At earliest opportunity, deposit it in my friend's fire safe. He doesn't live far enough away to be geo-secure, but at least it's safe from fire.
RTFM on that "fire safe" to find out just how safe it is from fire. It's probably better than "sitting on the desk", but it's not necessarily going to survive even a house-not-destroying fire.
Thermal protection requires mass and insulation outside that mass. Both require volume. Volume requires money.
It's a fairly large, expensive safe, with a high fire rating. (Friend is an IT professional who is a stickler for these things.)
But that doesn't matter, because I was talking about the data being safe from fire at *my* house. As, his house is far enough away that it's highly unlikely that a single fire would destroy both houses. A natural disaster might, but probably not a fire.
> You should also be doing regular local backups and rotating them at a friends house as well (3 copies minimum).
I do this. Raw drive stuck in one of those toaster-like USB boxes. Make a copy overnight of my entire data disk, verify it the next day, and then pull it the hell out of the box so the computer can't scribble on it. At earliest opportunity, deposit it in my friend's fire safe. He doesn't live far enough away to be geo-secure, but at least it's safe from fire.
Probably the same guy who put "logout" in tiny text right next to "restart", also in tiny text, in Windows Server 2012, making every logout of production systems a test in fine motor skills. I'd really like to speak to that person for a few minutes.
But Dude. Seriously. Backups? If your stuff is important, you need to keep a copy somewhere the computer can't touch it. You are demonstrating a rather naive trust in computer technology, which a seasoned software developer should not have.
> So she chose this life style. If waking up at 2:30 isn't her thing, she could Drive and avoid public transportation and leave at a more reasonable hour.
In the bay area? Perhaps not. I get what you're saying, and part of time spent could very well be due to the county's poor schedule management for public transportation -- for instance, the feeder arrives just after the train left, and there won't be another for an hour, and when it finally comes, it'll arrive at the other end just after the feeder left -- but driving the bay area freeway system during rush hour may not gain her much in transit time.
I have a friend who lives in Livermore (living close in was not affordable) and commutes into the city [1]. Driving the bay area freeways during rush hour is out of the question, so he only drives as far as the nearest train station, takes the train most of the way there, and then gets into his second car and drives the rest of the way to work. Part of the reason for the two car solution was that there wasn't a train/bus solution that didn't involve him leaving the house at 0-dark-thirty and hoofing it for much of the distance.
It works for him, I guess. Myself, I moved to an area with less traffic and more affordable housing.
[1] To old time bay area residents, San Francisco is "The City". Never its full name unless you're talking to out-of-towners, and never ever "frisco".
My current understanding is that the theaters make the great majority of their revenue on concessions and almost nothing on the films. My recent experience is that for a family of three, tickets and refreshments are roughly the same cost. (Refreshments may be a little more depending on what we get.) A sharp reduction in ticket costs is very attractive.
Couple this with other recent changes observed in local theaters (not upscale spendy places that happen to show films, but regular everyday theaters) -- assigned seating, wider seats that tilt back, foot rests, beer and wine, something bordering on real food (approaching happy hour appetizers, not just candy in cellophane). Add a flat price on tickets, and hey, we'd definitely go to the theater more often.
But it seems that this would necessarily result in reduced revenue to the content owners. So this would either be for second run films, or movie producers would have to set their expectations lower.
Side note, lower expectations might be a good thing in the long run. More concentration on story, effects doing more with less, and perhaps fewer of those really expensive eye candy extravaganzas that don't make a lick 'o' sense. Oh, and maybe, actors would have to actually, you know, act, not just look pretty.
> The Wall Street Journal reports that the problem goes much deeper than a single misfire
Please allow me to interrupt here -- Ya think??
It couldn't possibly be that Hollywood is substituting eye candy and big set pieces for an actual story that works? That they've completely underestimated how much the public, yea, even that unwashed billy-bob public that is supposed to only be interested in naked breasts and explosions, might want a compelling story that makes sense? (And maybe, since you brought it up, that nobody really thought a poop emoji voiced by Patrick Stewart was funny?)
