I use about 1 TB of storage, for all my ripped DVDs, pictures, music, documents, etc. Currently my file server has 2 TB storage (two 2 TB drives that are mirrored), plus I have various other backups on USB drives, other computers, etc.
Anyway, with a 60 TB drive available, I'd run a replicated file system. Something like Hadoop but with multiple copies of everything on the same disk. Basically some modern FS that just kept multiple copies of stuff.
The reason it's beyond you is that you really don't understand what is going on.
And you in turn have failed to dig deeper into this.
Sure, bin Laden was an extremist, but the reason he has an audience at all in the Middle East, is that generally the US Policy towards regular people has been "fuck all of you, we need oil, therefore we're going to support viciously repressive regimes for market access". Like Saudi Arabia, Iran (shah days), etc. That generally doesn't win hearts and minds, especially when coupled with an immediate followup into "democracy, rights, voting, freedom, blah blah". Noble causes of course, but the typical family in substantial chunks of the world sees the US blathering about concepts that are immediately thrown under the bus with it comes time to acquire resources.
Sorry, but the reality is that it is the right-wingers that are impossible to have a discussion with. For example, you're to chicken to even post with a real account.
It's the Republicans that have become increasingly impossible to compromise with, especially over the last 20 years. Even when you have a deal, they'll attempt to reneg (e.g. debt sequestration and cuts to the DoD).
Medicare goes broke in 2024. Obama doesn't have a plan to fix it, but he has called other plans to fix it "UnAmerican," "radical," and a "trojan horse."
Medicare is paid for out of a specific tax which is limited to the first 90K or whatever of income. This fiscal problem is easily fixed via minor increases on people who earn MORE than 90K.
Which is more crazy? Trying to prevent fiscal crises before they happen? Or calling anyone who offers a solution "UnAmerican?
So where the fuck where you when Reagan tripled the debt? And Bush Jr. doubled it? And Cheney said that "deficits didn't matter"? When we went to war on extremely dubious (i.e. damn near faked evidence) and didn't bother to pay for it? When the Republican rammed Medicare Schedule D through (i.e. massive giveaway to corporations)? When regulations that kept the country from banking crises since the Depression were done away with, leading to S&L problems under Reagan to the Wall Street implosion in 2008? Was your head fully shoved up your ass the entire time?
Or we can wait until we become Greece. Which won't take very long, actually.
We could also try to get some politicians that vaguely give a crap about solving the actual problems facing the country, rather than obsessing over bullshit like like if the President is American, or abortion restrictions, or various other manufactured crap.
Times were tough, but somehow Google prospered, Apple prospered, etc. Read the article, it points out the under his leadership, Microsoft has avoided all current growth markets. Yes they are still profitable, but a decade of no visible vision of the future isn't a good sign. They've been basically chasing other companies this whole time.
This is one of those free-market conflict moments... what do you do when the MARKET (you know, what some people blindly worship, what some describe as the solution to just about every problem) itself decides it wants a "closed proprietary environment"? By definition, is the MARKET ever wrong about goods freely chosen in a competitive environment without criminal coercive tactics (e.g. what Microsoft did)?? Is Apple to be punished for delivering hundreds of millions of products over 10+ years?
You can't have it both ways - exalting the free market, and then getting pissed when it doesn't choose they way YOU expected.
If you have a problem with the way things are headed, you have to OUT COMPETE, not insult the customer base by calling them clueless.
Checks and balances, watching the watchers, that sort of thing.
The very fact this sort of thing is even public information or acknowledged indicates the check and balances system is working, at some level. You think the Russian or Chinese militaries have to deal with these sorts of questions?
I think what we need to a harsh and sure-to-be criticized analysis of what majors or field of study are defaulting the most.
I'm in favor of education in general, but the reality is some fields come with a lower expectation of salary (for various reasons, some which are unfair but that's the way it is - changing that would require corporations to change their mindset on hiring policy) so the loans should reflect that, in maximum amount borrowed and interest rate.
