As is what I'm doing - I'm not backing up to external media, I'm not backing up to a different server, I'm backing up to a harddrive sitting right below the one I'm backing up from. Though I suppose it also covers 'oh shit I shouldn't have deleted those' scenarios, which RAID wouldn't. But anything more serious than that or hard drive failure and I'm screwed.
Um, they said RAID5 is dead. What about, say, RAID 1? That's still good for backing up. Or do as I do and have your OS run a nightly backup on to a different hard drive. I have 2 500GB drives. One I use, and one is so that Mandriva can record the changes every night.
Uh, politicians _do_ vote for us. This isn't a democracy, it's a republic. Sure, most states require them to vote the same way we do, not always, and there have been cases where they haven't.
And based on my experiences I'd put Maxtor at the top (Well, the old Quantum at the top, but since I don't believe they make consumer drives anymore...), followed by Seagate, with WD in dead last. Of all the hard drives I've owned, the only ones that have failed were WDs. Two of 'em. Neither lasted more than a year.
My girlfriend's macbook lasted a couple months! Started spewing kernel panics and trashed the hard drive. Her computers never last that long though. She buys a new mac about every 6 months. Not because they break, just because she's so goddamned obsessed with apple that she has to buy every single one of their products.
And yea, my dell will probably only last 3 years. But it was $600. When it gets too old, I'll buy a new one. When it costs half as much as the Macbook, it can last half as long. But seriously, the Macbook won't last 6 years. I mean, it may survive that long...but if we go for that, I've seen several IBM laptops still running Windows 3.1. The Macbook will still be obsolete in 3 years.
And if you install Linux your PC will far outperform the Mac. Seriously, we put Linux on my girlfriend's Macbook, it's amazing how much faster it runs. She's got XP on there too, and yea, from what I've seen, that one isn't much better than OSX. Maybe a bit, but it was a brand new install.
Add to that email not working properly - if you have a large image in the message it makes the window all small with no scroll bar. Quite annoying having to open a new tab and load up gmail's main page manually a couple times a day because I can't hit to open the messages in a tab anymore and when I click them to open they don't show anything more than the header. And even when they do work it still takes more mouse clicks to open a message and then go back than it used to.
Personally, I think a more impressive feat would be a flying submersible carrier that launches submersible aircraft. Imagine the terror when that beast looms overhead. Plus, while 60% of the earth's surface may be underwater, 100% of it is under air.
Basically, yes. Now, you can argue if consensual sex is granting it permission, but the point is, if you don't choose it to be there, why should you have to endanger your own health to allow something else to survive?
What would you say about abortion in cases of rape and such? In that case, the baby isn't really there as a result of your actions either. I suppose you're still the one choosing to kill it, but...well, we'll use the homeless guy analogy again - it's like if you come home one day to see a homeless guy has moved in. If you kick him out, he may die. But you never gave him permission to be there in the first place.
If it's illegal to stop abortion, why stop at that? I mean, all you're _really_ saying by making abortion is that, if someone or something is dependent on you to survive, you must ensure that it does. So that homeless guy out on the street? Yea. You have to give him your money. Because you know, otherwise he might die, and that's murder. And hell, if someone throws a grenade, you're legally required to jump on top of it if there are other people around, right?
They didn't make a law, their servers are melting. There's a difference. I mean, I think it's horrible too, but that's like complaining that you can't send them a fax because their phone lines are down. You can still petition them all you want, you just can't do it by email. When they start saying 'our mailbox is full, we can't take your letters' or 'DC is too crowded, you can't come here', then there's a problem.
So do licenses. Guess we should complain about Ubuntu for using GPLed software too, huh?
It doesn't matter what agreements the software has. What matters is what those agreements say. I could write an EULA that simply says 'By clicking agree you agree that you can do whatever you want with this program.' By your definition, that would still be evil.
If I don't buy from newegg, I'm buying from whoever has the cheapest price listed on pricegrabber.com. I've bought from some pretty shady looking sites before and never had any problem. Of course, bad sites would probably get pulled from pricegrabber pretty quickly. The only hard part about it would be trying to figure out which sites you can get everything from. But I mean, I've never seen anything take less than 3 days or more than 5 to ship, so I don't think you really have to worry about the return policy expiring if you're ordering them all at once. Unless of course something gets back-ordered. But in that case most companies will just send everything else anyways, so that doesn't make much of a difference.