You don't. You simply have to make the choice not to attend live events if Ticketmaster is the only way to buy admission. Same with cable TV, the MPAA, WalMart, etc. Vote with your dollars if you are ethically or philosophically opposed to the entity seeking them.
In my case, I'll make rare exceptions to attend a live music event. Very rare, as in once in the past six or seven years. It's been much longer since I've seen the inside of a movie theater.
Understood, but I have a wife and kid who don't necessarily share my philosophy, and so far I've been reluctant to force them to comply. Compromises are sometimes necessary.
You mean like the requirement that all phones use a standard charger interface (micro-USB)? Not on any iPhone I've seen.
Didn't they get a special dispensation or something of that order? Something like, we're complying because micro-USB to Lightning converter cables exist.
It's not a completely valid comparison, but this feels like when Disney decided not to release their materials on DVD when it became available, choosing the self-destructing dvd variant Flexplay instead. I believe the motivation at the time was protecting Disney IP by not allowing content on digital media that presumably could be ripped with no loss of quality. (Which admittedly turned out to be true.)
This move simply seems like a money grab, giving Disney the entire profit from the streaming service, rather than merely the portion Netflix presumably gives them as part of the content licensing agreement. But I wonder if it could be something else? Maybe another attempt to have new content not be ripable? I'm just speculating here, but something feels wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
RTFM on that "fire safe" to find out just how safe it is from fire. It's probably better than "sitting on the desk", but it's not necessarily going to survive even a house-not-destroying fire.
Thermal protection requires mass and insulation outside that mass. Both require volume. Volume requires money.
It's a fairly large, expensive safe, with a high fire rating. (Friend is an IT professional who is a stickler for these things.)
But that doesn't matter, because I was talking about the data being safe from fire at *my* house. As, his house is far enough away that it's highly unlikely that a single fire would destroy both houses. A natural disaster might, but probably not a fire.
Right click on lower left corner, observe that logout is right above shutdown.
> their examples include songs by Michael Jackson and Justin Timberlake
Good choices. Already lots of high pitched noises.
> You should also be doing regular local backups and rotating them at a friends house as well (3 copies minimum).
I do this. Raw drive stuck in one of those toaster-like USB boxes. Make a copy overnight of my entire data disk, verify it the next day, and then pull it the hell out of the box so the computer can't scribble on it. At earliest opportunity, deposit it in my friend's fire safe. He doesn't live far enough away to be geo-secure, but at least it's safe from fire.
Good thing no one in IT has ADHD!
Yeah, good thing adhd isn't common in IT professionals.
> f*ck whoever implemented this option
Probably the same guy who put "logout" in tiny text right next to "restart", also in tiny text, in Windows Server 2012, making every logout of production systems a test in fine motor skills. I'd really like to speak to that person for a few minutes.
But Dude. Seriously. Backups? If your stuff is important, you need to keep a copy somewhere the computer can't touch it. You are demonstrating a rather naive trust in computer technology, which a seasoned software developer should not have.
"The City. My The City."
They make shoes out of wool?
I lived in that area before adulthood, and you are correct.
> So she chose this life style. If waking up at 2:30 isn't her thing, she could Drive and avoid public transportation and leave at a more reasonable hour.
In the bay area? Perhaps not. I get what you're saying, and part of time spent could very well be due to the county's poor schedule management for public transportation -- for instance, the feeder arrives just after the train left, and there won't be another for an hour, and when it finally comes, it'll arrive at the other end just after the feeder left -- but driving the bay area freeway system during rush hour may not gain her much in transit time.
> Why should all places of work be placed in high price areas?
I think you might have cause and effect reversed. Areas become high price because that's where the work is.
I have a friend who lives in Livermore (living close in was not affordable) and commutes into the city [1]. Driving the bay area freeways during rush hour is out of the question, so he only drives as far as the nearest train station, takes the train most of the way there, and then gets into his second car and drives the rest of the way to work. Part of the reason for the two car solution was that there wasn't a train/bus solution that didn't involve him leaving the house at 0-dark-thirty and hoofing it for much of the distance.
