But up in Canada you already pay for the privilege of pirating content. What exactly do you think that surcharge on blank media is for? Seems to me that if you're being charged for the privilege of pirating it that you should be entitled to do so.
That's not true. A lot of those channels pay the cable company to be provided. A lot of the home shopping channels in particular pay to be offered, even though most people don't want them. Likewise there's a lot of garbage channels that cable subscribers get charged for even though they don't want them and don't watch them because the cable company requires them to be included.
But it's more expensive than Netflix with advertising and a smaller catalog. Which is the problem. They're not competing with cable, they're competing with Netflix, and if this is the best they can do they aren't going to win.
$120 a year for the privilege of watching ads during the viewing is insulting. Perhaps if they made it pay as you watch up to $10 a month it would feel so bad, but a flat $10 a month is just way too much for what they're offering. Personally I won't be paying, I don't mind watching a few commercials, but expecting me to pay for that kind of limited selection and watch ads is just a tad bit insulting.
The parent poster is correct about that. While that's not the total cost, you still need somebody with qualifications to interpret it, $400 is affordable in at least the first and second world countries and developing countries could still benefit from donated equipment.
I've actually had good luck with that myself. Not with water, but with locating coins and such. It varies from person to person to the extent that it works, but for those with the aptitude it's more than a little freaky. As far as I can tell it seems to be similar in nature to an actual metal detector.
I've personally had that trouble in recent memory running Ubuntu, I think it was 9.04 where I lost the entire partition several times. Actually once per boot. Wasn't an issue as I didn't have anything beyond the default install on there, but I did learn a valuable lesson about not doing such things.
I forget what specific filesystem I was using at the time, I suspect it was whatever the default was. The point though is that anytime you get a crash while the filesystem is mounted you run the risk of corruption taking the partition down. Newer filesystems like ZFS seem to have more or less eliminated the problem, I personally would not assume it to be the case whenever possible.
Indubitably, while software RAID doesn't solve the problem of fat fingers, it does at least ensure that you can boot up a live cd and get your data, or disconnect the drives and reinstall the OS.
But really you have to properly label all the disks, preferably both in the on disk label and physically on the hard disk. That's kind of a pain, but it greatly reduces the likelihood of pulling the wrong disk.
Personally, I've never had problems with software RAID which weren't completely my fault. A good solution like zmirror or RAIDZ is nice as you can access it via several different OSes assuming that you're using a common denominator revision.
I hate to break it to you, but as chrome adds those features it's going to slow down and get sluggish. Firefox has for some time beat Chrome on memory use. But, OTOH it's somewhat mooted by the fact that Chrome tends to spy and seems to thwart disabling intrusive ads.
That's a toughy. But, really it isn't. You're better off with a single drive and proper backups. Sure you should do backups either way, but RAID tends not to be as reliable as folks suggest. If you're going to do it, at least go software RAID so that you don't have to worry about having a back up controller and worrying if that works. On top of that you've got to worry about user errors where you accidentally type things in wrong and end up nuking a good disk trying to replace a bad one.
That's true, however, what I'd recommend is partitioning them into smaller segments anyways. Main reason being that you really don't want a filesystem problem to take 3 tebibytes worth of data with it. The alternative though is to go with something like ZFS or probably any of the other copy on write filesystems out there they shouldn't be as sensitive as things like NTFS and the various FAT iterations.
Yeah, that's pretty fucked up. Something on the internet being used as evidence without really bothering to consider that a significant amount of the internet is completely made up. As for that second quote, that strikes me as a common attitude amongst even individuals without any anger problems. Getting in somebody's face is a very aggressive act and anybody doing so shouldn't be shocked if they get beaten up. Which is why getting in somebody's face is a frequent escalation towards throwing hands.
That's not really an appropriate counterpoint. Marriage is about being with one person romantically to the exclusion of all others. If you don't like that then you shouldn't be married. Or I suppose move to a part of the world where polygamy is legal. If you think it's expensive to get a divorce without cheating, you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that cheating makes the whole process even uglier than before.
