Maybe we can agree that we have about shag-all to prove in either direction.

I love you, man.

It's unclear what, if anything, you meant by any of that. Sorry, sir.

I'm cozy where I reside. The burden of proof with you. I have a 'burden' of laughter directed at you, I suppose.

I find out more about my theology through you and d_r than pretty much anyone else. Thanks, gents. Both of you stay lovely.

You're going to have to instruct me how I'm supposed to feel about this accusation, because I'm all Rhett Butler here.

How is using blu ray cheaper than hard drives?

3 TB will fit on 120 25-GB BD-Rs. At 40 cents each, that's $48 in media costs. If you do like I do and reserve 20% for dvdisaster error-recovery data, you're still only looking at $60.

A 3 TB WD Green will set you back $95. (Want to spring for the NAS-rated Red drives instead? That'll be $119. Their absolute cheapest 3 TB hard drives are a couple of models from Seagate and Toshiba at $90 each.)

The trick is getting BD media into the terabytes and getting it at a price point where it is decently affordable. For example, a 100 GB BDXL disk is $65, but it should be about 10% of that price in order to be a viable backup medium.

My last spindle of 25 GB BD-Rs cost me maybe $0.60 each or so. I could drive down to Fry's right now and pick up a spindle for about $0.80 each. A 4x increase in storage density isn't worth a two-order-of-magnitude increase in price. I would be surprised if Farcebook didn't arrive at the same conclusion.

Going by the numbers from the video in TFA, they're getting over 10k BD-Rs in a rack. While the basic concept isn't new, they appear to have developed it to a considerably higher density.

If they are storing their photos on facebook, they are doing it wrong.

FTFY. I can kinda understand posting stuff to Farcebook so others can view it, but using it as your primary storage medium? That's at least a dozen different kinds of wrong.

We need the government to save us from the consequences of the bad deal the government made last time.

I mean, of course I'm ashamed of my sin. As for you, personally: you blew up the benefit of the doubt long ago. Nothing about morality requires I be a doormat, and I've stood falsely accused enough by you that I always figure that you're setting me up.
Sure, I forgive you. For the past. But the idea that I have some "moral kick-me" in place is specious. Pre-judging you? Only of being human, sir.

Morality is wholly positive; prejudice, negative. Thus, I deem "moral prejudice" an oxymoron.
Morality is fertilizer for the soul. Amorality is nihilism. As C.S. Lewis answered your piffle: “Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning"

Oh, I guess the fact that the unborn life can't consent to its murder makes it OK?
My point being, once you've made pleasure the only guide, arbitrary rationalizations are simply a matter of creativity. No one's responsible for anything, least of all their own behavior. Huxley uber-goober.

>nothing but a big troll marathon

Well, the good news about the decadence is that it isn't sustainable.

Daily, my suspicion that the exposure of Lerner's emails would kind of blow away the GOP elite grows just a little bit.
That elite is key to getting JEB nominated, so that the #NoMasBush crowd will help us #PartyLikeIts1992.
Look for a bomb to drop as soon as JEB has the lock.