One thing you should consider, though, is her supervisor will likely see how she's a team player . She may (and yes, reality doesn't always work this way I'll concede) end up getting a raise or avoiding a layoff.
But when I point out that the same happens with pedestrians and crosswalks, you claim that's not the same. I honestly don't see a massive difference between sidewalks and crosswalks to the idea of bike lanes.
You don't see how stopping traffic to let people through isn't a huge difference?
Why are you, as a car driver, so opposed to bikes on the road?
Because I don't want to hit one.
They don't reduce your safety.
Yes, they do.
...implying that there exists causeless actions gives in to helplessness that promotes unsafe behaviors...
Nobody said 'causeless'. I can't believe the ignorance you're displaying here! Are you over-zealously defending your point or are you really so inexperienced at life that you don't understand this topic? I really hope it's the former.
...if accidents are unavoidable, why try?
Because the number of accidents is an integer and not a boolean.
And yes, that defeatist attitude is real, and does reduce safety, that's why the NHTSA removed the word "accident" from the Fatal Accident Reporting System. http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/airbags/Archive-04/PresBelt/crash_accident.html (not a press release on FARS renaming, but an official article declaring "Crashes Aren't Accidents."
Oh that's classic, man. Hahaha. Do you see the world 'preventable' all over the article you sent me? Think about it.
Your point seems to be that bikes are at fault for being run over by a car...
No, I'm saying that mixing cars and bikes on the same road is dangerous.
So, by implication, you are asserting there is *no* reason for bike lanes.
What?
Given the fact that you didn't refute my statement in any way (other than the ignore and deflect tactic) indicates to me that you believe it to be true...
Of course it does. You wish it to be true, so you tried to find something that'd support that statement. I know a guy that believes aliens are skimming our planet and all of these reports of 'UFO activity" indicate to him that they're here. Same thing.
You *only* care about proving yourself right and not listening to anything that contradicts your pre-conceived opinion.
Projecting.
I think you have detoured into lying. If I had been supporting your agruemnts so well, why are you arguing so vehemently?
That's a funny way to ask "What do you mean?" Or were you trying to distract from just how stupid that statement really was? Clarify, please?
...despite the fact that they do not reduce the safety of people in cars at all.
Ahhhh now we've reduced the scope to just the people in the cars! That's sneaky, dude. (The statement's still untrue.) That's actually worse than claiming what I see on a daily basis doesn't actually happen then denying cyclists are 'stupid ping pongs', too. I think you're starting to see that I'm right.
If nobody broke any laws, how do you see the thousands of cars running over bikes to continue to happen? Cars just "accidentally" run them over while the bikes are in the bike lanes and the cars are in the car lanes? Come on, you asserted that it's dangerous even if nobody ever broke a law, so just give a few plausible examples of how a car will be running over a bike while both are following the law.
The answer is within your previous post. If that's not enough, then I'd like to know why life hasn't taught you this already. Have you not had a driver's license for very long? Are you still living with your parents and haven't been out in the real world for very long? Do you have a medical condition and all you know about life you get from reading the Internet? I just want to understand why you don't understand the phrase 'shit happens' before I spend any amount of time explaining to you what the word 'accident' means.
Notice, you are proving my point that you are dumber than a ping pong ball. Notice, you are proving my point that you are dumber than a ping pong ball. It was a general statement about traffic flow. Bikes on a road, acting as cars are "drivers" in that context.
" And it was a bike in a bike lane riding past stopped cars who were in the adjacent car lanes who were stopped because of traffic. The jealousy of car drivers is insane, I agree, but I've not seen any car driver that didn't exhibit that trait."
You didn't let me down. The best bit was when you accused me of lying! It really is hard to take your comments too seriously when you expressly live in denial of 'shit happens'.
Yes, it is. You've argued that bikes traveling as required by law, have only themselves to blame if they are hit by cars (if they weren't there, they wouldn't be hit).
That is a different statement from the one you used. That's also not a complete understanding of my point. If you could tell the difference between the two statements, you'd understand my view a lot better.