And yes, people that cheat are always in the wrong here. I don't think that there's a way in which making this sort of massive life long commitment then sneaking around behind the spouses back is not wrong. And people do frequently get caught doing it, and it does tend to lead to costly divorces.
Withholding sex for pretty much any reason other than lack of interest or medical reasons is abuse. Which is one of the reasons why one should divorce a spouse that's using that as a tool to get what he/she wants.
Aye 'tis true, FB just amplified the assholish dickishness of people. Well, that and the unsubstantiated belief that people actually care about such stupid trivialities. Then Twitter came in and went even further with people tweeting about their bowel movements.
What are you on about? I take it you don't understand what a standard is. A standard is called a standard presumably because it's standard. Meaning that all the browsers that claim to support it should function largely identically. It's not about allowing people to vote on it. Otherwise it would only go to FB and lolcats.
If you're even saying that, it's pretty clear you haven't ever tried to write a website that works beyond just one browser, good luck doing that without either major hackery or disabling nearly all the cool features that would be available.
That's been established for a really long time. Winding up in texts from the Bhagavad Gita to The Art Of War. And frequently gets parodied in western pop culture. It's somewhat tied into the great strength of chimps. Chimps don't have really have any more muscle than a similarly sized person, but so much of our muscles are used to control precise movements that we lose out a lot on strength. Similarly by clearing the mind of doubt we can cease fighting with ourselves and become far more powerful and coordinated than we normally would.
The reason why is simply that being careful tends to cause for weak performance as a result of the excess thinking it requires. Which is why everybody from martial artists of old to marines will train and train and train until they can do without thinking.
The fact that Youtube will almost certainly be migrating from Flash to VP8 as well as any other sites that Google will control is probably a pretty substantial advantage.
Only because those platforms have paid for a license. If you're using software on a different platform, then you're not covered by it. Moreover there's no guarantee that they'll keep up the present terms and price structure. Arguing that it's free really beggars the concept of free as it isn't free in any way shape or form. The end users ultimately have paid for it at several levels, probably several times on hardware and additionally on any software that's meant to deal with it as well.
Those laws exist as a way of guaranteeing that some hick sheriff in a backwater precinct can't look the other way. It allows for the FBI to investigate when the local law enforcement refuses to. It's definitely not bigoted. They are really the only rational response to the all to common bigotry that infects this nation. The laws can and do protect everybody. While it isn't common for people of the majority to get beaten or threatened for being so, the hate crimes legislation does give them protections as well, when they might go into a minority community.
But, at the end of the day, I don't expect you to buy into that, given the lack of thought that went into your post. David Duke has been advocating that line of reasoning for sometime as an excuse to not have to do the right thing.
So, you're going to send death threats to the President? Mailings about prime real estate properties in Florida? Assert that there's a brothel being operated out of a local garage? Free speech has never been completely free, nor should it be. There's speech which furthers public discourse and there's speech which hinders it. The first amendment is there to ensure that speech is free unless it's demonstrated to fall into the latter category.
The problem is that we've gone too far in being accommodating of hate speech. And I say that as a legitimate civil libertarian. If you've read the kind of vile, hateful, bigoted things that I've seen attached to mainstream blogs you'd see the problem. The first amendment is there to ensure that there's public discourse and an airing of issues which the government might find to be inconvenient. It's never been a completely unrestricted right, you've never had the right to libel or slander people, nor have you had the right to commit fraud. Hate speech is similar in the fact that it's not something that advances any meaningful purpose.
A lot of it is just made up like like those bigoted Barrack Husein Obama posters. And the folks that claim that giving equal rights to the GLBT community is somehow undermining their rights. These are not people engaging in legitimate free speech, nor is there a good faith effort on their part to do so. The harm to society is great when trying to push a constitutional ban on same sex marriage is viewed as more important to the country than dealing with two wars of questionable intent and an ever rising national debt.
Slashdot Mirror
But up in Canada you already pay for the privilege of pirating content. What exactly do you think that surcharge on blank media is for? Seems to me that if you're being charged for the privilege of pirating it that you should be entitled to do so.
