I store all mine on a dedicated home NAS. Raid 5+1, over 4 2tb drives. That way I have drive failure redundancy. Anything truly important I store backups on an additional external drive that can be grabbed quickly in an emergency.
One of my old companies had an actual name for those of us in that DevOps role. It was called the swat team. We were the ones called in when it absolutely had to be done yesterday. Did it suck? Sometimes, but when we said something needed done, management actually would listen instead of blowing it off.
I believe that they are wrapped in DRM that is tied specifically to the serial of the xbox that downloads it. So even if you download a game to the HD, and take that drive to another machine, the game does not work. This has been a real problem with bricked 360's because you have to contact CS to have them set up so you can download them on the new machine.
Huh, I wonder what the deal is. Could it be player specific? I've watched about 5 movies on Blu-Ray and not a single one of them had non-interrupting menus.
As someone who owns a player for both formats I would have to say that I prefer HD-DVD. So far, it appears to be the more innovative of the two technologies when it comes down to actual delivered content (non-interrupting main menus, bookmarking, video timelines). Every Blu-Ray disc I've watched so far (which granted, haven't been that many) appear to offer no more benefit than a standard DVD does when it comes to innovative content.
Sure, I know that Blu-Ray can physically hold more data, but most people in the general public aren't going to care about that. I think Sony could have done so much more with the standard, but have honestly fallen short of my expectations. I would have hoped that both "next-gen" formats would have delivered that "wow this is cool" feeling. HD-DVD does it somewhat, but Blu-Ray seems to think that HD content is enough.
What do other dual format owners think? Is there some cool Blu-Ray specific feature that I've not seen yet?
What is the facination with the Wii? Why is it doing so well? Price has something to do with it obviously, but after playing the Wii several times, I can't say I was that impressed with it. The lineup is fairly light, and it isn't long before the remote loses it's cool factor and frankly, in some games, can be down right annoying.
I found the whole experience fairly boring after just a couple of hours of total use. Yet, I know people who are obsessed with the thing.
So what am I missing about the Wii phenom? Is it primarily because it is easy for little kids to pickup? Or is it some party aspect that I've not had the priviledge of partaking in that has this console being some must have device?
Of course, I've not been terribly impressed with Nintendo consoles for years. I owned a 64 and think it was the biggest waste of money I've ever had. I currently own a DS almost strictly for FF and Puzzle Quest, and if I could get them in a different medium, I probably would (Puzzle Quest on a small screen is its own little version of torture, but the game is too damn fun not to play).
(For perspective I own a DS and a 360 currently for "consoles").
yeah.... Sometimes I'm scared to live here too knowing that crazies like Michael Moore are roaming around.:)
Re:I know.... let's treat the symptoms and not the
on
Vertical Farming
·
· Score: 1
Excluding infant mortality numbers when commenting on my argument is fairly naive. Large birth rates throughout nature are meant to offset infant mortality. That's nature, plain and simple.
Just because humans only tend to have multiple births in 2-3% of all births does not mean that you should proclude infant mortality numbers when talking about population growth. Most animals do not have a reproductive capacity of 20 years (approx) like humans do. So the need for multiple births to continue the species is nominal, because a person could theoretically have 20-25 children if necessary.
Re:I know.... let's treat the symptoms and not the
on
Vertical Farming
·
· Score: 1
maybe you should recheck your numbers...
US life expectancy for all races/both sexes 1930 59.7 years. 2004 77.9. Similar increases probably occur in most industrialized nations.
I know.... let's treat the symptoms and not the...
on
Vertical Farming
·
· Score: 1
problem.