Absolutely true.
Wrong. A crosswalk is not a bike lane. A crosswalk, for example, stops traffic for the safety of pedestrians. The rest of the time, they walk on sidewalks. There's a reason for it!
You are so busy justifying your personal opinion that you haven't stopped to even consider anyone else might be right.
You are so busy justifying your personal opinion that you haven't stopped to even consider anyone else might be right.
You do realize that traffic engineers used to model traffic with ping pong balls, until they realized that people were stupider than ping pong balls, so they had to computer model based on the well proven and known ping pong ball models, then make the model "dumber" to accommodate actual drivers, who brake for no reason, change lanes in a manner that slows down everyone on the road and such?
It doesn't surprise me at all. Notice you're only (again) speaking of drivers?
If nobody broke any laws, then there'd be no crashes (bike/car or car/car),..
Wrong. WRONG. Wrong. Wrong.. Wrongity wrong from Wrongsville, Wrongsylvania. You do understand that collisions are called 'accidents', right? Seriously, this is bar-none one of the stupidest statements I've ever seen on this site and, amazingly, you disproved your own statement in the same post. Seriously dude, you are amazing me again.
You assert that car drivers have no responsibility to "respect"....
I have not, actually. What's funny is the actual point I have been making you have been supporting with your own arguments. Can't wait to read your next work of fan-fiction!
Ah yes, the "I've never see it, so it *never* happens argument. I can't change what you've seen, but I can correct your incorrect statements, as I have done. Believing the truth is still up to you.
Every day I drive by a flock of bikes not traveling at the same speed. Your statement doesn't apply to just me.
You are apparently arguing that roads with explicit pedestrian signals at *Every* light are designed for cars *only*. That is a logic fail I can not help you with.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying I'm saying.... actually shouldn't you just ask for clarifications my views before ranting about lack of logic? Seriously, half of what you said here is a response to some fictional story you wrote.
Your argument is that is the pedestrian's fault for walking so close to a busy street.
No, that is not an argument that I have made. I didn't say anything about pedestrians and my opinion on them wasn't asked. But since we're all being snippy here, I'll just use your debate style, here.
"Apparently you think sidewalks shouldn't exist at all and all roads should just be flat from one end to another. Pedestrians, instead of walking on a raised surface designed specifically to handle their traffic and to offer a level of safety, should just walk in their own lane as explicitly defined by a line painted on the road. They'll be perfectly safe so long as drivers are 100% safe when they drive."
Amazing. I am seriously amazed.
If you are in a situation where you would be 100% safe if everyone else followed the rules, are you really responsible for what the lawbreakers do to endanger you?
Why is this conversation strictly about law-breakers? The whole point I've been making is that it's dangerous, not that it's dangerous because there are law-breakers. The very nature of it is dangerous for very obvious and observable reasons. You're throwing random stationary objects on the side of the road and the onus is completely on drivers to deal with it . If a city is designed for that, fine! I'd be surprised if even one city in the US was. Even in the area I live in, there are bike lines, and they're crammed with self-righteous dippies who still manage to bunch up traffic and narrowly avoid getting hit.
I've been in the car with people that have cursed and threatened bikes in a bike lane that passed them because getting passed by a bike was somehow offensive.
I'd love to see an instant replay of that. You've probably just seen an insane person, but I'm curious if you were seeing somebody violate traffic rules and not realize it. I've watched bicycle riders ride in between cars and become a hazard. I've seen them run red lights or stop signs because they don't give a shit about traffic rules. I've watched them ride in bike lines but cause a massive bunchup because they ride very close to the inner line and... wobbly. A bunch of cars have to drift into the other lane to go around them because a.) The cyclist is going too slow and b.) They're worried he's going to fall on his side and get his head run over. In the US it's not very difficult to get a driver's license, and there are lots of dumb drivers out there as a result of it... and riding a bicycle on a road doesn't even have that minimum level of exclusivity!