That's not true. A lot of those channels pay the cable company to be provided. A lot of the home shopping channels in particular pay to be offered, even though most people don't want them. Likewise there's a lot of garbage channels that cable subscribers get charged for even though they don't want them and don't watch them because the cable company requires them to be included.
But it's more expensive than Netflix with advertising and a smaller catalog. Which is the problem. They're not competing with cable, they're competing with Netflix, and if this is the best they can do they aren't going to win.
$120 a year for the privilege of watching ads during the viewing is insulting. Perhaps if they made it pay as you watch up to $10 a month it would feel so bad, but a flat $10 a month is just way too much for what they're offering. Personally I won't be paying, I don't mind watching a few commercials, but expecting me to pay for that kind of limited selection and watch ads is just a tad bit insulting.
I think he might just be from someplace like Europe or Canada which pays for the cost of health care. In America, you'd be correct though.
The parent poster is correct about that. While that's not the total cost, you still need somebody with qualifications to interpret it, $400 is affordable in at least the first and second world countries and developing countries could still benefit from donated equipment.
I've actually had good luck with that myself. Not with water, but with locating coins and such. It varies from person to person to the extent that it works, but for those with the aptitude it's more than a little freaky. As far as I can tell it seems to be similar in nature to an actual metal detector.
I've personally had that trouble in recent memory running Ubuntu, I think it was 9.04 where I lost the entire partition several times. Actually once per boot. Wasn't an issue as I didn't have anything beyond the default install on there, but I did learn a valuable lesson about not doing such things.
I forget what specific filesystem I was using at the time, I suspect it was whatever the default was. The point though is that anytime you get a crash while the filesystem is mounted you run the risk of corruption taking the partition down. Newer filesystems like ZFS seem to have more or less eliminated the problem, I personally would not assume it to be the case whenever possible.
Indubitably, while software RAID doesn't solve the problem of fat fingers, it does at least ensure that you can boot up a live cd and get your data, or disconnect the drives and reinstall the OS.
But really you have to properly label all the disks, preferably both in the on disk label and physically on the hard disk. That's kind of a pain, but it greatly reduces the likelihood of pulling the wrong disk.
Personally, I've never had problems with software RAID which weren't completely my fault. A good solution like zmirror or RAIDZ is nice as you can access it via several different OSes assuming that you're using a common denominator revision.
I hate to break it to you, but as chrome adds those features it's going to slow down and get sluggish. Firefox has for some time beat Chrome on memory use. But, OTOH it's somewhat mooted by the fact that Chrome tends to spy and seems to thwart disabling intrusive ads.
That's a toughy. But, really it isn't. You're better off with a single drive and proper backups. Sure you should do backups either way, but RAID tends not to be as reliable as folks suggest. If you're going to do it, at least go software RAID so that you don't have to worry about having a back up controller and worrying if that works. On top of that you've got to worry about user errors where you accidentally type things in wrong and end up nuking a good disk trying to replace a bad one.
That's true, however, what I'd recommend is partitioning them into smaller segments anyways. Main reason being that you really don't want a filesystem problem to take 3 tebibytes worth of data with it. The alternative though is to go with something like ZFS or probably any of the other copy on write filesystems out there they shouldn't be as sensitive as things like NTFS and the various FAT iterations.
Yeah, that's pretty fucked up. Something on the internet being used as evidence without really bothering to consider that a significant amount of the internet is completely made up. As for that second quote, that strikes me as a common attitude amongst even individuals without any anger problems. Getting in somebody's face is a very aggressive act and anybody doing so shouldn't be shocked if they get beaten up. Which is why getting in somebody's face is a frequent escalation towards throwing hands.
That's not really an appropriate counterpoint. Marriage is about being with one person romantically to the exclusion of all others. If you don't like that then you shouldn't be married. Or I suppose move to a part of the world where polygamy is legal. If you think it's expensive to get a divorce without cheating, you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that cheating makes the whole process even uglier than before.
