I have used cable for so long, I do not remember the terrestrial broadcasts. Well, other than the very noisy picture I got when using a portable TV outside or using a piece of wire as an antenna during cable outages.

Well, I get analog broadcasts from my cable company. Whether it's the multiple splitters or the long cables (after the amp), but the video quality is not that great. Sure, it's better than VHS, but I cannot really see a difference between it and SVHS.

I also get IPTV from another company. The SD channels are higher quality than the analog channels that i get.

And yet, with digital VCRs (and tapes for them) being so expensive, i have to continue to use VHS...

Still, when compared to analog broadcast, (or very compressed digital) SD, a good VCR and a good tape produce quite a good image, it's not full broadcast quality, but good enough for me. Especially since digital (and especially HD capable) VCRs are so expensive (tapes for them too) and not very common. So, no way to record HD and the best I can do is to record to a good VHS tape, since SVHS tapes are expensive too. DVDs don't last and don't allow overwrites, so a DVD recorder would not be useful to me.

I am a network (and Linux) admin by profession, but I can also repair my audio equipment and do some repairs on my car, even though I do not work as a car mechanic or electronics repair guy. While I could find a mechanic to repair my car (and sometimes I do), a lot of the time is is cheaper and faster to do it myself.

So, if the OP wants to create a monitoring solution himself (assuming he knows something about the monitoring systems) more power to him. I probably would ask a similar question if I had to monitor 500 remote servers that are in different locations (if they are all in the same place I would just use VPN). It would be possible to use VPN or SSH tunnels or something else, but sometimes one may need an advice from others as to which option is the best.

What is I like driving? Actually, I probably could not sit in a driverless car for, say, half an hour with nothing to do. I cannot read while in a car because I get motion sickness if I am not watching the road, I also cannot talk to the driver (as I do now when I am in a car but not driving). And I can listen to music while I am driving just as well.

And what's the difference between this and cat | grep?

To me it is also more understandable, that is, the flow of data:

cat file | grep this | grep -v butnotthis | cut | tr | awk > result.txt

What's wrong with that?

It is more convenient for me, for example
cat /some/file/somewhere| grep something (hmm, didn't get what I wanted)
cat /some/file/somewhere| grep some (good)

If I do grep something /some/file/somewhere and and to edit my search string, I have to move the cursor further than in the cat|grep version.

Also, I sometimes replace tail with cat when looking at a log file
tail -n 2000 | grep (it wasn't here, let's look at the whole file)
cat | grep (found it)

At least in Centos6, postgresql port is also configured in the start script that's in /etc/init.d/

Wouldn't it start at lower RPM though? If so, just increase the gear ratio.between crank and engine.

So that he didn't need to discharge the battery while starting the car? Useful if you are going short distances and the battery is not recharged before the next stop.

I would like a crank starter on my car as an addition to the electric starter of course. In some cases the battery is too weak to start the engine, but has enough power to operate the ignition, fuel cutoff valves and the field coil of the alternator. Sure, the car can then be push started, but that requires at least one other person and the car to not be at the bottom of a hill (it's difficult to push a car uphill). I could then crank start the car. It does not look lie adding the crank would have cost the manufacturer lots of money.

But only the combinations you think of, while in real life something might happen that you did not expect.

Well, some music I listen to is in mono because it was recorded before the invention of stereo records. A stereo system can play both mono and stereo music well.

And I once had a 4.0 system and later found out that just using stereo did not reduce my enjoyment of movies at all. To me there is not that much point (to me) of surround sound if the image is not surround and is not interactive (hearing an enemy behind me in games is better though, but that can be achieved with stereo headphones).

I have a "2.0" system - no need for a subwoofer if the main speakers can shake the floor.

Pretty much all music I listen to is either in mono or stereo and the system is primarily for music. Stereo for movies is good enough too (for me).

I don't care for 3D TV unless they start producing real 3D (a picture that looks different when looked at from different angles).

Well, the criminal then gets to pay for the damage he caused to the car.

If something was stolen from me I would damn sure want to (preferably) get it back or at least get loss compensated. It does not matter that that something is not worth tens of thousands of dollars - it's still my money and my item.

Now, whether it is worth to the public - yes, most likely. While I would probably be OK with the government buying me an identical car after the cops refuse to recover the stolen one, the number of car thefts would increase. After all, if you steal a car that's cheap enough, the police won't chase you, so you get a free car.