The physics are simple. If the paths of the two objects never intersect, then it doesn't matter what the kinetic energy is of either for calculating the collision damage.
Exactly! If bikes and cars don't cross paths, then the amount of energy, measured in any unit system you like, is... ZERO! We actually agree on this.
When I commuted for a year by bike, I regularly passed cars (moving ones, not ones stopped at stoplights). I'd travel the speed limit or higher.
Oh? Can you ride at 40mph? That's impressive, nobody where I live can.
The worst of which focus on everyone else...
You mean the other cars that the road was designed for.
...so we can only presume you to be one of the worst drivers on the road.
Ah. I express my opinion and I'm greedy, but when somebody puts themselves in a dangerous situation and blames everybody but themselves.... Mmm hmm.
I'd like to point out two things: 1. The car drivers are the only side being blamed and 2. The actual physics of this discussion have been ignored by everybody who rides a bicycle. When smokers do this, it's cognitive dissonance.
Oh you angelic law abiding bicycle riders, cursed to eternity by the un-ritghteous. You do know that none of us actually want to hurt you, right? It'd be nice to actually see an admission of that, for once.
Well, we could sit here and have an in-depth non-oversimplified conversation, but we'd still land on the point that cars sharing roads with bikes is more dangerous than roads only being for cars. Simple math and statistics willl bear that out regardless of how talented you make every driver in the world to be.
The people who think it's more complicated than that would do the world a great service by becoming organ donors.
My response is always 'you should use the damn sidewalk' to which the response I get back is 'there are more accidents on sidewalks resulting in injury than on the street'.
I've heard that to. Having been both a driver and a pedestrian, I would MUCH rather dodge cyclists on a sidewalk than on a street. I'd happily take a broken arm if it meant I'd never collide with a cyclist in my car.
I've made him an offer several times, yet he refuses to take me up on it. I'll stand on the side walk, my back to him, and let him hit me as absolutely hard as he can with his bicycle. As long as afterwords I get to do the same thing with my car.
If it were me I'd tell him he needs to go the DMV and pass a test to get a license to ride his bike on the road like every car driver does. Then he'd have to be subject to all of the traffic laws and safety procedures (i.e. wearing a helmet and having lights installed on the bike with proper training on their usage) and he'd have to pay registration fees that help maintain the roads.
I'd love to hear all this talk about responsible driving from somebody who could get a ticket for not wearing a helmet or for running a red light.
I'm tired of people telling me, "gosh, bicycle? It's SO DANGEROUS!". Yeah, guess why? It's because the same person who declared it "dangerous" can't for one second take seriously piloting a machine capable of so much death and destruction, and instead is texting someone while sipping a mocha grande while checking out that cute person in the shop window.
Uh, no. It's because you travel less than a quarter of the speed of the vehicles you're traveling with, you're likely to instantly die if you're involved in a collision with a car, and you think traffic rules don't apply to you. It doesn't matter how good all the drivers in the world become, you're still greatly increasing the chance of a tragedy by riding your bicycle on a road designed for cars.
You are willingly putting yourself into a dangerous situation, you really own up to it.
Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they didn't happen. [about.com]
I haven't seen a Windows 7 BSOD yet. Is one of the new features of this OS that it brings back all apps I had running to the state they were in before the crash happened?
Well, I'm sorry to hear that the 0 in Raid 0 refers to the amount of data you'll get back when something goes wrong.:/
I did want to answer your question, though, as I've encountered this myself. I have too many gigs of data to easiliy back up. One of the things I've done is organize things a bit. For example, I have some data I'll likely not need for several years, if ever. I have that all compressed. I call this the 'Archive Data'. Every so often I dump all this data to a cheap external drive and throw it in the closet somewhere.
Then I've got data I need a little more urgently, I call it the 'Active Data'. It gets backed up once a week on a drive that stays on all the time. During this backup, the 'Archive Data' folder is skipped. This dramatically reduces how much space I really need for a backup, and it speeds the process up quite a bit so I'm more likely to do it frequently.