Let's say field of study A, which may be a noble field of academic pursuit, generally results in a low career salary, versus field of study B, one of several fields that are more employable. Somebody majoring in A would be able to borrow less money at a higher rate than somebody in B. That would reflect their earning potential (max amount) and risk of default (interest rate). Universities in turn would have to quit squeezing every drop out of students, overcharging for fields less in-demand, compete on price, charge less for classes/majors that aren't as employable, etc.
But then the issue becomes, how can the gov't best encourage higher education? Without loans a lot of students couldn't go at all. Blaming the gov't for being the entire cause of this isn't fair - colleges share some responsibility by being greedy and raising tuition as much as they can get away with. That's what happens when the corporation profit mentality invades everything. Rather than figuring out what's best overall for the country, or what's best for their customers, the system is turning to eat itself on how to extract maximum profit.
Oil companies are profitable enough without also leeching billions of subsidies they don't really need. Now apparently profit isn't enough of a motive, they need to be bribed to hire people too? WTF?
I see you, an Anonymous Coward, have bought into the Republican/Conservative lie - that rich people provide jobs - hook line and sinker.
Unless you are literally the pool boy for some multimillionaire, you job *most likely* comes from MIDDLE CLASS consumer demand to make stuff that you want to buy.
Rich people DO NOT go around investing their money into small businesses to help the common folk. That's total BS. Rich people are more likely to park their money out of the country or in hedge funds. Similarly, corporations DO NOT invest money into jobs for the hell of it. They ONLY respond to consumer demand.
Right now, corporation profits are the highest ever in recorded history. Job growth... still slow, because of lack of demand. Supply side economics is again shown to be a failure, with actual real evidence from reality, not the imagination of some free market theorizing zealot.
Your false d dichotomy about the economy also glosses over that rich people and corporations ARE the leeches.
I await the day when some unknown 5-star general suddenly realises that Powerpoint is a waste of resources, though I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.
Especially when there aren't any 5-star generals currently, and I hope there won't be more since that level of promotion would require a significant war.;) But about your point, some commanders have restricted use of PowerPoint, finding their staff fiddling with the visuals more than the actual data.
Maybe I'd be more inclined to believe you if you could point to applications you've written and published, as final works are much better proof of expertise. I'm just reminded of an applicant we had, who said he knew android programming, gave a link to his app, and when we looked at it, we expected more from how he'd talked it up in his resume.
And in turn, speaking with all the authority of the might Anonymous Coward, perhaps you could roll out your own credentials in this area?
I'm not sure security agencies model this problem well: a lot of their certification and/or protection methods come down to high costs (armed guards, lots of physical security, etc.) or long, slow, thorough auditing plus heavy screening of personnel, etc - the stuff the rabid anti-government folks scream about when the spending isn't directed at their favorite projects.
Meanwhile, private corporations merely treat customers as a cost-analysis problem, weighing their life versus lawsuit payout amounts, and take a failure rate deemed OK by bean counters.
The first method will be safer but pricey; the second other will be cheaper but risky. People hate that but the free market fails to deliver "safe and cheap".
Their charter is for DoD computer systems, not medical devices. Another agency would be better... and of course they can always be asked to check out a medical device that will be provided to a head-of-state. Surely various regulations already cover other medical devices - what agency accredits those?
If, instead, parents were given freedom of choice in schools and teachers, the good ones would be oversubscribed, the poor ones undersubscribed and laid off / fired, and quality would improve dramatically and quickly.
So basically, teaching expertise would flow to the richer areas that can afford them, and poorer (money-wise) districts lose out, and deal with sub-standard education (or none at all)? That's how you run a 21st century super power?
I mean, free markets work great for pricing onions and cars and consumer electronics, but implied in all of those markets is the fact that some people can't afford to buy the goods and thus go without. When it comes to education (and healthcare for that matter), we can't just say "too bad you can't afford service"; they aren't a good match for free market "solutions".
The Democrats go. We want to Keep Businesses out of Government, as businesses with their big money will corrupt government.
You claim that when the Democrats have:
1) Had the government purchase a whole car company. 2) Wrote a health care law to funnel money from consumers to the insurance industry. 3) Given hundreds of millions in loans to green companies who donated sufficiently to the Democrats. 4) Basically dictated to banks they WERE going to take a huge sum of bail-out money, like it or not.
