That would be pretty fucked up if the military and academic networks had nothing to do with it. I guess that's why international diplomacy is usually steered away from vigilantism, and those nations who engage in vigilantism are treated with a certain level of disdain...
You put your local github repo on some server, and then have it push its updates to Github. Should anything happen to that server, you can use Github to get a copy. The chances of Github and your local server losing your data is clearly much lower than either on its own, hence it making sense. Or just hate on Github because you are scared and don't understand stuff. Whatever's easier.
When you freelance do you tell everyone to make their own "cloud", costing them hundreds of times more per megabyte? I really hope not:) Knowing how to properly administer an S3 backup solution would make far more sense, as that is cheaper, and far more reliable.
It's not really your own cloud, just a centralised bunch of disks with a poor backup system. Getting your data from Amazon is easy, obviously, as that's the whole point. I've been using them for years and never had problems in that regard. Couple that with encryption, and you can take the benefits of Amazon's system (low cost, geographical spread, high availability, high speeds) without the down-sides. You can also couple Amazon's offerings with their virtual machines, something you can't do with your attempt of a cloud.
So your time is free? With encryption it doesn't matter who gets a copy of your files, making your "total control" argument seem rather silly. And you only end up with 30TB as well. Ouch.
I'd rather call you a sick fuck for driving beyond the range of your vision and braking, as that's endangering your family every single time you drive them. A safe driver would never voluntarily get in a position where they have to make such decisions - they'd give themselves enough distance to brake for anything that might happen. Where did you learn to drive? They didn't teach you too well.
The computer is in a very good position to know when those components develop faults, as it knows with far greater precision when it takes more effort/time to perform some function (turning, braking, accelerating, etc.). Monitoring the other components is also trivial, and a computer can do a much better job than a human.
He did say it. He admitted it. He chose to say it, knowing full well what a shit-storm it would cause. The problem is it was being paid for by the BBC (regardless of whether it was aired or not), and in front of a public audience. He takes their money, he has to abide by their rules. Simple as. It's harmful to his paymasters because they have an image to uphold, one backed by a royal charter.
Because your explanations are nonsensical. Clarkson created a rude, offensive persona in order to raise his profile and add edge to the show. He's been pushing at the envelope of acceptable behaviour for someone in his position (not a satirist or comedian, simply someone reviewing cars), by making racist jokes and other base attempts to get laughs and stir the pot. Then he goes and hits someone because he couldn't have steak and chips, and gets fired. Then people like you try and explain away his obvious behaviour (cultivating said image) as if it didn't happen or was somehow blown out of proportion (even when JC himself admitted it happened and was wrong). That's what's trollish - your desperate attempt to pervert the truth in order to maintain your crush on JC.
Just because many people do something doesn't magically make it OK. There is no excuse for violence when discussing dinner, even if the person who didn't give you dinner when you wanted it called your mother a whore.
It was the elephant which broke the camel's back. He had warning after warning, then did this. Just another "oh so innocent" racial epithet would have done it. He topped that by punching someone because his dinner wasn't ready.
This was not the first time he got in trouble with the BBC, however. They've given him chance after chance after chance to stop screwing things up, then he hits someone because he can't get steak and chips.
He had plenty of chance to see a therapist - you can get therapy for free from the NHS, not that he can't afford one himself. If he didn't want to see a therapist, then that's his fault as well.
The BBC is not a great example of an average media company in the UK. That fact alone means the rest of your post is not particularly valid. The BBC has special guidelines imposed upon it by its special position. Hell, there are amazing amounts of speech on the BBC that are simply illegal in the US on comparable TV stations, just not slipped in to motoring TV shows in order to simply cause offence.
And by "PC" you mean "not being a racist/sexist muppet". Those are values certain societies strive to achieve, which is definitely admirable in itself.
The only thing you proved with that facetious nonsense is showing you have no understanding of mental illness, but think you do, and to the degree required to condemn people you know nothing about. Well done.
You seem staggeringly quick to judge, and seem to completely forget the fact that people who kill themselves frequently are not thinking particularly rationally. "Condemnation"? Fuck you! You don't know that's the case for each and every person, yet you went ahead and called for their condemnation regardless.
Keep your pop psychology - it's doing a great job of showing you really don't know what you're talking about, yet seem to possess the arrogance to assume you must.
Well, the BBC was paying for the show to be filmed and paying the salaries of everyone there, and it was being filmed in front of a public audience. Whether it made it to the broadcast means little.
He also made other racist comments specifically in order to be aired.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be pretty fucked up if the military and academic networks had nothing to do with it. I guess that's why international diplomacy is usually steered away from vigilantism, and those nations who engage in vigilantism are treated with a certain level of disdain...
You put your local github repo on some server, and then have it push its updates to Github. Should anything happen to that server, you can use Github to get a copy. The chances of Github and your local server losing your data is clearly much lower than either on its own, hence it making sense. Or just hate on Github because you are scared and don't understand stuff. Whatever's easier.