Finally , and I should have mentioned this sooner, but everything I do is organized by 'project'. That project could be "2009 taxes' or "Beach Photoshoot' and so on. That 2009 Taxes folder? Yeah I can compress that and throw that into Archive. The point is that you keep the actual amount of data you need to keep backed up in a much smaller space. I mean 6 TB won't even fit on one drive!
Oh, I do have one other suggestion. I have a few DVD rips myself. But I don't back those up provided I still have the original media. Yeah, it takes a long time rip them, but I don't care about them when I've got old bits of work I need to keep handy in case I go job searching again.
It used to be that if you didn't need a file any more you deleted it. If your disk filled up, you didn't just buy a new one.
Since the days of your 256 meg had drive prices have gone down, USB enclosures were invented, and our computers became capable of doing more with whatever data we fed them.
Aside from graphics, recording, and IT professionals, does anyone really need much more than a few hundred gigs?
Well I'll put it this way: I do a lot of scripting, but I don't call myself a programmer. It wouldn't offend me if somebody who say, understood memory management, considered me a sissy.
Well, I'll put it this way: The express purpose of purchasing this content is to distribute it with ads so a profit can be generated. If the local carrier can't show local ads, there is zero reason for them to air any of the content.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing you should consider, though, is her supervisor will likely see how she's a team player . She may (and yes, reality doesn't always work this way I'll concede) end up getting a raise or avoiding a layoff.
Having your coworkers like you is a good thing.
Whizzing around the star Kepler-20, about 290 parsecs...
Just to give you all a sense of scale, the Millineum Falcon would have to be 24 times faster to reach it!
But when I point out that the same happens with pedestrians and crosswalks, you claim that's not the same. I honestly don't see a massive difference between sidewalks and crosswalks to the idea of bike lanes.
You don't see how stopping traffic to let people through isn't a huge difference?
Why are you, as a car driver, so opposed to bikes on the road?
Because I don't want to hit one.
They don't reduce your safety.
Yes, they do.
...implying that there exists causeless actions gives in to helplessness that promotes unsafe behaviors...
Nobody said 'causeless'. I can't believe the ignorance you're displaying here! Are you over-zealously defending your point or are you really so inexperienced at life that you don't understand this topic? I really hope it's the former.
...if accidents are unavoidable, why try?
Because the number of accidents is an integer and not a boolean.
And yes, that defeatist attitude is real, and does reduce safety, that's why the NHTSA removed the word "accident" from the Fatal Accident Reporting System. http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/airbags/Archive-04/PresBelt/crash_accident.html (not a press release on FARS renaming, but an official article declaring "Crashes Aren't Accidents."
Oh that's classic, man. Hahaha. Do you see the world 'preventable' all over the article you sent me? Think about it.
It means he wants a +3 Insightful next to his post.
Your point seems to be that bikes are at fault for being run over by a car...
No, I'm saying that mixing cars and bikes on the same road is dangerous.
So, by implication, you are asserting there is *no* reason for bike lanes.
What?
Given the fact that you didn't refute my statement in any way (other than the ignore and deflect tactic) indicates to me that you believe it to be true...
Of course it does. You wish it to be true, so you tried to find something that'd support that statement. I know a guy that believes aliens are skimming our planet and all of these reports of 'UFO activity" indicate to him that they're here. Same thing.
You *only* care about proving yourself right and not listening to anything that contradicts your pre-conceived opinion.
Projecting.
I think you have detoured into lying. If I had been supporting your agruemnts so well, why are you arguing so vehemently?
That's a funny way to ask "What do you mean?" Or were you trying to distract from just how stupid that statement really was? Clarify, please?
...despite the fact that they do not reduce the safety of people in cars at all.
Ahhhh now we've reduced the scope to just the people in the cars! That's sneaky, dude. (The statement's still untrue.) That's actually worse than claiming what I see on a daily basis doesn't actually happen then denying cyclists are 'stupid ping pongs', too. I think you're starting to see that I'm right.