Never before have LARGE business and government been so twisted together, and that happened on the Democrats watch, mostly while it had total control.
1. That bailout was a loan that has been paid back. 2. The biggest health care giveaway in the history of the country was the Medicare prescription drugs law, and that happened under the Republicans. 3. Oh I gotcha... Halliburton and other "no bid" contracts are NEVER issued to companies formerly run by Republicans. And you can spin this several ways, how about this one: Obama invested in the the future of the country; Halliburton contracts were flat out corruption. 4. Also happened under Bush.
If you are going to pass yourself off as the "voice of reason" amidst various issues, it would help if you had a fucking clue and an actual semblance of neutral comparisons.
I get what you're saying about the legalities, but this really isn't a copyright issue, is it? This kid isn't attempting to publish the books or claim authorship, he's reselling. If he worked at Goldman Sachs and were buying pork bellies or oil in one market and reselling in another, that would be called "arbitrage". Of course, Goldman Sachs is wealthy enough to afford lawyers to tell others to f*ck off, or pay for favorable legal rulings (or laws themselves, or even politicians).
Sorry, but fundamentally Megacorp(s) don't get to have all the advantages and benefits of free trade (outsourcing production to where their costs are low), and none of the disadvantages and drawbacks. At least, not in a fair world and not in a "free market". I remember a "free market" existing when producers and consumers get choices, not when the producer gets the government to clamp down on imports so the local market is captive, all the while outsourcing production and booking profits through offshore shell corporations.
The real civilisation cannot be bought with taxes.
The real civilisation is created in the free market with people making everyday voluntary decisions on what to buy, making everyday voluntary decisions on what to work on, what to produce, how much to save, where to invest, etc.
So where does public infrastructure fit into this scheme, especially the funding of it? How are the following funded: roads, sanitation systems, legal and judicial system, police, etc? Is that funding to be entirely voluntary as well?
The article implies (yes I know, that would require actually reading it and not having knee jerk reactions like the dumb ass AC's above) not posting the nutrition content has more to do with the fact a movie theater and/or airplane aren't regular eating establishments, like say an actual restaurant. (article: "the administration has not made a final decision about what food establishments will be covered.")
Fix the families. Restore family values. Education and all other aspects of life will follow.
So basically, the fix for the education system in the U.S. is... entirely outside the reach of teacher's and the education system itself: families and family values?
GGP asserts the "liberterian" solution is blahblahblah, a list that reads:
1) Unmentioned regulations/laws that prevent a company from owning stuff in more than one MSA. 2) Limited gov't permission to operate. Forced non-discrimination (a good thing). But, those are more regulations. 3) Ah yes, regulations.
The reason this will never happen isn't because it isn't corrupt or some other crap like that. It's because corporations are greedy and want to guarantee their profits. They want subsidies and protected turf to milk their customers as risk free as possible.
About iPods: the first generation wasn't a raving success. Only when it added USB compatibility in 2003 (3rd gen) it was successful, so the comment is spot on. Take a look at sales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ipod_sales_per_quarter.svg
So how many products are instant successes right from the start? And USB compatibility? How about iPods started taking off when they added support for Windows in late 2003 (the reality is that move greatly expanded the market for those devices), and over time the combo of the easy to use iPod plus the iTunes store with lots of content available started snowballing.
A little over 12 years ago, just before Windows 2000 became available, Microsoft had a few OSes out: Win CE (gotta put that space in because it wasn't "WinCE" as in "the grimace you get just using it"), Win ME, and Windows NT.
I saw a professionally made poster combing those names: CE, ME, NT... it read something like "Microsoft introduces Windows CEMENT... hard as a rock, dumb as a brick". It was hilarious and well done.
Anyway, seeing your combo slogan reminded of that older bit of humor.
Slashdot Mirror
I use about 1 TB of storage, for all my ripped DVDs, pictures, music, documents, etc. Currently my file server has 2 TB storage (two 2 TB drives that are mirrored), plus I have various other backups on USB drives, other computers, etc.