The problem isn't legal, it's financial. If they piss off the credit card companies, the credit card companies stop sponsoring the show. And they lose money. There's nothing we can do, short of perhaps a massive donation, that can fix that. Yes, it's perfectly legal for them to air the show. And it's perfectly legal for Visa, Mastercard, etc to stop running commercials on Discovery.
You seem to be saying that unions in general are bad. And I can tell you that that is completely untrue. My mom was the founder of the union at our local hospital many years ago, and I can tell you things have improved greatly since then. She used to fear getting fired simply for talking about unionization - so much for free speech. Their pay has increased significantly, working conditions have improved...oh, they don't have to worry about doctors swearing at them and insulting them as much...I mean, it happens, but now they can stand up to them without worrying about losing their job. Oh, and now they get great benefits. Medical, dental, vision, etc.
Now, to the issue of unionizing IT...I'm not sure. But there are plenty of unskilled jobs that have unions. Miners here in PA have been unionized since the days when they were mining with pick and shovel. How is that a skilled job? They could have easily just gone and hired someone else, and in many cases they did. But the mining unions still got established and greatly improved the working conditions. As for outsourcing the jobs - well, server support could be outsourced by moving the data centers overseas, but that's where you need skilled IT personnel, so that's a bit more difficult to do. And desktop support isn't going anywhere unless they decide to move all their workers as well. Perhaps some parts of the job could be outsourced, but you still need people to be with the machines.
Ah, but wouldn't it be more likely that the gag orders would be on the non-terrorism investigations - I mean, after all, you wouldn't want anyone to know you're investigating your political opponents, would you? But if you're investigating a real terrorist - well, who cares who knows about that. I mean, you're doing what you're supposed to be doing. And just because it doesn't have a gag order doesn't mean people will talk about it - if the ISP can tell that it's for a legit terrorism suspect, they're probably not gonna say anything that could harm the investigation.
So I think it's more like they investigated 6,000 terrorists and 194,000 political opponents.
Why? There's nothing in the constitution that says we should have a two party system. We're supposed to vote for whoever we think is best, not whoever we think has the best chance of winning. Yes, they may not run things exactly the same, but if you really don't think either will do a good job, you should vote third party. Otherwise, what's to stop the two major parties from merging (hell, if you ask some people, they already have in secret) and turning our government to tyranny?
I doubt you'll have any problems with that. I mean, even if netflix streams DVD quality (which I doubt), that'd be 50 movies a month. And youtube videos are so small that they'll probably not even matter.
You've got some nice service though. We pay $47/month for 4.6mb down and.3mb up. And that's the price of just the internet in an internet/TV bundle.
Where do you live??? Where I'm at you can get cable from Comcast or, if you're lucky and in the right part of town, you can also get DSL from Verizon (I'm not.) - Comcast has plans going up to 16mb up (not sure on down, at least 1 mbit), while Verizon offers at best 3mb down (no up listed). Or I guess you can maybe get satellite and have horrible latency and some really small bandwidth cap. Oh, and it's slow. I don't know the specifics, their site doesn't seem to list many, but I know a few people who actually switched back to dial-up after trying that.
I'm not sure if they did anything wrong or not -- I don't know the laws on anti competitive behavior that well. I was simply saying that the parent's argument that they basically shouldn't be punished because they make a good product is stupid.
So? Just because they created a superior product means they should be allowed to continue? By that logic Wal*Mart should be able to hire illegal immigrants at below minimum wage, because it allows them to offer lower prices. Just because you can do something better doesn't mean you can just ignore the law. It's not a question of how good their product is, it's not a question of if they're a monopoly or not, it's a question of if they violated federal law with monopolistic behavior. And that's for the court to decide.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that's the Futurama way...
