With 60 TB drives, assuming they will run around the price of current hard drives, not likely. SSDs and hard drives will just co-exist. SDDs for things that need to be fast (OS, software, etc.) and hard drives for everything else (pictures, videos, documents, etc.).
60 TB might seem like a lot now but I am sure that humanity will figure out new ways to fill the capacity. We always do.
It is not because they are "stealing" jobs. It is because they are here illegally. If people want to live in the United States, they need to come legally.
To me, six months seems excessive. Invasion of privacy? Sure. Was he being a dick? Yes. But in the end, the room was shared space and he showed two people privately, not the whole world. At most, this deserve some heavy scolding by his peers and possibly community service.
Stolen keys can be prevented by protecting it with a pin or password. The voter has to not only have a key but also know the password that belongs to the key. As far as buying votes, you can do that now. Go find some homeless people and offer them $150 to vote for a specific candidate.
You don't. If you want to change what you eat, make a conscience effort to do so. Don't expect the guy next-door to change just because you think it is better.
Anyway, I dislike any system where it is not mandatory to enforce the privacy of the voter.
Why would an electronic system not be able to enforce privacy? The problem is auditing while keeping privacy. One possible solution is to issue everyone strong security keys at random so that no one knows who actually received a specific key. All votes are signed with the voter's security key. Of course, the problem with this is that unless you re-issue the keys for every vote, while the identity would be protected, the voting history would not.
The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it.
I would argue that the idea of democracy is so that most people get a government that they want. In a mobile society, by limiting the scope of the government to the states rather than federal, you decrease the likelihood that someone is under a government that they do not desire. The whole idea of democracy is based on the idea that no man should control the actions of another man unless the second man is infringing on the rights of the first. This has nothing to do with what is "best" for someone. If a man wants to do something that only harms himself, who am I to say he can't do it? I would be a friend to warn him of the dangers but in the end, the choice is his own.
250 GB / 30 days = 8.3 GB/day
That is not a lot. I could possibly go through half the daily ration by myself just from video and music streams. There are also four other people in the house. All four use Netflix daily (many times on separate devices). Two of them play games online.
Mass transit is better suited to the higher population densities of European cities, much of the USA is too spread out.
No shit, Sherlock. So your answer to that would be, what? Continuing with the same stupid behavior and hoping for the best? Or should we grow up, and recognize that they way we've been doing things is not sustainable and pursue a course that is?
What are you going to do? Force everyone to move to cities? Not only is there a need for rural areas (farming) but some people don't want to live in the city.
That is how I do it. I have Windows 7 and my programs on a SSD and then a hard drive to which I created two folder junctions: one for unusually large programs (video games) and the other for user data.
Agreed. If they want government aid and special treatment, we have every right to expect them to be regulated. If they want to make the shots, they need to pay for everything.
Not indefinitely. When we reach the point where power is so cheap that it is essentially free and we then create a way to directly covert power to matter, the monetary system will no longer exist. I think when that happens people will strive for social standing and accomplishments instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox is still my browser of choice for desktop. For my mobile, I use Dolphin Mini.
...this is the dying breath of the HDDs.
With 60 TB drives, assuming they will run around the price of current hard drives, not likely. SSDs and hard drives will just co-exist. SDDs for things that need to be fast (OS, software, etc.) and hard drives for everything else (pictures, videos, documents, etc.).
60 TB might seem like a lot now but I am sure that humanity will figure out new ways to fill the capacity. We always do.
We only have one choice where I live.
We have mice running with human immune system = more oppurtunities for micro organisms to adapt in all kinds of conditions. -S
Acceptable risk. Have all testing done in a contained environment and then incinerate said environment on completion.
... too bad every animal rights group will throw a fit.
Let them. I would pull out the popcorn but I think a bucket of chicken would be more appropriate.
It is not because they are "stealing" jobs. It is because they are here illegally. If people want to live in the United States, they need to come legally.
To me, six months seems excessive. Invasion of privacy? Sure. Was he being a dick? Yes. But in the end, the room was shared space and he showed two people privately, not the whole world. At most, this deserve some heavy scolding by his peers and possibly community service.
Stolen keys can be prevented by protecting it with a pin or password. The voter has to not only have a key but also know the password that belongs to the key. As far as buying votes, you can do that now. Go find some homeless people and offer them $150 to vote for a specific candidate.
You don't. If you want to change what you eat, make a conscience effort to do so. Don't expect the guy next-door to change just because you think it is better.
... you'll never have a doubt free election ever again
I don't have doubt free elections now. Why can't a paper system be exploited?
Anyway, I dislike any system where it is not mandatory to enforce the privacy of the voter.
Why would an electronic system not be able to enforce privacy? The problem is auditing while keeping privacy. One possible solution is to issue everyone strong security keys at random so that no one knows who actually received a specific key. All votes are signed with the voter's security key. Of course, the problem with this is that unless you re-issue the keys for every vote, while the identity would be protected, the voting history would not.
Show up to the headquarters with a gruffl beard and dirt-covered, holey clothes
The democratic process relies on the assumption that citizens (the majority of them, at least) can recognize the best political candidate, or best policy idea, when they see it.
I would argue that the idea of democracy is so that most people get a government that they want. In a mobile society, by limiting the scope of the government to the states rather than federal, you decrease the likelihood that someone is under a government that they do not desire. The whole idea of democracy is based on the idea that no man should control the actions of another man unless the second man is infringing on the rights of the first. This has nothing to do with what is "best" for someone. If a man wants to do something that only harms himself, who am I to say he can't do it? I would be a friend to warn him of the dangers but in the end, the choice is his own.
Why not just send them white noise and tell them it is encrypted video?
I can hand pick what information Facebook gets.
250 GB / 30 days = 8.3 GB/day That is not a lot. I could possibly go through half the daily ration by myself just from video and music streams. There are also four other people in the house. All four use Netflix daily (many times on separate devices). Two of them play games online.
If research is publicly funded, the research should be publicly owned.
Mass transit is better suited to the higher population densities of European cities, much of the USA is too spread out.
No shit, Sherlock. So your answer to that would be, what? Continuing with the same stupid behavior and hoping for the best? Or should we grow up, and recognize that they way we've been doing things is not sustainable and pursue a course that is?
What are you going to do? Force everyone to move to cities? Not only is there a need for rural areas (farming) but some people don't want to live in the city.
Panic?
That is how I do it. I have Windows 7 and my programs on a SSD and then a hard drive to which I created two folder junctions: one for unusually large programs (video games) and the other for user data.
While I vote, these days, I wonder if it even matters.
What I fear is that we'll wind up having to chose our poisons.
When was the last time the US government let us choose anything?
In a truely free market, they would be required to pay for all their infrastructure and not get any special treatment from the government.
Agreed. If they want government aid and special treatment, we have every right to expect them to be regulated. If they want to make the shots, they need to pay for everything.
Not indefinitely. When we reach the point where power is so cheap that it is essentially free and we then create a way to directly covert power to matter, the monetary system will no longer exist. I think when that happens people will strive for social standing and accomplishments instead.