Anyway, with a 60 TB drive available, I'd run a replicated file system. Something like Hadoop but with multiple copies of everything on the same disk. Basically some modern FS that just kept multiple copies of stuff.
The reason it's beyond you is that you really don't understand what is going on.
And you in turn have failed to dig deeper into this.
Sure, bin Laden was an extremist, but the reason he has an audience at all in the Middle East, is that generally the US Policy towards regular people has been "fuck all of you, we need oil, therefore we're going to support viciously repressive regimes for market access". Like Saudi Arabia, Iran (shah days), etc. That generally doesn't win hearts and minds, especially when coupled with an immediate followup into "democracy, rights, voting, freedom, blah blah". Noble causes of course, but the typical family in substantial chunks of the world sees the US blathering about concepts that are immediately thrown under the bus with it comes time to acquire resources.
Sorry, but the reality is that it is the right-wingers that are impossible to have a discussion with. For example, you're to chicken to even post with a real account.
It's the Republicans that have become increasingly impossible to compromise with, especially over the last 20 years. Even when you have a deal, they'll attempt to reneg (e.g. debt sequestration and cuts to the DoD).
Read http://www.amazon.com/Even-Worse-Than-Looks-Constitutional/dp/0465031331
Hell, even moderate Republicans are getting squeezed out, e.g. Lugar.
Medicare goes broke in 2024. Obama doesn't have a plan to fix it, but he has called other plans to fix it "UnAmerican," "radical," and a "trojan horse."
Medicare is paid for out of a specific tax which is limited to the first 90K or whatever of income. This fiscal problem is easily fixed via minor increases on people who earn MORE than 90K.
Which is more crazy? Trying to prevent fiscal crises before they happen? Or calling anyone who offers a solution "UnAmerican?
So where the fuck where you when Reagan tripled the debt? And Bush Jr. doubled it? And Cheney said that "deficits didn't matter"? When we went to war on extremely dubious (i.e. damn near faked evidence) and didn't bother to pay for it? When the Republican rammed Medicare Schedule D through (i.e. massive giveaway to corporations)? When regulations that kept the country from banking crises since the Depression were done away with, leading to S&L problems under Reagan to the Wall Street implosion in 2008? Was your head fully shoved up your ass the entire time?
Or we can wait until we become Greece. Which won't take very long, actually.
We could also try to get some politicians that vaguely give a crap about solving the actual problems facing the country, rather than obsessing over bullshit like like if the President is American, or abortion restrictions, or various other manufactured crap.
Times were tough, but somehow Google prospered, Apple prospered, etc. Read the article, it points out the under his leadership, Microsoft has avoided all current growth markets. Yes they are still profitable, but a decade of no visible vision of the future isn't a good sign. They've been basically chasing other companies this whole time.
This is one of those free-market conflict moments... what do you do when the MARKET (you know, what some people blindly worship, what some describe as the solution to just about every problem) itself decides it wants a "closed proprietary environment"? By definition, is the MARKET ever wrong about goods freely chosen in a competitive environment without criminal coercive tactics (e.g. what Microsoft did)?? Is Apple to be punished for delivering hundreds of millions of products over 10+ years?
You can't have it both ways - exalting the free market, and then getting pissed when it doesn't choose they way YOU expected.
If you have a problem with the way things are headed, you have to OUT COMPETE, not insult the customer base by calling them clueless.
Checks and balances, watching the watchers, that sort of thing.
The very fact this sort of thing is even public information or acknowledged indicates the check and balances system is working, at some level.
You think the Russian or Chinese militaries have to deal with these sorts of questions?
I think what we need to a harsh and sure-to-be criticized analysis of what majors or field of study are defaulting the most.
I'm in favor of education in general, but the reality is some fields come with a lower expectation of salary (for various reasons, some which are unfair but that's the way it is - changing that would require corporations to change their mindset on hiring policy) so the loans should reflect that, in maximum amount borrowed and interest rate.