If nobody broke any laws, how do you see the thousands of cars running over bikes to continue to happen? Cars just "accidentally" run them over while the bikes are in the bike lanes and the cars are in the car lanes? Come on, you asserted that it's dangerous even if nobody ever broke a law, so just give a few plausible examples of how a car will be running over a bike while both are following the law.
The answer is within your previous post. If that's not enough, then I'd like to know why life hasn't taught you this already. Have you not had a driver's license for very long? Are you still living with your parents and haven't been out in the real world for very long? Do you have a medical condition and all you know about life you get from reading the Internet? I just want to understand why you don't understand the phrase 'shit happens' before I spend any amount of time explaining to you what the word 'accident' means.
Notice, you are proving my point that you are dumber than a ping pong ball. Notice, you are proving my point that you are dumber than a ping pong ball. It was a general statement about traffic flow. Bikes on a road, acting as cars are "drivers" in that context.
" And it was a bike in a bike lane riding past stopped cars who were in the adjacent car lanes who were stopped because of traffic. The jealousy of car drivers is insane, I agree, but I've not seen any car driver that didn't exhibit that trait."
You didn't let me down. The best bit was when you accused me of lying! It really is hard to take your comments too seriously when you expressly live in denial of 'shit happens'.
There are too many people on Slashdot that disagree just to be contrary
That's not true. Everybody I know doesn't do that.
"I don't see it, so it never happens anywhere."
"I don't see it, so it never happens anywhere."
Yes, it is. You've argued that bikes traveling as required by law, have only themselves to blame if they are hit by cars (if they weren't there, they wouldn't be hit).
That is a different statement from the one you used. That's also not a complete understanding of my point. If you could tell the difference between the two statements, you'd understand my view a lot better.
Absolutely true.
Wrong. A crosswalk is not a bike lane. A crosswalk, for example, stops traffic for the safety of pedestrians. The rest of the time, they walk on sidewalks. There's a reason for it!
You are so busy justifying your personal opinion that you haven't stopped to even consider anyone else might be right.
You are so busy justifying your personal opinion that you haven't stopped to even consider anyone else might be right.
You do realize that traffic engineers used to model traffic with ping pong balls, until they realized that people were stupider than ping pong balls, so they had to computer model based on the well proven and known ping pong ball models, then make the model "dumber" to accommodate actual drivers, who brake for no reason, change lanes in a manner that slows down everyone on the road and such?
It doesn't surprise me at all. Notice you're only (again) speaking of drivers?
If nobody broke any laws, then there'd be no crashes (bike/car or car/car),..
Wrong. WRONG. Wrong. Wrong.. Wrongity wrong from Wrongsville, Wrongsylvania. You do understand that collisions are called 'accidents', right? Seriously, this is bar-none one of the stupidest statements I've ever seen on this site and, amazingly, you disproved your own statement in the same post. Seriously dude, you are amazing me again.
You assert that car drivers have no responsibility to "respect"....
I have not, actually. What's funny is the actual point I have been making you have been supporting with your own arguments. Can't wait to read your next work of fan-fiction!
Ah yes, the "I've never see it, so it *never* happens argument. I can't change what you've seen, but I can correct your incorrect statements, as I have done. Believing the truth is still up to you.
Every day I drive by a flock of bikes not traveling at the same speed. Your statement doesn't apply to just me.
You are apparently arguing that roads with explicit pedestrian signals at *Every* light are designed for cars *only*. That is a logic fail I can not help you with.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying I'm saying .... actually shouldn't you just ask for clarifications my views before ranting about lack of logic? Seriously, half of what you said here is a response to some fictional story you wrote.
Your argument is that is the pedestrian's fault for walking so close to a busy street.
No, that is not an argument that I have made. I didn't say anything about pedestrians and my opinion on them wasn't asked. But since we're all being snippy here, I'll just use your debate style, here.
"Apparently you think sidewalks shouldn't exist at all and all roads should just be flat from one end to another. Pedestrians, instead of walking on a raised surface designed specifically to handle their traffic and to offer a level of safety, should just walk in their own lane as explicitly defined by a line painted on the road. They'll be perfectly safe so long as drivers are 100% safe when they drive."
