I don't understand why there's an expectation of altruism. If I can exploit your stupidity to take your money and make it mine, then I'm going to do it when it's legal. But, then again, I live under the notion that humans are innately selfish beings.
This guy probably knew what he was doing was illegal, but did it anyway because he figured it was legally gray enough to test the waters.
Anyway, "libertarian investors" and "unregulated environment" are euphemisms for free market, and in a free market the "weak" die off and the strong survive. It's Darwinism at its best, and I'm surprised more people aren't aware of this.
The whole reason you have to invest an abnormal amount of time and energy into securing your own bitcoins is because 1. Someone isn't doing it for you (who would normally be paid to do it, like a bank keeping your fiat safe), and 2. because if you don't, someone is going to steal that shit right out of your digital hands.
People are greedy and we shouldn't be surprised when we get confirmation of what I thought was an obvious fact of life; instead, we should simply design our systems with that as a priority in mind.
That is, I don't have a cap... and it equates to me being able to download 6TB/mo if I choose to do so.
100GB?... Lowering it down to the exact amount that "average" Luddites use isn't a good idea. It's just going to screw the people that actually want to use their service the most, but with no actual justification since, as displayed in the article, the transfer cost is subject to a HUGE markup.
There should be no capping, and it's just another industry following the lead of the cell phone industry, where raping customers for every single penny is standard. Once they saw just how much cell phone companies could get away with - especially with "Data", it was over.
and I have a decent amount of things running in the background there. No swap, and I know exactly what you're talking about when it comes to "the difference it makes." When I restart, I dread the 'spin-up' time for everything to get into the cache where it belongs:P
But yeah, 16GB of ram and that graphic shows exactly how it should be used.
The only thing I've really gathered from this thread is that no one knows dick about what's going on and no one knows their ass from their head about what to do about it. It's simply amazing that there is no real guidance here and all views are diametrically opposing.
This tells me a few things: 1) No way's better than another, no method of thinking is better than someone elses; do your best. 2) Everyone is still fighting for the same slice of pie and it's only getting more random as to how that's done; competition is a bitch.
So someone that illegally access my email will get a year in prison? Highly doubt it. This is just another case of some rich bitch and her political army ensuing their own versions of justice. Do you think for a second she hasn't done or committed something that could potentially have been tried for at least double that time? Fuck this. I guess in hindsight after reading my comment; I think it's bullshit that we only make an example of people that attack the rich and famous and those of us that are normal have to live with the fact that there is no system that gives a shit about protecting us. I doubt there would even be any repercussion at all, probably not even cooperation from the business that said attack was committed on/or from. A big ":("
Slashdot Mirror
Chiefly why Usenet is to hard to deal with and why they go after the indexers.
I upload nothing but download _everything_ and I don't care who provided it, they're saints I guess.
In my eyes it's no different than picking up a dollar left on the floor.
They really need to stop wasting their time with plastics and look into 3D printing _around_ a metal chamber.
Regardless, the bore will wear out quickly and the rest of the barrel will get too hot and melt the fucker.
It's really quite a futile endeavor, and the people doing this have got to know it, which means it's all for show.
They'll be imprisoned for hacking school equipment.
To add to this; In a free market, anyone who doesn't take the steps to protect themselves *deserves* to be metaphorically eaten alive.
I don't understand why there's an expectation of altruism. If I can exploit your stupidity to take your money and make it mine, then I'm going to do it when it's legal. But, then again, I live under the notion that humans are innately selfish beings.
This guy probably knew what he was doing was illegal, but did it anyway because he figured it was legally gray enough to test the waters.
Anyway, "libertarian investors" and "unregulated environment" are euphemisms for free market, and in a free market the "weak" die off and the strong survive. It's Darwinism at its best, and I'm surprised more people aren't aware of this.
The whole reason you have to invest an abnormal amount of time and energy into securing your own bitcoins is because 1. Someone isn't doing it for you (who would normally be paid to do it, like a bank keeping your fiat safe), and 2. because if you don't, someone is going to steal that shit right out of your digital hands.
People are greedy and we shouldn't be surprised when we get confirmation of what I thought was an obvious fact of life; instead, we should simply design our systems with that as a priority in mind.
This really has nothing to do with bitcoin itself, and is just someone trying to use them to scam people. Nothing new here.
You're being rather modest there...
That is, I don't have a cap... and it equates to me being able to download 6TB/mo if I choose to do so.
100GB? ... Lowering it down to the exact amount that "average" Luddites use isn't a good idea. It's just going to screw the people that actually want to use their service the most, but with no actual justification since, as displayed in the article, the transfer cost is subject to a HUGE markup.
There should be no capping, and it's just another industry following the lead of the cell phone industry, where raping customers for every single penny is standard. Once they saw just how much cell phone companies could get away with - especially with "Data", it was over.
I really can't notice the effects of these settings being present.
Mine default to:
image.mem.discardable = true
image.mem.max_bytes_for_sync_decode = 150000
image.mem.max_ms_before_yield = 5
image.mem.min_discard_timeout_ms = 10000
image.mem.decodeondraw = true
Are you suggesting that we change these values? If so, preferably to what?
This exactly what I do as well. At the absolute worst it ends up looking like this:
http://i.imgur.com/3T3xh.jpg
and I have a decent amount of things running in the background there. No swap, and I know exactly what you're talking about when it comes to "the difference it makes." When I restart, I dread the 'spin-up' time for everything to get into the cache where it belongs :P
But yeah, 16GB of ram and that graphic shows exactly how it should be used.
The only thing I've really gathered from this thread is that no one knows dick about what's going on and no one knows their ass from their head about what to do about it. It's simply amazing that there is no real guidance here and all views are diametrically opposing.
This tells me a few things:
1) No way's better than another, no method of thinking is better than someone elses; do your best.
2) Everyone is still fighting for the same slice of pie and it's only getting more random as to how that's done; competition is a bitch.
So someone that illegally access my email will get a year in prison? Highly doubt it. This is just another case of some rich bitch and her political army ensuing their own versions of justice. Do you think for a second she hasn't done or committed something that could potentially have been tried for at least double that time? Fuck this. I guess in hindsight after reading my comment; I think it's bullshit that we only make an example of people that attack the rich and famous and those of us that are normal have to live with the fact that there is no system that gives a shit about protecting us. I doubt there would even be any repercussion at all, probably not even cooperation from the business that said attack was committed on/or from. A big ":("