Let's say field of study A, which may be a noble field of academic pursuit, generally results in a low career salary, versus field of study B, one of several fields that are more employable. Somebody majoring in A would be able to borrow less money at a higher rate than somebody in B. That would reflect their earning potential (max amount) and risk of default (interest rate). Universities in turn would have to quit squeezing every drop out of students, overcharging for fields less in-demand, compete on price, charge less for classes/majors that aren't as employable, etc.
But then the issue becomes, how can the gov't best encourage higher education? Without loans a lot of students couldn't go at all.
Blaming the gov't for being the entire cause of this isn't fair - colleges share some responsibility by being greedy and raising tuition as much as they can get away with. That's what happens when the corporation profit mentality invades everything. Rather than figuring out what's best overall for the country, or what's best for their customers, the system is turning to eat itself on how to extract maximum profit.
Oil companies are profitable enough without also leeching billions of subsidies they don't really need.
Now apparently profit isn't enough of a motive, they need to be bribed to hire people too? WTF?
I see you, an Anonymous Coward, have bought into the Republican/Conservative lie - that rich people provide jobs - hook line and sinker.
Unless you are literally the pool boy for some multimillionaire, you job *most likely* comes from MIDDLE CLASS consumer demand to make stuff that you want to buy.
Rich people DO NOT go around investing their money into small businesses to help the common folk. That's total BS. Rich people are more likely to park their money out of the country or in hedge funds. Similarly, corporations DO NOT invest money into jobs for the hell of it. They ONLY respond to consumer demand.
Right now, corporation profits are the highest ever in recorded history. Job growth... still slow, because of lack of demand. Supply side economics is again shown to be a failure, with actual real evidence from reality, not the imagination of some free market theorizing zealot.
Your false d dichotomy about the economy also glosses over that rich people and corporations ARE the leeches.
I await the day when some unknown 5-star general suddenly realises that Powerpoint is a waste of resources, though I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.
Especially when there aren't any 5-star generals currently, and I hope there won't be more since that level of promotion would require a significant war. ;)
But about your point, some commanders have restricted use of PowerPoint, finding their staff fiddling with the visuals more than the actual data.
Maybe I'd be more inclined to believe you if you could point to applications you've written and published, as final works are much better proof of expertise. I'm just reminded of an applicant we had, who said he knew android programming, gave a link to his app, and when we looked at it, we expected more from how he'd talked it up in his resume.
And in turn, speaking with all the authority of the might Anonymous Coward, perhaps you could roll out your own credentials in this area?
I'm not sure security agencies model this problem well: a lot of their certification and/or protection methods come down to high costs (armed guards, lots of physical security, etc.) or long, slow, thorough auditing plus heavy screening of personnel, etc - the stuff the rabid anti-government folks scream about when the spending isn't directed at their favorite projects.
Meanwhile, private corporations merely treat customers as a cost-analysis problem, weighing their life versus lawsuit payout amounts, and take a failure rate deemed OK by bean counters.
The first method will be safer but pricey; the second other will be cheaper but risky. People hate that but the free market fails to deliver "safe and cheap".
Their charter is for DoD computer systems, not medical devices. Another agency would be better... and of course they can always be asked to check out a medical device that will be provided to a head-of-state. Surely various regulations already cover other medical devices - what agency accredits those?
If, instead, parents were given freedom of choice in schools and teachers, the good ones would be oversubscribed, the poor ones undersubscribed and laid off / fired, and quality would improve dramatically and quickly.
So basically, teaching expertise would flow to the richer areas that can afford them, and poorer (money-wise) districts lose out, and deal with sub-standard education (or none at all)? That's how you run a 21st century super power?
I mean, free markets work great for pricing onions and cars and consumer electronics, but implied in all of those markets is the fact that some people can't afford to buy the goods and thus go without. When it comes to education (and healthcare for that matter), we can't just say "too bad you can't afford service"; they aren't a good match for free market "solutions".
The Democrats go. We want to Keep Businesses out of Government, as businesses with their big money will corrupt government.
You claim that when the Democrats have:
1) Had the government purchase a whole car company.
2) Wrote a health care law to funnel money from consumers to the insurance industry.
3) Given hundreds of millions in loans to green companies who donated sufficiently to the Democrats.