Amazing. I am seriously amazed.
If you are in a situation where you would be 100% safe if everyone else followed the rules, are you really responsible for what the lawbreakers do to endanger you?
Why is this conversation strictly about law-breakers? The whole point I've been making is that it's dangerous, not that it's dangerous because there are law-breakers. The very nature of it is dangerous for very obvious and observable reasons. You're throwing random stationary objects on the side of the road and the onus is completely on drivers to deal with it . If a city is designed for that, fine! I'd be surprised if even one city in the US was. Even in the area I live in, there are bike lines, and they're crammed with self-righteous dippies who still manage to bunch up traffic and narrowly avoid getting hit.
I've been in the car with people that have cursed and threatened bikes in a bike lane that passed them because getting passed by a bike was somehow offensive.
I'd love to see an instant replay of that. You've probably just seen an insane person, but I'm curious if you were seeing somebody violate traffic rules and not realize it. I've watched bicycle riders ride in between cars and become a hazard. I've seen them run red lights or stop signs because they don't give a shit about traffic rules. I've watched them ride in bike lines but cause a massive bunchup because they ride very close to the inner line and ... wobbly. A bunch of cars have to drift into the other lane to go around them because a.) The cyclist is going too slow and b.) They're worried he's going to fall on his side and get his head run over. In the US it's not very difficult to get a driver's license, and there are lots of dumb drivers out there as a result of it... and riding a bicycle on a road doesn't even have that minimum level of exclusivity!
The physics are simple. If the paths of the two objects never intersect, then it doesn't matter what the kinetic energy is of either for calculating the collision damage.
Exactly! If bikes and cars don't cross paths, then the amount of energy, measured in any unit system you like, is ... ZERO! We actually agree on this.
When I commuted for a year by bike, I regularly passed cars (moving ones, not ones stopped at stoplights). I'd travel the speed limit or higher.
Oh? Can you ride at 40mph? That's impressive, nobody where I live can.
The worst of which focus on everyone else...
You mean the other cars that the road was designed for.
...so we can only presume you to be one of the worst drivers on the road.
Ah. I express my opinion and I'm greedy, but when somebody puts themselves in a dangerous situation and blames everybody but themselves.... Mmm hmm.
I'd like to point out two things: 1. The car drivers are the only side being blamed and 2. The actual physics of this discussion have been ignored by everybody who rides a bicycle. When smokers do this, it's cognitive dissonance.
Oh you angelic law abiding bicycle riders, cursed to eternity by the un-ritghteous. You do know that none of us actually want to hurt you, right? It'd be nice to actually see an admission of that, for once.
Doubt it. He said it in the first act instead of the last.
.... and?
Well, we could sit here and have an in-depth non-oversimplified conversation, but we'd still land on the point that cars sharing roads with bikes is more dangerous than roads only being for cars. Simple math and statistics willl bear that out regardless of how talented you make every driver in the world to be.
The people who think it's more complicated than that would do the world a great service by becoming organ donors.
So, speed limits are bad, and everyone not driving ferrari enzo is dangerous to REAL drivers.
Ummmmmm no. Just for clarification, do you understand why you only use the left lane for passing?
I was talking about egos just above in this very same thread. Thanks for showing exactly what I was talking about.
What, by making you respond?
My response is always 'you should use the damn sidewalk' to which the response I get back is 'there are more accidents on sidewalks resulting in injury than on the street'.
I've heard that to. Having been both a driver and a pedestrian, I would MUCH rather dodge cyclists on a sidewalk than on a street. I'd happily take a broken arm if it meant I'd never collide with a cyclist in my car.
I've made him an offer several times, yet he refuses to take me up on it. I'll stand on the side walk, my back to him, and let him hit me as absolutely hard as he can with his bicycle. As long as afterwords I get to do the same thing with my car.