Yes, season 5 episode 57, "Crimes of the Hot"
As is what I'm doing - I'm not backing up to external media, I'm not backing up to a different server, I'm backing up to a harddrive sitting right below the one I'm backing up from. Though I suppose it also covers 'oh shit I shouldn't have deleted those' scenarios, which RAID wouldn't. But anything more serious than that or hard drive failure and I'm screwed.
Um, they said RAID5 is dead. What about, say, RAID 1? That's still good for backing up. Or do as I do and have your OS run a nightly backup on to a different hard drive. I have 2 500GB drives. One I use, and one is so that Mandriva can record the changes every night.
Uh, politicians _do_ vote for us. This isn't a democracy, it's a republic. Sure, most states require them to vote the same way we do, not always, and there have been cases where they haven't.
And based on my experiences I'd put Maxtor at the top (Well, the old Quantum at the top, but since I don't believe they make consumer drives anymore...), followed by Seagate, with WD in dead last. Of all the hard drives I've owned, the only ones that have failed were WDs. Two of 'em. Neither lasted more than a year.
My girlfriend's macbook lasted a couple months! Started spewing kernel panics and trashed the hard drive. Her computers never last that long though. She buys a new mac about every 6 months. Not because they break, just because she's so goddamned obsessed with apple that she has to buy every single one of their products.
And yea, my dell will probably only last 3 years. But it was $600. When it gets too old, I'll buy a new one. When it costs half as much as the Macbook, it can last half as long. But seriously, the Macbook won't last 6 years. I mean, it may survive that long...but if we go for that, I've seen several IBM laptops still running Windows 3.1. The Macbook will still be obsolete in 3 years.
And if you install Linux your PC will far outperform the Mac. Seriously, we put Linux on my girlfriend's Macbook, it's amazing how much faster it runs. She's got XP on there too, and yea, from what I've seen, that one isn't much better than OSX. Maybe a bit, but it was a brand new install.
Add to that email not working properly - if you have a large image in the message it makes the window all small with no scroll bar. Quite annoying having to open a new tab and load up gmail's main page manually a couple times a day because I can't hit to open the messages in a tab anymore and when I click them to open they don't show anything more than the header. And even when they do work it still takes more mouse clicks to open a message and then go back than it used to.
Personally, I think a more impressive feat would be a flying submersible carrier that launches submersible aircraft. Imagine the terror when that beast looms overhead. Plus, while 60% of the earth's surface may be underwater, 100% of it is under air.
Basically, yes. Now, you can argue if consensual sex is granting it permission, but the point is, if you don't choose it to be there, why should you have to endanger your own health to allow something else to survive?
What would you say about abortion in cases of rape and such? In that case, the baby isn't really there as a result of your actions either. I suppose you're still the one choosing to kill it, but...well, we'll use the homeless guy analogy again - it's like if you come home one day to see a homeless guy has moved in. If you kick him out, he may die. But you never gave him permission to be there in the first place.
The bible isn't law. Charity is great, but it shouldn't be a legal requirement. Then it's just tax.
If it's illegal to stop abortion, why stop at that? I mean, all you're _really_ saying by making abortion is that, if someone or something is dependent on you to survive, you must ensure that it does. So that homeless guy out on the street? Yea. You have to give him your money. Because you know, otherwise he might die, and that's murder. And hell, if someone throws a grenade, you're legally required to jump on top of it if there are other people around, right?
They didn't make a law, their servers are melting. There's a difference. I mean, I think it's horrible too, but that's like complaining that you can't send them a fax because their phone lines are down. You can still petition them all you want, you just can't do it by email. When they start saying 'our mailbox is full, we can't take your letters' or 'DC is too crowded, you can't come here', then there's a problem.
So do licenses. Guess we should complain about Ubuntu for using GPLed software too, huh?
It doesn't matter what agreements the software has. What matters is what those agreements say. I could write an EULA that simply says 'By clicking agree you agree that you can do whatever you want with this program.' By your definition, that would still be evil.
