I've worked for multiple Fortune 500 companies. All used spinning tape. And nearly everywhere I've worked has used tape. It's cheaper and easier to buy tapes. You sound like a salesman, but I've never seen the numbers work for an off-site storage, Tapes are cheaper than hard drive storage, and more controlable (having them physically stored where you want, restoring only what you want, good for lawsuits).

SSD for boot/OS/swap, and slow spinner for data gives 99% of the performance for 99% of people. And cheap spinners are much cheaper than cheap SSDs. Sadly, there was a time, 2-5 years ago when you could find laptops with spare mSATA slots, and a spinner in them. Put an SSD in the mSATA slot, and biggest drive possible in the spinner slot, and get huge storage for cheap cost.

Though, one of the ones I got then, had the mSATA already holding a 20GB SSD, set up as a cache for the slow spinner. It runs surprisingly well, especially if you run the same things repeatedly. 100% of the performance of SSD for 95% of what you do. And cheaper than the 256GB/1TB I am running in my laptop.

The US has a nasty history with regard to slavery and the treatment of indigenous peoples, but that doesn't have much bearing on its current culture.

I'm not talking about Scandinavian culture 100 years ago, only right now.

Why charge anyone? Civil forfeiture of all assets held by Intel, MS, and anyone associated with making any of the servers or owning any of the servers in this case. When civil forfeiture is used as broadly as used in the drug war, it would be ended quickly.

thanks for that information. but other than the mail, none of that is anything they did. they bought out other companies. I mean thats great for them, flickr is a good platform, im sure tumblr as well. but buying a company and innovating are 2 different things.

Most big companies are like this.

Look at Microsoft, their history is full of purchases: Powerpoint, Hotmail, Visio, Dynamics, Skype, Nokia, Bungie,

Nope. If everyone voted for different third parties, then that would gum up the works enough to trouble the main parties, and if a 3rd party saw an opening, it would form a real policy, kinda like the LP keeps thinking will happen, but without all the 'shrooms.

If it is as non-sequitur as your posts, it's a waste of everyone's time.

I never said they were poor. However, they have a really small population compared to the US, Russia, and China, and a much smaller GNP as a result. So why aren't those countries doing useful things like this?

The 1st season of TNG was a mess; it got better afterwards when Gene became less involved and Rick Berman took over. He's really the guy we can thank for TNG being the classic it was. He took Gene's great vision, and made a great show out of it. It also helped when Gene's drinking buddy Maurice Hurley left the show, as he was a writer and had a lot of sway over the scripts. He's the reason Gates McFadden left during the 2nd season.

As for the Federation not being superior, how do you figure? They weren't militaristic, so of course they weren't easily able to easily overcome the Romulans and Klingons who devoted all their resources to empire-building and the military. It's just like Russia today. Their economy sucks but they're still holding onto lots of territory and have lots of power because that territory holds valuable natural resources, and they have a huge and powerful military to guard it and push their agenda, including seizing land from neighboring nations.

BS, TNG was a great series. However, it was really rough and kinda bad during the first season, and into the 2nd.

What worked was when Gene was the figurehead and kinda oversaw things, so that people were working according to his vision, but Gene was not involved in any nitty-gritty details. He was a lot like George Lucas: he came up with some cool ideas and visions for things, but when they were executed by other people is when the final product was really fantastic.

Gene became much less involved in the show after the 2nd season, and that's when it really shined, at least until it just got too old and stale. The 3rd-5th seasons were amazing, and some of the best TV ever made.

The same thing happened in TOS too. All the best episodes were when Gene wasn't so hands-on.

Now with Gene gone, it's gone to crap because they aren't using his vision at all, they're just recycling and trying to make money off of things from the prior series, but without the vision that really made it ST.

I actually like the guy they have playing Bones on the competing fan-made Star Trek Phase II series. The other actors, not so much, but the McCoy guy is great. They should swap him with the Bones guy from ST: Continues, because all their actors are great except for the McCoy guy. My office desk is less wooden.

Great post. I feel mostly the same way, except I never bothered with JJ's 2nd movie because I was too disappointed by the 1st one.

The real problem with Star Trek, however, was that it was unrealistic in its optimism and with everyone having such excellent values. They said many times in the series that genetic engineering was bad, was banned, etc. (except for that 2nd-series Pulaski episode in TNG, for some odd reason), but the only way humanity is going to be that moral is if it's engineered into them, or we do something to engineer sociopathy out of our species. Right now, sociopaths are in charge, and are exceedingly common, and their values permeate our society. Just look at the replies to your post: these days, the only thing that matters is money and profit, that's what makes a person "good". Even the Christians will tell you this these days: God favors people who make more money, and loves rich people more, and poor people are poor because God has abandoned them. Popular TV preachers like Joel Osteen will happily tell you this, and countless Christian churches preach this theology.

Of course, even Star Trek had its dark side, but it was in the past: we were supposed to have the Eugenics Wars back in the 1990s, and we're supposed to have WWIII sometime soon. Only after all that calamity is Zephram Cochrane supposed to invent the warp engine, meet the Vulcans, and quickly propel us into the galactic neighborhood as seen in STE, with humanity going from a war-torn society to eradicating poverty inside a century. So according to ST, we're supposed to be living in a pretty shitty time right now. That seems ridiculously optimistic however (that going through WWIII and meeting the Vulcans will suddenly turn us into a wonderful race of moralistic do-gooders without a bunch of sociopaths running our society like we have now).

What I like to tell people in discussions like this is that Star Trek does show our society, but not in the normal episodes; they're in the "mirror" episodes! That's us: the evil humans who run around murdering and conquering anyone and anything we can. If we ever invent warp drive and phasers, the galaxy is going to wish they only had the Klingons to deal with.

I believe that they'd just be more open about their vote tampering. The closed ballot leads to massive fraud. Tee margin of error has been larger than the vote difference for many recent elections. And the solution to that, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, over 3rd parties, was electronic voting.

And they've been doing the "punish the 3rd party" method for years. The only 3rd party in recent history to make all 50 states ballots was apparently the LP for one presidential election. 3rd party candidates who were not party candidates made it, Ross Perot and Patrick Buchanan were on all 50, but were presumed Republicans, despite no official party membership.

Are you saying they could work? You seem to have a closed mind, and are looking for confirmation of your opinions, with strong selection bias. My read of you is that there's nothing I could say, and nobody I could cite that could change your mind. As you imply you didn't read past seeing the first thing you could find objectionable, that proved the point I made. That there exists no cite I could have given that you'd believe, if it contradicted your personal opinion.

Would you like citations about what it is that contradict the Wikipedia page?

Would you like citations that increased minimum wage increases jobs more than increasing the pay of the upper management?

What of what I mentioned would you like to see cites of?

[citation needed] is a ploy by closed-minded bigots to waste the time of the "enemy" for things they won't read anyway. You didn't cite anything that supported you, either. Just linked to something that isn't much more than a definition, but certainly didn't say anything like what you implied.

Exactly. Also, the Kardashians are superior people because they have lots of money, and that's why the rest of us need to spend our time watching their family drama on their TV show, because with all that money, their lives are obviously much more interesting and important than ours.