Yes it's cheap - dreamhost has no SLAs, and your 3 disk monty approach puts all the management onto you. This is a question of how much managed, reliable storage costs, and S3 works really well, especially for situations where you need to scale up or down. Once you're juggling a TB or so, it may make sense to do it yourself, but in the end, you get what you pay for.
The 12k was a bit generous - he got it when he was negotiating the purchase. I suspect he'll be fixing the dangerous stuff and using power conditioners on the other stuff.
Actually, they only need to make the initial invesment + interest. Once that's happened, you're in the black, and will most likely be able to pay for replacement panels that work better 15 years later.
I certainly would never bid $10,000 for a modern wiring job of a huge house (2,400 sq. ft. is huge in my book)
Yeah, it's more like 12k. At least, that's what my coworker was quoted by a contractor to rewire his newly bought house (harry homeowner shit all over the place). This is in seattle, which isn't exactly cheap.
Sounds like a good reason to trim back the powers of HOAs. I never did like the ones I've seen. That said, a lot of HOAs will ignore stuff that isn't visible from the street.
So I'd need to disolve the Zinc in HNO3, then separate that mixture chemically, right? The Copper would be easy that way, as I'd be left with some fairly clean granular copper.
grind up the pennies and heat to somewhat over zinc's melting point, then strain out the copper? Alternatively, draw the zinc from the top. I dunno how hard this would be from a profit perspective, but separating the metals isn't all that involved.
just do what's morally correct. There's no good reason for the material to exist.
That's not a good enough reason to ban them. You need a compelling reason for them to not exist, and morality is not relevant. You must show actual harm.
You're kiding, right? Congress has some right to regulate the airline industry, but this is ridiculous - would you object to a rule requiring all airline passengers to where govt issued jumpsuits?
Ohh, look at the manly man talking about his big balls. I guess I can address your points, more or less. First off, good luck with the veggie thing, but there's no reason to be an asshole about it. The guy you responded to is performing a valuable service that he happens to enjoy (not the killing so much as the eating), reduces animal farming by substituting venison, removes the need for expensive fencing and killing, and yes, keeps an ancient tradition alive.
Your idea about fences is unworkable - these aren't cows - you can't really expect farmers to maintain hundreds of 12 foot fences, and if they did, it's screw up your precious environment. Speaking of which, it's already been fucked with, so yes, we need to keep an active hand in things.
Finally, cool it with the invective. This isn't about bravery. There is no moral issue with killing a deer - it's a food source. Yes, meat is murder: tasty, tasty murder.
Hunting has about as much to do with killing deer as Homosexuality has to do with gay sex. Most of the process involves stalking prey and getting close enough to kill it quickly without hurting another hunter. Yeah, you killed a living animal, so what? If it wasn't for hunters, they'd get hit by a car or starve. We have no effective predators anymore, so we have to be it.
We don't allow blind people to drive cars, either, but no one thinks this is prejudiced or an erosion of human rights.
Tell that to my great uncle. He was blind and he drove anyway. I think that it's ridiculous for a blind man to go off in the woods and try to get dinner, but if he wants to take someone along and try, then have at it. He'd better be aware of the consequences, though.
I still think he's less likely than a normal hunter to shoot a cow.
You want to spend a ton of money and add bureaucracy to the process in order to ban hunting? Have you thought this through? Also, the distribution to the needy outs you as the sort of person usually referred to as 'bleeding heart'. It's nice to feed the hungry, but you're basically eliminating venison as an accessible food source, since it all goes to soup kitchens. You could achieve your goals by diverting a portion of the license fees to funding these soup kitchens, unless your goal is to stop hunters.
I honestly wouldnt care if blind people drove at safe speeds on a closed course.
That's nice, but you really don't have a say in the matter. As for your example, I support the rights of anyone who's competent to carry a weapon to own and carry it. This includes the blind guy you mentioned.
Imagine working for a company that is tolerated, at best, in many social circles. Imagine being a computer science graduate, going to a class reunion, telling people you work for Microsoft, and watching your former classmates slowly back away as if you'd just told them you had a venereal disease.
But then you tell them you're gay and they slowly come back and talk about how hard it must be...
I predict that instead of offering increased rights for gay couples, what will happen is that right-leaning states (such as Ohio) will instead restrict the legal priveleges and rights of married couples - i.e., no more tax breaks, requiring next of kin, rather than spouse, to make legal decisions regarding health care, etc...
So Ohio will start screwing everyone and say it's because of the gays - no, that won't backfire at all...
the state does recognize relationships which are beneficial to its interests - for example, tax credits given for research, giving to charity,
That's different - they aren't deciding whether you can give to charity, they're offering incentive. I'm talking about the basic rights.
From the standpoint of personal relationships, calling something marriage which isn't marriage is just plain dishonest. If the union of two gays was marriage, there would be no controversy.
Sounds like you've bought into the propaganda - marriage is what we define it to be.
the crux of the issue is that gays want the respect that society affords marriage, without actually making the same committment and sacrifice that married couples do.
Now who's being dishonest? They want the right to live together with legal protections for their right to visit each other in the hospital and not have to pay taxes on their house when one of them dies - things that married people get for free. those bastards!
Besides, if he's at least half way smart, it is fairly impossible to trace. Well, at least 'til he makes contact in RL and then it's too late anyway in case he commits another crime. So the whole thing is pointless.
As I understand it, a good number of sex offenders 'fail' to register their address, and really, why would you want to if you can get away with it? Also, we're talking about sex offenders, not pedophiles - they could just as easily make contact in a bar.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it's cheap - dreamhost has no SLAs, and your 3 disk monty approach puts all the management onto you. This is a question of how much managed, reliable storage costs, and S3 works really well, especially for situations where you need to scale up or down. Once you're juggling a TB or so, it may make sense to do it yourself, but in the end, you get what you pay for.
