now?
Not many small to medium businesses are jumping at the opportunity to purchase external storage solutions to give them the expandability that they need, either, primarily because of the cost. They're also not going to be implementing RAID 5+1 (or even RAID 6). 90% of them are going to end up using RAID 5.
Even with all that said, there's only one salient point: given an equal number of drives, larger disks translates to larger arrays. Larger arrays = GOOD, Napster = BAD.
Again, the need to implement more complex and advanced systems, which have their inherent pitfalls, can be averted simply by having larger disk sizes.
While it's true that it will increase the speed of the array, it isn't true that the array scales as well. You're limited by the size of the disks for the total size of your array; it all depends on what type of controller you can get, of course, but you're hard pressed to find many controllers that will support more than ten drives.
I think the point is that they can pile 4 250 GB drives into a server to have a terabyte array, or they can pile in 7 146 GB drives to get the same result.
Being limited to 146 GB drives means you are limited in scaling, which, of course, is what RAID is all about, as you've pointed out.
It reminds me of something, but I can't remember what.
Maybe when their kids, who will probably live to be 80 years old, are suffering in a world of over 35 billion people near the end of this century, the geometric growth of the world will start to slow down juuuuuuuust a little bit.
This is just like the Nintendo case a long time ago. Nintendo was puttin' the squeeze on the little guy, in a blatantly illegal manner, and the remedy was that they were forced to provide coupons for their own products to the consumers.
See, their punishment was that they received more sales. Which is kind of what has happened here. The RIAA's punishment is to clear out old inventories as a part of a tax writeoff. The old "You've been bad, here's a dumptruck full of money" punishment.
That's the American way. Of course, if I stiff someone out of thousands of dollars (or even steal one dollar from thousands of people), it's off to ol' pound-you-in-the-ass prison for me. Maybe I just need to wear a tie, smile, and not pay taxes while I do it.
...it's a tricorder.
Oh, wait.
Well... what happened with the coworker?
A 2500 and 5700 Ultra kick the shit out of the Xbox, even with the shitty resolution that the Xbox provides. FSAA, FSAF, 1280x1024, DX9, and not to mention raw power that outpaces the Xbox by miles.
Mod parent down for this -- anyone spending two seconds on an Xbox can see it can't keep up for shit with today's gaming experiences on PCs.
I'm curious, which law is this that says if you purchase a CD that you're not allowed fair-use rights (or the UK equiv. of fair-use)?
Slashdot links are also appreciated.
They're not seeking government approval, they're seeking equal rights. There are many rights given to persons that are married that are denied those who are not, especially when it comes to taxes. It boils down to "They get to pay less taxes than I do because they're straight." That, in essence, becomes a gay tax. Not quite equal.
Common law marriage is a ridiculous social construct that shouldn't be necessary, and in many states does not even exist. Further, degradation into beastiality and polygamy is a straw-man argument, so take that shit where others won't notice.
If you're so against sodomy, then never ask for a blow job again. For health reasons, of course.
It's amazing how you go from saying "gays should want the government out of their business" to "the government should make it their business to stop sodomy for health reasons."
Finally, being gay is not something you do, it's who you are. It's in your being. You can't not be gay if you're gay. It isn't a choice. If it were a choice, you could choose never to get a hard on during a titty dance again, because you chose to be gay that night.
The problem I see with your argument is that it's conservative; you're trying to maintain the status quo of marriage being what it is and civil union being what it is. A dynamic society, which we irrevocably are, must adapt to change. One of those changes is that unhappy but "societally necessary" marriages are good, and all others are a detriment to the society. Why don't we embrace change rather than fight it? Hasn't anyone learned that change is the only constant?
And despite your fairly well-worded argument, it fails its own test: people used to say that miscegenation was detrimental to the institution of marriage and would damage society, but without it there would be far fewer marriages at all and far less movement towards procreation (a sadly unnecessary component of many marriages). It's simply a matter of embracing change. There was a time, long ago, where only marrying "your kind" was an important thing to do for the overall success of the societal unit, but times-they-are-a-changin', and once they've-a-changed, certain things don't hold the validity they used to. Just like arguments against gay marriage.