And yes, people that cheat are always in the wrong here. I don't think that there's a way in which making this sort of massive life long commitment then sneaking around behind the spouses back is not wrong. And people do frequently get caught doing it, and it does tend to lead to costly divorces.
Withholding sex for pretty much any reason other than lack of interest or medical reasons is abuse. Which is one of the reasons why one should divorce a spouse that's using that as a tool to get what he/she wants.
Aye 'tis true, FB just amplified the assholish dickishness of people. Well, that and the unsubstantiated belief that people actually care about such stupid trivialities. Then Twitter came in and went even further with people tweeting about their bowel movements.
Well, then how about pie? Everybody likes pie.
Zimbra is probably pretty close, it's the interface that my other webmail provider uses.
What are you on about? I take it you don't understand what a standard is. A standard is called a standard presumably because it's standard. Meaning that all the browsers that claim to support it should function largely identically. It's not about allowing people to vote on it. Otherwise it would only go to FB and lolcats.
If you're even saying that, it's pretty clear you haven't ever tried to write a website that works beyond just one browser, good luck doing that without either major hackery or disabling nearly all the cool features that would be available.
That's been established for a really long time. Winding up in texts from the Bhagavad Gita to The Art Of War. And frequently gets parodied in western pop culture. It's somewhat tied into the great strength of chimps. Chimps don't have really have any more muscle than a similarly sized person, but so much of our muscles are used to control precise movements that we lose out a lot on strength. Similarly by clearing the mind of doubt we can cease fighting with ourselves and become far more powerful and coordinated than we normally would.
The reason why is simply that being careful tends to cause for weak performance as a result of the excess thinking it requires. Which is why everybody from martial artists of old to marines will train and train and train until they can do without thinking.
That text is most wise, much of it though is common sense to those with a knowledge of combat. Personally, I prefer Zapp Brannigan's Big Book of War.
The fact that Youtube will almost certainly be migrating from Flash to VP8 as well as any other sites that Google will control is probably a pretty substantial advantage.
Only because those platforms have paid for a license. If you're using software on a different platform, then you're not covered by it. Moreover there's no guarantee that they'll keep up the present terms and price structure. Arguing that it's free really beggars the concept of free as it isn't free in any way shape or form. The end users ultimately have paid for it at several levels, probably several times on hardware and additionally on any software that's meant to deal with it as well.
Those laws exist as a way of guaranteeing that some hick sheriff in a backwater precinct can't look the other way. It allows for the FBI to investigate when the local law enforcement refuses to. It's definitely not bigoted. They are really the only rational response to the all to common bigotry that infects this nation. The laws can and do protect everybody. While it isn't common for people of the majority to get beaten or threatened for being so, the hate crimes legislation does give them protections as well, when they might go into a minority community.
But, at the end of the day, I don't expect you to buy into that, given the lack of thought that went into your post. David Duke has been advocating that line of reasoning for sometime as an excuse to not have to do the right thing.
So, you're going to send death threats to the President? Mailings about prime real estate properties in Florida? Assert that there's a brothel being operated out of a local garage? Free speech has never been completely free, nor should it be. There's speech which furthers public discourse and there's speech which hinders it. The first amendment is there to ensure that speech is free unless it's demonstrated to fall into the latter category.
The problem is that we've gone too far in being accommodating of hate speech. And I say that as a legitimate civil libertarian. If you've read the kind of vile, hateful, bigoted things that I've seen attached to mainstream blogs you'd see the problem. The first amendment is there to ensure that there's public discourse and an airing of issues which the government might find to be inconvenient. It's never been a completely unrestricted right, you've never had the right to libel or slander people, nor have you had the right to commit fraud. Hate speech is similar in the fact that it's not something that advances any meaningful purpose.
A lot of it is just made up like like those bigoted Barrack Husein Obama posters. And the folks that claim that giving equal rights to the GLBT community is somehow undermining their rights. These are not people engaging in legitimate free speech, nor is there a good faith effort on their part to do so. The harm to society is great when trying to push a constitutional ban on same sex marriage is viewed as more important to the country than dealing with two wars of questionable intent and an ever rising national debt.