The 12k was a bit generous - he got it when he was negotiating the purchase. I suspect he'll be fixing the dangerous stuff and using power conditioners on the other stuff.
There's a good chance that the scalpel has been in a sealed plastic package: surgeons take sterile procedure seriously.
Actually, they only need to make the initial invesment + interest. Once that's happened, you're in the black, and will most likely be able to pay for replacement panels that work better 15 years later.
I certainly would never bid $10,000 for a modern wiring job of a huge house (2,400 sq. ft. is huge in my book)
Yeah, it's more like 12k. At least, that's what my coworker was quoted by a contractor to rewire his newly bought house (harry homeowner shit all over the place). This is in seattle, which isn't exactly cheap.
Sounds like a good reason to trim back the powers of HOAs. I never did like the ones I've seen. That said, a lot of HOAs will ignore stuff that isn't visible from the street.
I don't see how that's a reasonable rate. A 300 GB drive goes for about $100 these days.
And how will that help you if your drive dies? $1320 for 300G of managed storage for 2 years is cheap.
So I'd need to disolve the Zinc in HNO3, then separate that mixture chemically, right? The Copper would be easy that way, as I'd be left with some fairly clean granular copper.
grind up the pennies and heat to somewhat over zinc's melting point, then strain out the copper? Alternatively, draw the zinc from the top. I dunno how hard this would be from a profit perspective, but separating the metals isn't all that involved.
Who cares if there is evidence or not?
I care, and the law had better care too.
just do what's morally correct. There's no good reason for the material to exist.
That's not a good enough reason to ban them. You need a compelling reason for them to not exist, and morality is not relevant. You must show actual harm.
You do not have to compromise if you're the boss and you require stuff to work
So, do you fire people who make mistakes?
You're kiding, right? Congress has some right to regulate the airline industry, but this is ridiculous - would you object to a rule requiring all airline passengers to where govt issued jumpsuits?
Your idea about fences is unworkable - these aren't cows - you can't really expect farmers to maintain hundreds of 12 foot fences, and if they did, it's screw up your precious environment. Speaking of which, it's already been fucked with, so yes, we need to keep an active hand in things.
Finally, cool it with the invective. This isn't about bravery. There is no moral issue with killing a deer - it's a food source. Yes, meat is murder: tasty, tasty murder.
Your field full of corpses is strawman is disgusting.
No, it's ironic. If you don't hunt, that's what you get - a field full of emaciated, rotting corpses.
Ever try to eat a photo?
Hunting has about as much to do with killing deer as Homosexuality has to do with gay sex. Most of the process involves stalking prey and getting close enough to kill it quickly without hurting another hunter. Yeah, you killed a living animal, so what? If it wasn't for hunters, they'd get hit by a car or starve. We have no effective predators anymore, so we have to be it.
We don't allow blind people to drive cars, either, but no one thinks this is prejudiced or an erosion of human rights.
Tell that to my great uncle. He was blind and he drove anyway. I think that it's ridiculous for a blind man to go off in the woods and try to get dinner, but if he wants to take someone along and try, then have at it. He'd better be aware of the consequences, though.
I still think he's less likely than a normal hunter to shoot a cow.
You want to spend a ton of money and add bureaucracy to the process in order to ban hunting? Have you thought this through? Also, the distribution to the needy outs you as the sort of person usually referred to as 'bleeding heart'. It's nice to feed the hungry, but you're basically eliminating venison as an accessible food source, since it all goes to soup kitchens. You could achieve your goals by diverting a portion of the license fees to funding these soup kitchens, unless your goal is to stop hunters.
I honestly wouldnt care if blind people drove at safe speeds on a closed course.
That's nice, but you really don't have a say in the matter. As for your example, I support the rights of anyone who's competent to carry a weapon to own and carry it. This includes the blind guy you mentioned.
wow, laser-etched nori!
Yeah, but they didn't tell you what you have to do to get the return trip.
But then you tell them you're gay and they slowly come back and talk about how hard it must be...
I predict that instead of offering increased rights for gay couples, what will happen is that right-leaning states (such as Ohio) will instead restrict the legal priveleges and rights of married couples - i.e., no more tax breaks, requiring next of kin, rather than spouse, to make legal decisions regarding health care, etc...
So Ohio will start screwing everyone and say it's because of the gays - no, that won't backfire at all...
the state does recognize relationships which are beneficial to its interests - for example, tax credits given for research, giving to charity,
That's different - they aren't deciding whether you can give to charity, they're offering incentive. I'm talking about the basic rights.
From the standpoint of personal relationships, calling something marriage which isn't marriage is just plain dishonest. If the union of two gays was marriage, there would be no controversy.
Sounds like you've bought into the propaganda - marriage is what we define it to be.
the crux of the issue is that gays want the respect that society affords marriage, without actually making the same committment and sacrifice that married couples do.
Now who's being dishonest? They want the right to live together with legal protections for their right to visit each other in the hospital and not have to pay taxes on their house when one of them dies - things that married people get for free. those bastards!
Besides, if he's at least half way smart, it is fairly impossible to trace. Well, at least 'til he makes contact in RL and then it's too late anyway in case he commits another crime. So the whole thing is pointless.
As I understand it, a good number of sex offenders 'fail' to register their address, and really, why would you want to if you can get away with it? Also, we're talking about sex offenders, not pedophiles - they could just as easily make contact in a bar.