It works for him, I guess. Myself, I moved to an area with less traffic and more affordable housing.
[1] To old time bay area residents, San Francisco is "The City". Never its full name unless you're talking to out-of-towners, and never ever "frisco".
> higher minimum wages encourage employers to automate
The obvious solution, then, is to make it illegal to automate. Labor intensive jobs must remain labor intensive.
My current understanding is that the theaters make the great majority of their revenue on concessions and almost nothing on the films. My recent experience is that for a family of three, tickets and refreshments are roughly the same cost. (Refreshments may be a little more depending on what we get.) A sharp reduction in ticket costs is very attractive.
Couple this with other recent changes observed in local theaters (not upscale spendy places that happen to show films, but regular everyday theaters) -- assigned seating, wider seats that tilt back, foot rests, beer and wine, something bordering on real food (approaching happy hour appetizers, not just candy in cellophane). Add a flat price on tickets, and hey, we'd definitely go to the theater more often.
But it seems that this would necessarily result in reduced revenue to the content owners. So this would either be for second run films, or movie producers would have to set their expectations lower.
Side note, lower expectations might be a good thing in the long run. More concentration on story, effects doing more with less, and perhaps fewer of those really expensive eye candy extravaganzas that don't make a lick 'o' sense. Oh, and maybe, actors would have to actually, you know, act, not just look pretty.
> Unless you are trying to use the Mosaic Browser that was in the 5.1/4" 1,2Mbyte Disk that came with the book.
Hey, I paid good money for that browser.
So did you get a happy ending?
> I Bought a Book About the Internet From 1994 and None of the Links Worked
That sounds like a geek equivalent to a blonde joke. Like "I bought a coupon book at a garage sale but all the coupons had expired".
I didn't know it would work with ftp links.
Cursing and excrement jokes aren't "story".
> The Wall Street Journal reports that the problem goes much deeper than a single misfire
Please allow me to interrupt here -- Ya think??
It couldn't possibly be that Hollywood is substituting eye candy and big set pieces for an actual story that works? That they've completely underestimated how much the public, yea, even that unwashed billy-bob public that is supposed to only be interested in naked breasts and explosions, might want a compelling story that makes sense? (And maybe, since you brought it up, that nobody really thought a poop emoji voiced by Patrick Stewart was funny?)
Nah. It must be them damned downloaders.
>...not to have to deal with Ticketmaster.
You don't. You simply have to make the choice not to attend live events if Ticketmaster is the only way to buy admission. Same with cable TV, the MPAA, WalMart, etc. Vote with your dollars if you are ethically or philosophically opposed to the entity seeking them.
In my case, I'll make rare exceptions to attend a live music event. Very rare, as in once in the past six or seven years. It's been much longer since I've seen the inside of a movie theater.
Understood, but I have a wife and kid who don't necessarily share my philosophy, and so far I've been reluctant to force them to comply. Compromises are sometimes necessary.
-- which have been in decline for two years running
(snarky)Couldn't happen to a nicer company.(/snarky)
You mean like the requirement that all phones use a standard charger interface (micro-USB)? Not on any iPhone I've seen.
Didn't they get a special dispensation or something of that order? Something like, we're complying because micro-USB to Lightning converter cables exist.
It's not a completely valid comparison, but this feels like when Disney decided not to release their materials on DVD when it became available, choosing the self-destructing dvd variant Flexplay instead. I believe the motivation at the time was protecting Disney IP by not allowing content on digital media that presumably could be ripped with no loss of quality. (Which admittedly turned out to be true.)
This move simply seems like a money grab, giving Disney the entire profit from the streaming service, rather than merely the portion Netflix presumably gives them as part of the content licensing agreement. But I wonder if it could be something else? Maybe another attempt to have new content not be ripable? I'm just speculating here, but something feels wrong.