If it were me I'd tell him he needs to go the DMV and pass a test to get a license to ride his bike on the road like every car driver does. Then he'd have to be subject to all of the traffic laws and safety procedures (i.e. wearing a helmet and having lights installed on the bike with proper training on their usage) and he'd have to pay registration fees that help maintain the roads.
I'd love to hear all this talk about responsible driving from somebody who could get a ticket for not wearing a helmet or for running a red light.
I know that stereotyping those silly spandex-wearing folks is a cool thing to do, but don't pretend that you're actually correct.
Fact: Bicycles move slower than car traffic. This means more obstacles are on the road. This increases danger. I am correct. Sorry.
I'm tired of people telling me, "gosh, bicycle? It's SO DANGEROUS!". Yeah, guess why? It's because the same person who declared it "dangerous" can't for one second take seriously piloting a machine capable of so much death and destruction, and instead is texting someone while sipping a mocha grande while checking out that cute person in the shop window.
Uh, no. It's because you travel less than a quarter of the speed of the vehicles you're traveling with, you're likely to instantly die if you're involved in a collision with a car, and you think traffic rules don't apply to you. It doesn't matter how good all the drivers in the world become, you're still greatly increasing the chance of a tragedy by riding your bicycle on a road designed for cars.
You are willingly putting yourself into a dangerous situation, you really own up to it.
Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they didn't happen. [about.com]
I haven't seen a Windows 7 BSOD yet. Is one of the new features of this OS that it brings back all apps I had running to the state they were in before the crash happened?
But where does one backup THAT much data?
Well, I'm sorry to hear that the 0 in Raid 0 refers to the amount of data you'll get back when something goes wrong. :/
I did want to answer your question, though, as I've encountered this myself. I have too many gigs of data to easiliy back up. One of the things I've done is organize things a bit. For example, I have some data I'll likely not need for several years, if ever. I have that all compressed. I call this the 'Archive Data'. Every so often I dump all this data to a cheap external drive and throw it in the closet somewhere.
Then I've got data I need a little more urgently, I call it the 'Active Data'. It gets backed up once a week on a drive that stays on all the time. During this backup, the 'Archive Data' folder is skipped. This dramatically reduces how much space I really need for a backup, and it speeds the process up quite a bit so I'm more likely to do it frequently.
Finally , and I should have mentioned this sooner, but everything I do is organized by 'project'. That project could be "2009 taxes' or "Beach Photoshoot' and so on. That 2009 Taxes folder? Yeah I can compress that and throw that into Archive. The point is that you keep the actual amount of data you need to keep backed up in a much smaller space. I mean 6 TB won't even fit on one drive!
Oh, I do have one other suggestion. I have a few DVD rips myself. But I don't back those up provided I still have the original media. Yeah, it takes a long time rip them, but I don't care about them when I've got old bits of work I need to keep handy in case I go job searching again.
It used to be that if you didn't need a file any more you deleted it. If your disk filled up, you didn't just buy a new one.
Since the days of your 256 meg had drive prices have gone down, USB enclosures were invented, and our computers became capable of doing more with whatever data we fed them.
Aside from graphics, recording, and IT professionals, does anyone really need much more than a few hundred gigs?
Yes. The digital camera was invented as well.
The power of C is that you can use it to make your own language!
Well I'll put it this way: I do a lot of scripting, but I don't call myself a programmer. It wouldn't offend me if somebody who say, understood memory management, considered me a sissy.
Well, I'll put it this way: The express purpose of purchasing this content is to distribute it with ads so a profit can be generated. If the local carrier can't show local ads, there is zero reason for them to air any of the content.
Is this not what the cable operators already do?
Yes.
If they sell a local ad, they simply dub over the national ad of their choice and call it a day. How is this any different?
The spot where they dubbed it in was put there so the local ad could be inserted in. In other words: it's designed that way.
No need to worry about optimization, memory utilization, algorithm choice , etc get just it minimally working.
I always considered that the definition of scripting.
Is that all? My villagers always required 2 meat to make a bed.