I should add that with multiple TBs of personal data you can't pick something that is 100% fail safe, cheap, and effortless. You can only pick 2 of those. 40 Blu-ray disks equates to a 2 TB external HD. The odds are one of those Blu-rays will fail. I work off the principle that as soon as one of my externals start to cause problems I go out and buy a new one and remove the old one out of service - its not worth the trouble. Last time that happened was about 2 years ago.
My personal and family data (not including ripped DVDs etc) are about 1 TB. Mostly photographs and video with my DSLR so the files tend to get large...but I also have a ton of documents, app installs, and all sorts of misc data. I must admit I'd be curious as to what fills multiple external HDs for personal data but to each their own.
Good organization outweighs medium in my case. 2xExternal 2 TB HDs - primary and secondary...and then a third stored off site at my parents that I update about 3 times a year, so if the worst happens I'm 6 mons out of date, but its usually about 4. And thats if both my primary and secondary go down. Thats a cost of about $300 total and a little a bit of effort.
"A little bit of effort" is defined by how you organize. Backing up manually means I don't rely on software or a service, but it requires some forethought. For me I break it up by data type and usually year...sometimes I go one more by how that data was acquired (photos I add who took the picture). This is important because I put anything new into a diff folder so I know whats new and whats not. It took me a couple of years to get to the structure I have but I sometimes add small tweaks. The effort or time now is fairly miniscule.
What I'm trying to get at is this : if you're prepared to put a small amount of time in every now and again, with an initial overhead, you can do this very easily and cheaply.
You don't need proof. He can report the vulnerability and the onus is on Facebook to test and fix - its not on him to prove by stealing sensitive source code....and then "ask" for a reward.
You can blame the GOP for Obama making [mostly election] promises that he could not possibly keep. Of course the GOP have a goal for him to lose re-election...in precisely the same way the Dems want that with a Repub running for re-election - its because there's serious policy differences.
Actually it is absolutely true that its ONLY a spending problem. Saying otherwise is like saying we have to "pay for tax cuts". Absurdity in the extreme.
Every strata of income, be it the poor to middle class to high earners to large Government revenue, overspends...we shouldn't have a [rising] spending budget and work out how to raise the revenue to match it, but instead see what our income is and work out what we can spend from what we get.
What do you think happens to those that live their lives by saying "this is what I want to spend", now I have to work out how to get a job and get credit cards to pay for it? How well does that work out? Contrast that with those that say "this is my income, what can I afford?".
But thats the problem...I'm sorry, but the Palestinians *aren't* within their rights to not let him go to Israel - they're paying for him to come over and give a talk, which I'm sure he'll do to their satisfaction, so obviously they're ok with the terms. They don't 'own' him. All I see is spite coming from the Palestinian side - no amount of giving them a chance is going to remove that. My sentiments would be exactly the same if a company paid for someone to go to a conference half way around the world and then refused them a couple of days vacation to see the sights.
No, a life sentence is being sentenced to prison until you die [or, oddly, for some long finite period of time]. If you happen to die whilst in prison its not a life sentence.
Then it should be easy for you to cite some references - I'm asking this in all seriousness because, whilst a significant budgetary item, it appears to be decreasing over the years.
I don't think the assumption is that they'll get rid of all porn - but they'll get the bulk of it. Its like locking your door / windows - it doesn't stop a thief entering your home, but it reduces the risk.
He has total control, and is exerting it. He's spreading different leaks at different times, and using some of it as an insurance policy for leverage so he can continue. If he was just the messenger he'd dump the lot all in one go; but he's not, he's trying to influence an outcome.
Exposing corruption & fraud - sure, I get that, for both governments and business. But to expose private comments, details irrelevant to "freedom of information", details on security matters is flat out wrong - its pretty much established he has an agenda. Who made him King of everything to decide what to publish? Just because he can doesn't mean he should.
And the ever present demand of lower consumer prices is whats ultimately pushing that. For the overwhelming majority of people, cost of goods, is the determining factor of what, and how much, they buy. No one is blameless in our society - corporations are driven by what the consumer demands, and what they demand is the lowest cost without thinking what that means in terms of quality. For the oil companies, that means he who can deliver gas at the cheapest price [as an example] wins.
NASA incompetence? Nothing in engineering is truly bug-free. Unfortunately with NASA the consequences can be dire; doesn't make them incompetent. And your analysis is off the mark - you need to understand that what we got from the money spent on the shuttle [since Challenger] was 20+ years of grunt work. Are your preposing that NASA should've stopped at the Challenger disaster and wait 20 years until SpaceX has the technology to start doing things 'better' ? Getting something done, as the parent says at 95% well, is better than not at all and waiting for the perfect vehicle.
What a load of tosh. American and European economies and business practices ethics] are pretty much the same. You quote the US unemployment rate but not the EU - why? Is it because they're just about the same and that collapses your arguement? Just in the same way that companies use recessions to shed jobs, individuals use boom times to insist on signing bonuses and benefits up the wazoo. Quit ya whining.