4) Basically dictated to banks they WERE going to take a huge sum of bail-out money, like it or not.
Never before have LARGE business and government been so twisted together, and that happened on the Democrats watch, mostly while it had total control.
1. That bailout was a loan that has been paid back.
2. The biggest health care giveaway in the history of the country was the Medicare prescription drugs law, and that happened under the Republicans.
3. Oh I gotcha... Halliburton and other "no bid" contracts are NEVER issued to companies formerly run by Republicans. And you can spin this several ways, how about this one: Obama invested in the the future of the country; Halliburton contracts were flat out corruption.
4. Also happened under Bush.
If you are going to pass yourself off as the "voice of reason" amidst various issues, it would help if you had a fucking clue and an actual semblance of neutral comparisons.
I get what you're saying about the legalities, but this really isn't a copyright issue, is it? This kid isn't attempting to publish the books or claim authorship, he's reselling. If he worked at Goldman Sachs and were buying pork bellies or oil in one market and reselling in another, that would be called "arbitrage". Of course, Goldman Sachs is wealthy enough to afford lawyers to tell others to f*ck off, or pay for favorable legal rulings (or laws themselves, or even politicians).
Sorry, but fundamentally Megacorp(s) don't get to have all the advantages and benefits of free trade (outsourcing production to where their costs are low), and none of the disadvantages and drawbacks. At least, not in a fair world and not in a "free market". I remember a "free market" existing when producers and consumers get choices, not when the producer gets the government to clamp down on imports so the local market is captive, all the while outsourcing production and booking profits through offshore shell corporations.
The real civilisation cannot be bought with taxes.
The real civilisation is created in the free market with people making everyday voluntary decisions on what to buy, making everyday voluntary decisions on what to work on, what to produce, how much to save, where to invest, etc.
So where does public infrastructure fit into this scheme, especially the funding of it? How are the following funded: roads, sanitation systems, legal and judicial system, police, etc? Is that funding to be entirely voluntary as well?
The article implies (yes I know, that would require actually reading it and not having knee jerk reactions like the dumb ass AC's above) not posting the nutrition content has more to do with the fact a movie theater and/or airplane aren't regular eating establishments, like say an actual restaurant. (article: "the administration has not made a final decision about what food establishments will be covered.")
Fix the families. Restore family values. Education and all other aspects of life will follow.
So basically, the fix for the education system in the U.S. is... entirely outside the reach of teacher's and the education system itself: families and family values?
Where is the ridicule? I don't see it.
GGP asserts the "liberterian" solution is blahblahblah, a list that reads:
1) Unmentioned regulations/laws that prevent a company from owning stuff in more than one MSA.
2) Limited gov't permission to operate. Forced non-discrimination (a good thing). But, those are more regulations.
3) Ah yes, regulations.
The reason this will never happen isn't because it isn't corrupt or some other crap like that. It's because corporations are greedy and want to guarantee their profits. They want subsidies and protected turf to milk their customers as risk free as possible.
It's funny when groups like the ACLU claim to stand for the Bill of Rights and then conveniently ignore then ones they don't like.
It's also funny when die hard republican conservatives ignore various provisions of the Constitution when they don't find it convenient.
About iPods: the first generation wasn't a raving success. Only when it added USB compatibility in 2003 (3rd gen) it was successful, so the comment is spot on. Take a look at sales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ipod_sales_per_quarter.svg
So how many products are instant successes right from the start? And USB compatibility? How about iPods started taking off when they added support for Windows in late 2003 (the reality is that move greatly expanded the market for those devices), and over time the combo of the easy to use iPod plus the iTunes store with lots of content available started snowballing.
A little over 12 years ago, just before Windows 2000 became available, Microsoft had a few OSes out: Win CE (gotta put that space in because it wasn't "WinCE" as in "the grimace you get just using it"), Win ME, and Windows NT.
I saw a professionally made poster combing those names: CE, ME, NT... it read something like "Microsoft introduces Windows CEMENT... hard as a rock, dumb as a brick". It was hilarious and well done.
Anyway, seeing your combo slogan reminded of that older bit of humor.