When you freelance do you tell everyone to make their own "cloud", costing them hundreds of times more per megabyte? I really hope not :) Knowing how to properly administer an S3 backup solution would make far more sense, as that is cheaper, and far more reliable.
Your second house transparently gives you your stuff back? Awesome!
Can't you figure out how to use chopsticks? Poor baby.
"Homogenous"? Your xenophobia is showing.
It's not really your own cloud, just a centralised bunch of disks with a poor backup system. Getting your data from Amazon is easy, obviously, as that's the whole point. I've been using them for years and never had problems in that regard. Couple that with encryption, and you can take the benefits of Amazon's system (low cost, geographical spread, high availability, high speeds) without the down-sides. You can also couple Amazon's offerings with their virtual machines, something you can't do with your attempt of a cloud.
So your time is free? With encryption it doesn't matter who gets a copy of your files, making your "total control" argument seem rather silly. And you only end up with 30TB as well. Ouch.
But it can be legislated away if driverless cars are safer than their meat-driven alternatives.
I'd rather call you a sick fuck for driving beyond the range of your vision and braking, as that's endangering your family every single time you drive them. A safe driver would never voluntarily get in a position where they have to make such decisions - they'd give themselves enough distance to brake for anything that might happen. Where did you learn to drive? They didn't teach you too well.
The computer is in a very good position to know when those components develop faults, as it knows with far greater precision when it takes more effort/time to perform some function (turning, braking, accelerating, etc.). Monitoring the other components is also trivial, and a computer can do a much better job than a human.
They banged on about Mexico, and then got contacted by the Mexican ambassador who demanded to know why they decided to blurt out clearly untrue, decades-old clichés of lazy poncho-clad Mexicans under sombreros and food which tastes like vomit with cheese. It was quite a famous incident.
He did say it. He admitted it. He chose to say it, knowing full well what a shit-storm it would cause. The problem is it was being paid for by the BBC (regardless of whether it was aired or not), and in front of a public audience. He takes their money, he has to abide by their rules. Simple as. It's harmful to his paymasters because they have an image to uphold, one backed by a royal charter.
Because your explanations are nonsensical. Clarkson created a rude, offensive persona in order to raise his profile and add edge to the show. He's been pushing at the envelope of acceptable behaviour for someone in his position (not a satirist or comedian, simply someone reviewing cars), by making racist jokes and other base attempts to get laughs and stir the pot. Then he goes and hits someone because he couldn't have steak and chips, and gets fired. Then people like you try and explain away his obvious behaviour (cultivating said image) as if it didn't happen or was somehow blown out of proportion (even when JC himself admitted it happened and was wrong). That's what's trollish - your desperate attempt to pervert the truth in order to maintain your crush on JC.
And the circumstances which dictate whether you pay it or not are very straight-forward, and very easy to avoid.
Just because many people do something doesn't magically make it OK. There is no excuse for violence when discussing dinner, even if the person who didn't give you dinner when you wanted it called your mother a whore.
It was the elephant which broke the camel's back. He had warning after warning, then did this. Just another "oh so innocent" racial epithet would have done it. He topped that by punching someone because his dinner wasn't ready.
He seemed to like the Fords produced in Europe, which do seem to (or at least used to) be higher quality than their American counterparts...
This was not the first time he got in trouble with the BBC, however. They've given him chance after chance after chance to stop screwing things up, then he hits someone because he can't get steak and chips.
He had plenty of chance to see a therapist - you can get therapy for free from the NHS, not that he can't afford one himself. If he didn't want to see a therapist, then that's his fault as well.
The BBC is not a great example of an average media company in the UK. That fact alone means the rest of your post is not particularly valid. The BBC has special guidelines imposed upon it by its special position. Hell, there are amazing amounts of speech on the BBC that are simply illegal in the US on comparable TV stations, just not slipped in to motoring TV shows in order to simply cause offence.
And by "PC" you mean "not being a racist/sexist muppet". Those are values certain societies strive to achieve, which is definitely admirable in itself.
There you go again confusing your hubris with knowledge. You have a lot to learn about mental illness.
The only thing you proved with that facetious nonsense is showing you have no understanding of mental illness, but think you do, and to the degree required to condemn people you know nothing about. Well done.
You seem staggeringly quick to judge, and seem to completely forget the fact that people who kill themselves frequently are not thinking particularly rationally. "Condemnation"? Fuck you! You don't know that's the case for each and every person, yet you went ahead and called for their condemnation regardless.
Keep your pop psychology - it's doing a great job of showing you really don't know what you're talking about, yet seem to possess the arrogance to assume you must.
Well, the BBC was paying for the show to be filmed and paying the salaries of everyone there, and it was being filmed in front of a public audience. Whether it made it to the broadcast means little.
He also made other racist comments specifically in order to be aired.