Well that WHO report is from Y2000 - a little out of date don't you think? You would do well to read this - it clearly is a case of statistics gone awry. I would even go as far to say that ranking countries in healthcare is pointless at best, deceptive at worst. Its as flawed as the order of 100 Best Songs of All Time on MTV.
Now, a real world test : I've had children in both the UK and the USA. There are some differences, but in an interesting way each system reflects the mindset of each culture. For instance in the UK the resources were more frugal - I didn't even know what an epidural was until I came to the US - my wife was only offered gas and air in the UK. The US had doctors and midwives on standby and the facilities were much better. However in the UK my wife had someone come visit her 2 or 3 times a week for a while whereas in the US she had to go for checkups.
Its horses for courses and some arbitrary ranking system concocted by health administrators / politicians looking at tables of spreadsheets is meaningless.
British too (and Dr Who is great) - I don't think American acting is better or worse; its just that theres more American "stuff" to pick bad examples from and highlight. Now if you want to see bad acting you should see TV from Latin America. So that begs the question : why is it so popular? I think its more about the culture that surrounds it. One talks with family / friends / work colleagues / radio / internet forums about these shows and it makes you feel part of something. The bad acting or the cardboard sets then become irrelevant.
So unless one agrees with your POV they're horribly biased? Everyone is biased in one form or another - the question is not whether they have bias but did they use that bias to unfairly alter the outcome ?
This is not stealing. This is wanting something bad enough that you're willing to pay interest on a loan to get it. This is a basic economic premise regardless of whether one is poor or rich. And btw you haven't answered how the rich person became rich in the first place?
Is it in poor taste when that happens? Sure. BUT you're picking a news worthy item about some CEO lying, wealth grabbing, bastards and forgetting this is perhaps 1%, if that, of CEOs out there. You're condemning CEOs and Execs out there with a very few rotten apples. Most *don't* have golden parachutes. Most *don't* have massive bonuses. Basically if you don't want to be laid off then sink your life savings into an company, become a CEO, pour every last minute of your life into it, and then never fire anybody you hire. That was the point of my post. People are hired and fired irrespective of the salaries / bonuses of the higher ups. Now, when government money is involved, then sure, thats a different matter of course.
You're using an extreme or non existant example to try and defunct the parents point. If a typical entry level worker is on say $20K, 100K x that would be $2 Billion a year. At best x1 K as you approach a tiny fraction of high profile companies. A much bigger fraction are on x50 of an entry level job. Most CEOs, by no short margin, would agree with you. The CEOs that are typically making the big bucks (at least in the tech sector) are the ones that started the company and took the risk.
Would you care to list all the "ubiquitous companies" you've created where you've given the average Joe a great wage and yourself, as an exec, very little? Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
I should add that with multiple TBs of personal data you can't pick something that is 100% fail safe, cheap, and effortless. You can only pick 2 of those. 40 Blu-ray disks equates to a 2 TB external HD. The odds are one of those Blu-rays will fail. I work off the principle that as soon as one of my externals start to cause problems I go out and buy a new one and remove the old one out of service - its not worth the trouble. Last time that happened was about 2 years ago.
My personal and family data (not including ripped DVDs etc) are about 1 TB. Mostly photographs and video with my DSLR so the files tend to get large...but I also have a ton of documents, app installs, and all sorts of misc data. I must admit I'd be curious as to what fills multiple external HDs for personal data but to each their own.
Good organization outweighs medium in my case. 2xExternal 2 TB HDs - primary and secondary...and then a third stored off site at my parents that I update about 3 times a year, so if the worst happens I'm 6 mons out of date, but its usually about 4. And thats if both my primary and secondary go down. Thats a cost of about $300 total and a little a bit of effort.
"A little bit of effort" is defined by how you organize. Backing up manually means I don't rely on software or a service, but it requires some forethought. For me I break it up by data type and usually year...sometimes I go one more by how that data was acquired (photos I add who took the picture). This is important because I put anything new into a diff folder so I know whats new and whats not. It took me a couple of years to get to the structure I have but I sometimes add small tweaks. The effort or time now is fairly miniscule.
What I'm trying to get at is this : if you're prepared to put a small amount of time in every now and again, with an initial overhead, you can do this very easily and cheaply.
You don't need proof. He can report the vulnerability and the onus is on Facebook to test and fix - its not on him to prove by stealing sensitive source code....and then "ask" for a reward.
You only get to call bullshit if you *know* differently. Otherwise its complete made up conjecture.
* can't blame
You can blame the GOP for Obama making [mostly election] promises that he could not possibly keep. Of course the GOP have a goal for him to lose re-election...in precisely the same way the Dems want that with a Repub running for re-election - its because there's serious policy differences.
Actually it is absolutely true that its ONLY a spending problem. Saying otherwise is like saying we have to "pay for tax cuts". Absurdity in the extreme. Every strata of income, be it the poor to middle class to high earners to large Government revenue, overspends...we shouldn't have a [rising] spending budget and work out how to raise the revenue to match it, but instead see what our income is and work out what we can spend from what we get. What do you think happens to those that live their lives by saying "this is what I want to spend", now I have to work out how to get a job and get credit cards to pay for it? How well does that work out? Contrast that with those that say "this is my income, what can I afford?".