Not trying to troll or anything but I feel this needs to be said..... [rant] Ok, again I have to point out the painfully obvious point that seems to be alluding those who propose this solution to world hunger. The human animal has a particular reproduction cycle because life expectancy is not supposed to be anywhere near the level it is now. Since we as a race have artificially extended our life expectancy but have done nothing to limit reproduction, we are sealing our own fates when it comes to overpopulation and mass starvation. These greenhouses are treating the symptom, but are doing nothing to fix the problem. [/rant]
Not only are these vertical greenhouses not practical but if they could create the amounts of food that are being touted (sic?) on their website you could have major social and environmental disasters occur if even 1 of these where to say burn down or otherwise be destroyed. You're talking the equivalent of destroying 6 to 7x the amount of agricultural production of a typical terra based farm in one shot. Forget terrorism as we know it... do you not think that if your enemy could wipe out 20-30% of a nations food source with minimal effort, that wouldn't become the most enticing target of opportunity known to man????
Since the cost of these buildings would be extremely high for maintainence and construction, who would they really help? Most nations where starvation will come the quickest will not be in the 1st or 2nd world countries that could afford this food magic wand, but in areas where there are already food shortages currently. Also, if you were to start building these in those areas they would become focal points for all of the negative elements in the region to rally to. Whoever controls the food, controls the country. Imagine some 3rd world dictator who so graciously excepts this gift of a tower of endless food supply. You've now handed this person the ultimate weapon to use against his own people.
If global warming is due to increased CO2 production from man, then would it not also be true that a smaller population base would have a smaller impact?
That would suggest that our current rate of mortality (in adults and children), being vastly reduced by modern medical practices, are sideline contributors to the problem at large.
Imagine, what would world population numbers be like without man's own interference? 1 maybe 2 billion people? How much pollution is created to sustain the infrastructures for supporting 4-5 billion additional people?
Modern medicines impact can easily be seen when viewing graphs of world population numbers. Take away 4 billion people, their fossil fuel consumptions, the deforestation and watershed damage incurred to support them, and we could be talking about a whole different ballgame altogether.
Now am I saying that I don't like modern medicine? Heck no. But that doesn't remove it from being partially responsible.
I don't know about you, but the only word I saw as opinion. He has every right to express his opinion about Gnome. No where (at least on the web version of the article) does it even imply that this article is a product review.
Slashdot Mirror
I store all mine on a dedicated home NAS. Raid 5+1, over 4 2tb drives. That way I have drive failure redundancy. Anything truly important I store backups on an additional external drive that can be grabbed quickly in an emergency.
One of my old companies had an actual name for those of us in that DevOps role. It was called the swat team. We were the ones called in when it absolutely had to be done yesterday. Did it suck? Sometimes, but when we said something needed done, management actually would listen instead of blowing it off.
Damn Hippies!
Star Raiders, still one of my all time favorite games from that era. Good call!
I believe that they are wrapped in DRM that is tied specifically to the serial of the xbox that downloads it. So even if you download a game to the HD, and take that drive to another machine, the game does not work. This has been a real problem with bricked 360's because you have to contact CS to have them set up so you can download them on the new machine.
:)
Or so I have read.
EvilViper is right. I don't know where you got your info, but I run 1080i through component on my HD-DVD and 1080p through HDMI on my blu-ray.
Huh, I wonder what the deal is. Could it be player specific? I've watched about 5 movies on Blu-Ray and not a single one of them had non-interrupting menus.
Sure, I know that Blu-Ray can physically hold more data, but most people in the general public aren't going to care about that. I think Sony could have done so much more with the standard, but have honestly fallen short of my expectations. I would have hoped that both "next-gen" formats would have delivered that "wow this is cool" feeling. HD-DVD does it somewhat, but Blu-Ray seems to think that HD content is enough.
What do other dual format owners think? Is there some cool Blu-Ray specific feature that I've not seen yet?
What is the facination with the Wii? Why is it doing so well? Price has something to do with it obviously, but after playing the Wii several times, I can't say I was that impressed with it. The lineup is fairly light, and it isn't long before the remote loses it's cool factor and frankly, in some games, can be down right annoying.