Uh, e-mail _is_ private. Need a warrant to search it.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/06/appeals_court_s.html
If I don't buy from newegg, I'm buying from whoever has the cheapest price listed on pricegrabber.com. I've bought from some pretty shady looking sites before and never had any problem. Of course, bad sites would probably get pulled from pricegrabber pretty quickly. The only hard part about it would be trying to figure out which sites you can get everything from. But I mean, I've never seen anything take less than 3 days or more than 5 to ship, so I don't think you really have to worry about the return policy expiring if you're ordering them all at once. Unless of course something gets back-ordered. But in that case most companies will just send everything else anyways, so that doesn't make much of a difference.
The problem isn't legal, it's financial. If they piss off the credit card companies, the credit card companies stop sponsoring the show. And they lose money. There's nothing we can do, short of perhaps a massive donation, that can fix that. Yes, it's perfectly legal for them to air the show. And it's perfectly legal for Visa, Mastercard, etc to stop running commercials on Discovery.
You seem to be saying that unions in general are bad. And I can tell you that that is completely untrue. My mom was the founder of the union at our local hospital many years ago, and I can tell you things have improved greatly since then. She used to fear getting fired simply for talking about unionization - so much for free speech. Their pay has increased significantly, working conditions have improved...oh, they don't have to worry about doctors swearing at them and insulting them as much...I mean, it happens, but now they can stand up to them without worrying about losing their job. Oh, and now they get great benefits. Medical, dental, vision, etc.
Now, to the issue of unionizing IT...I'm not sure. But there are plenty of unskilled jobs that have unions. Miners here in PA have been unionized since the days when they were mining with pick and shovel. How is that a skilled job? They could have easily just gone and hired someone else, and in many cases they did. But the mining unions still got established and greatly improved the working conditions. As for outsourcing the jobs - well, server support could be outsourced by moving the data centers overseas, but that's where you need skilled IT personnel, so that's a bit more difficult to do. And desktop support isn't going anywhere unless they decide to move all their workers as well. Perhaps some parts of the job could be outsourced, but you still need people to be with the machines.
Ah, but wouldn't it be more likely that the gag orders would be on the non-terrorism investigations - I mean, after all, you wouldn't want anyone to know you're investigating your political opponents, would you? But if you're investigating a real terrorist - well, who cares who knows about that. I mean, you're doing what you're supposed to be doing. And just because it doesn't have a gag order doesn't mean people will talk about it - if the ISP can tell that it's for a legit terrorism suspect, they're probably not gonna say anything that could harm the investigation.
So I think it's more like they investigated 6,000 terrorists and 194,000 political opponents.
Why? There's nothing in the constitution that says we should have a two party system. We're supposed to vote for whoever we think is best, not whoever we think has the best chance of winning. Yes, they may not run things exactly the same, but if you really don't think either will do a good job, you should vote third party. Otherwise, what's to stop the two major parties from merging (hell, if you ask some people, they already have in secret) and turning our government to tyranny?
I doubt you'll have any problems with that. I mean, even if netflix streams DVD quality (which I doubt), that'd be 50 movies a month. And youtube videos are so small that they'll probably not even matter.
You've got some nice service though. We pay $47/month for 4.6mb down and .3mb up. And that's the price of just the internet in an internet/TV bundle.
Where do you live??? Where I'm at you can get cable from Comcast or, if you're lucky and in the right part of town, you can also get DSL from Verizon (I'm not.) - Comcast has plans going up to 16mb up (not sure on down, at least 1 mbit), while Verizon offers at best 3mb down (no up listed). Or I guess you can maybe get satellite and have horrible latency and some really small bandwidth cap. Oh, and it's slow. I don't know the specifics, their site doesn't seem to list many, but I know a few people who actually switched back to dial-up after trying that.
I'm not sure if they did anything wrong or not -- I don't know the laws on anti competitive behavior that well. I was simply saying that the parent's argument that they basically shouldn't be punished because they make a good product is stupid.
So? Just because they created a superior product means they should be allowed to continue? By that logic Wal*Mart should be able to hire illegal immigrants at below minimum wage, because it allows them to offer lower prices. Just because you can do something better doesn't mean you can just ignore the law. It's not a question of how good their product is, it's not a question of if they're a monopoly or not, it's a question of if they violated federal law with monopolistic behavior. And that's for the court to decide.