But thats the problem...I'm sorry, but the Palestinians *aren't* within their rights to not let him go to Israel - they're paying for him to come over and give a talk, which I'm sure he'll do to their satisfaction, so obviously they're ok with the terms. They don't 'own' him. All I see is spite coming from the Palestinian side - no amount of giving them a chance is going to remove that. My sentiments would be exactly the same if a company paid for someone to go to a conference half way around the world and then refused them a couple of days vacation to see the sights.
If they were able to do that then they probably wouldn't be in the larger mess they are in now.
No, a life sentence is being sentenced to prison until you die [or, oddly, for some long finite period of time]. If you happen to die whilst in prison its not a life sentence.
It seems you do approve of vigilante justice - the determining factor is whether you agree with the cause or not.
Then it should be easy for you to cite some references - I'm asking this in all seriousness because, whilst a significant budgetary item, it appears to be decreasing over the years.
I don't think the assumption is that they'll get rid of all porn - but they'll get the bulk of it. Its like locking your door / windows - it doesn't stop a thief entering your home, but it reduces the risk.
He has total control, and is exerting it. He's spreading different leaks at different times, and using some of it as an insurance policy for leverage so he can continue. If he was just the messenger he'd dump the lot all in one go; but he's not, he's trying to influence an outcome. Exposing corruption & fraud - sure, I get that, for both governments and business. But to expose private comments, details irrelevant to "freedom of information", details on security matters is flat out wrong - its pretty much established he has an agenda. Who made him King of everything to decide what to publish? Just because he can doesn't mean he should.
And the ever present demand of lower consumer prices is whats ultimately pushing that. For the overwhelming majority of people, cost of goods, is the determining factor of what, and how much, they buy. No one is blameless in our society - corporations are driven by what the consumer demands, and what they demand is the lowest cost without thinking what that means in terms of quality. For the oil companies, that means he who can deliver gas at the cheapest price [as an example] wins.
NASA incompetence? Nothing in engineering is truly bug-free. Unfortunately with NASA the consequences can be dire; doesn't make them incompetent. And your analysis is off the mark - you need to understand that what we got from the money spent on the shuttle [since Challenger] was 20+ years of grunt work. Are your preposing that NASA should've stopped at the Challenger disaster and wait 20 years until SpaceX has the technology to start doing things 'better' ? Getting something done, as the parent says at 95% well, is better than not at all and waiting for the perfect vehicle.
But the difference is that in the US you can think that and say so; in China you can't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/14/paul-hipp/rocker-viral-video-mocks-us-37th-best-health-care-/
Now, a real world test : I've had children in both the UK and the USA. There are some differences, but in an interesting way each system reflects the mindset of each culture. For instance in the UK the resources were more frugal - I didn't even know what an epidural was until I came to the US - my wife was only offered gas and air in the UK. The US had doctors and midwives on standby and the facilities were much better. However in the UK my wife had someone come visit her 2 or 3 times a week for a while whereas in the US she had to go for checkups.
Its horses for courses and some arbitrary ranking system concocted by health administrators / politicians looking at tables of spreadsheets is meaningless.
British too (and Dr Who is great) - I don't think American acting is better or worse; its just that theres more American "stuff" to pick bad examples from and highlight. Now if you want to see bad acting you should see TV from Latin America. So that begs the question : why is it so popular? I think its more about the culture that surrounds it. One talks with family / friends / work colleagues / radio / internet forums about these shows and it makes you feel part of something. The bad acting or the cardboard sets then become irrelevant.
So unless one agrees with your POV they're horribly biased? Everyone is biased in one form or another - the question is not whether they have bias but did they use that bias to unfairly alter the outcome ?
This is not stealing. This is wanting something bad enough that you're willing to pay interest on a loan to get it. This is a basic economic premise regardless of whether one is poor or rich. And btw you haven't answered how the rich person became rich in the first place?
Is it in poor taste when that happens? Sure. BUT you're picking a news worthy item about some CEO lying, wealth grabbing, bastards and forgetting this is perhaps 1%, if that, of CEOs out there. You're condemning CEOs and Execs out there with a very few rotten apples. Most *don't* have golden parachutes. Most *don't* have massive bonuses. Basically if you don't want to be laid off then sink your life savings into an company, become a CEO, pour every last minute of your life into it, and then never fire anybody you hire. That was the point of my post. People are hired and fired irrespective of the salaries / bonuses of the higher ups. Now, when government money is involved, then sure, thats a different matter of course.
You're using an extreme or non existant example to try and defunct the parents point. If a typical entry level worker is on say $20K, 100K x that would be $2 Billion a year. At best x1 K as you approach a tiny fraction of high profile companies. A much bigger fraction are on x50 of an entry level job. Most CEOs, by no short margin, would agree with you. The CEOs that are typically making the big bucks (at least in the tech sector) are the ones that started the company and took the risk.
Would you care to list all the "ubiquitous companies" you've created where you've given the average Joe a great wage and yourself, as an exec, very little? Thanks.