I found the whole experience fairly boring after just a couple of hours of total use. Yet, I know people who are obsessed with the thing.
So what am I missing about the Wii phenom? Is it primarily because it is easy for little kids to pickup? Or is it some party aspect that I've not had the priviledge of partaking in that has this console being some must have device?
Of course, I've not been terribly impressed with Nintendo consoles for years. I owned a 64 and think it was the biggest waste of money I've ever had. I currently own a DS almost strictly for FF and Puzzle Quest, and if I could get them in a different medium, I probably would (Puzzle Quest on a small screen is its own little version of torture, but the game is too damn fun not to play).
(For perspective I own a DS and a 360 currently for "consoles").
yeah.... Sometimes I'm scared to live here too knowing that crazies like Michael Moore are roaming around. :)
Excluding infant mortality numbers when commenting on my argument is fairly naive. Large birth rates throughout nature are meant to offset infant mortality. That's nature, plain and simple. Just because humans only tend to have multiple births in 2-3% of all births does not mean that you should proclude infant mortality numbers when talking about population growth. Most animals do not have a reproductive capacity of 20 years (approx) like humans do. So the need for multiple births to continue the species is nominal, because a person could theoretically have 20-25 children if necessary.
maybe you should recheck your numbers... US life expectancy for all races/both sexes 1930 59.7 years. 2004 77.9. Similar increases probably occur in most industrialized nations.
problem.
Not trying to troll or anything but I feel this needs to be said.....
[rant]
Ok, again I have to point out the painfully obvious point that seems to be alluding those who propose this solution to world hunger. The human animal has a particular reproduction cycle because life expectancy is not supposed to be anywhere near the level it is now. Since we as a race have artificially extended our life expectancy but have done nothing to limit reproduction, we are sealing our own fates when it comes to overpopulation and mass starvation. These greenhouses are treating the symptom, but are doing nothing to fix the problem.
[/rant]
Not only are these vertical greenhouses not practical but if they could create the amounts of food that are being touted (sic?) on their website you could have major social and environmental disasters occur if even 1 of these where to say burn down or otherwise be destroyed. You're talking the equivalent of destroying 6 to 7x the amount of agricultural production of a typical terra based farm in one shot. Forget terrorism as we know it... do you not think that if your enemy could wipe out 20-30% of a nations food source with minimal effort, that wouldn't become the most enticing target of opportunity known to man????
Since the cost of these buildings would be extremely high for maintainence and construction, who would they really help? Most nations where starvation will come the quickest will not be in the 1st or 2nd world countries that could afford this food magic wand, but in areas where there are already food shortages currently. Also, if you were to start building these in those areas they would become focal points for all of the negative elements in the region to rally to. Whoever controls the food, controls the country. Imagine some 3rd world dictator who so graciously excepts this gift of a tower of endless food supply. You've now handed this person the ultimate weapon to use against his own people.
If global warming is due to increased CO2 production from man, then would it not also be true that a smaller population base would have a smaller impact?
r apolated_world_population_history.png
That would suggest that our current rate of mortality (in adults and children), being vastly reduced by modern medical practices, are sideline contributors to the problem at large.
Imagine, what would world population numbers be like without man's own interference? 1 maybe 2 billion people? How much pollution is created to sustain the infrastructures for supporting 4-5 billion additional people?
Modern medicines impact can easily be seen when viewing graphs of world population numbers. Take away 4 billion people, their fossil fuel consumptions, the deforestation and watershed damage incurred to support them, and we could be talking about a whole different ballgame altogether.
Now am I saying that I don't like modern medicine? Heck no. But that doesn't remove it from being partially responsible.
Graph of global population estimates : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/Ext
Invention of Penicillin : 1928, widespread use 1943. Compare that to the graph.... interesting?
I don't know about you, but the only word I saw as opinion. He has every right to express his opinion about Gnome. No where (at least on the web version of the article) does it even imply that this article is a product review.