At the very least, reasonable people should understand that across the board decisions against it should be stopped at any cost -- what's good for you ain't always good for me, and when there are almost 300 million people in the US, it's a very bad idea to say everyone should do one thing the same way or not at all, forever.
Get a grip, man! "Two dudes butt-fucking" and gays having the right to marry are about equal-rights. Anyone who says "Straight people should be allowed to do things that gay people should not" is not in support of equal rights.
There is absolutely no difference between saying gay people are not allowed to do something and black people are not allowed to do something -- it is all discrimination. If you're going to complain about the courts "legislating from the bench," a horribly worded assault on the courts, and at the same time deride them for not following the "will of the people," then you should have been in support of them putting Gore in office and not Bush -- after all, they only followed the constitution when putting Bush in office, just like they're only following the constitution to say that two dudes butt-fucking is no one's business but the two dudes.
I would strongly encourage you to say out loud, proudly, to everyone that you think will listen, that you do not support equal rights. Get banners, go protest in front of the Supreme Court, go protest at San Francisco's city hall, rally your friends together and get all sorts of chants:
No more equal rights! Gays should go without a fight!
No more equal rights! Gay is wrong and straight is right!
Jesus fucking Christ, there's one everywhere, isn't there?
Try reading the whole thread, then take your trolling crap elsewhere. I do know what a pedant is, but you don't seem to understand that without a foundation it's a hard climb to a successful argument, or in this case to the successful application of a word in a sentence.
I should have expected as much on Slashdot.
A pedant is one who displays their learned state in a high-faultin' manner; the parent's parent's parent, being in a decidedly uneducated state, lacks the credentials of a pedant. I would tend towards classifying said person as a poseur.
You really shouldn't criticize others' posts, since it makes you look like an idiot who doesn't know what a pedant is.
No. There's always a deeper story. Ideally, each situation could be treated individually; there wouldn't be far reaching laws that try to encompass everything that is at issue.
If a man is driving his car and hits someone, he should be charged with the appropriate crime. If he's drunk while he does it, the punishment should be more severe because he took the extra step of being careless in his actions. Likewise, if Microsoft ships their OS with a media player they should be treated differently than Apple, because Microsoft has a monopoly control over the desktop operating system; Apple does not. People choose to buy Apple, but people do not generally choose to buy Microsoft--they choose to buy a PC. Microsoft is using their control of the desktop PC operating system market to make sure people get their products with their links to their stores, and no competitors are allowed. The difference is size and control.
If all laws were flat and simple, a lot of good people would get screwed and a lot of bad people would get lucky. The system we haven wouldn't be the way it is if over time special consideration hadn't been given to special circumstances, both when deciding upon laws and upon punishment.
By "most dividing war," I meant the war of ideas, not a war in the traditional sense.
Democrats and republicans work very hard to maintain an "us vs them" war of ideas, which helps keep everyone nice and tense, full of fear and worry that helps them push their agendas. Fear is a great motivator.
Sorry for not being clear enough.
I live in SF as well. It's always nice to see people from the same place as you.
While they may piss you off, the only problem that I have with libertarians is the attitude of "do whatever you want, regardless of the consequences" when it comes to economic matters. Unfortunately, that runs counter to the minimum harm ideology behind green.
I know that's a broad generalization of libertarian thinking, but what isn't.
Perhaps you don't understand. The music industry pays to put people in office, particularly congressmen--who write the laws--and the president--who signs them into law.
Where is the FTC? Right where the music industry wants them: secure in their pocket.
You want to change this? Don't vote democrat or republican, vote green. Don't agree with the green party's stance on other issues? Time to examine how much you agree with republican and democrat stances. They don't seem to be doing you many favors.
Democrats and republicans officiate the most dividing war in the history of this country. It's always us vs them, which works out to you vs me. How does the green party work into this? The green party is a party of minimal harm--you don't fuck with me and I won't fuck with you. In this case, it would be one of those few instances where corporations being viewed as people would work to our advantage; you (a music industry corporation) don't fuck with me, and I with the power of a government that respects me doesn't fuck with you.