I'm reading that is he didn't have it when he wrote the first comment, went to the library, checked it out, and now he does have it. Simple logic; I'm guessing he'll resume watching on that medium.

The Phuckin' Borg. Already done.

Yeah... staff locked out? Seems fishy, almost as though LEOs took over the domain and brought the site back up. Someone brew some tea, I think there's a pot of honey around here somewhere.

Consider that it has the added overhead of having to handle locking, to prevent the host, or another VM, from stepping on the file while the guest has it, or vise-versa. Essentially, it's a host-only SMB-like implementation with a few added checks so that nobody can write or delete a file that's currently open elsewhere for read. SMB does something similar, but I believe the host can override that and write anyway.

Or, to put it another way, to the guest, the hosts folders aren't local. Likewise for the host, with regard to the guest's folders.

Come to think of it, it's actually quite dropbox-like in operation, and has performance to match as a result. But, hell, if you can do better, go right ahead.

Shared folders are a convenience feature, not a performance feature. Often times, you'll find yourself choosing between the two. Well, those two and security. Can't really ever have all 3.

issue or benefit?

It can only crack the pre-Lion FileVault. FileVault 2 uses AES encryption, which VileFault will decrypt, given the password, but it does not yet support cracking that encryption. That means your FV2 encrypted disks are still as secure as the passphrase you choose. The other project, linked from this one, has better support for FV2, but doesn't crack anything; you still need the passphrase or recovery key.

Even TFS says that law enforcement bots are constantly scanning TOR for new content. New content means new leads, more leads mean more arrests. They have no interest in stopping people from committing crimes, because if they put an end to crime, they lose their budget; if they're catching more people committing crimes, the get a bigger budget, so it's in their best interest to leave TOR as it is and keep using it to catch people in the act.

Err... didn't see who the original bad math was done by. I mean "she"... I think...

I'm sure he used a calculator, seems he simply forgot to divide by 24.

That's why, as the manufacturer of such a system, you refuse to sell it bare. Your customers won't complain if you tell them what the bare cost, cost per disk, and labor cost to install a disk are, and sell disks at cost and with reasonable labor. Make money on your hardware, bring in enough to pay for assembly based on disk install labor.

That's only step one, though. Start ordering disks when you start your first production run of hardware. Order direct from manufacturer, and from as many suppliers as possible, so you get disks from as many batches as possible. Then, continue placing frequent, but small, orders from whoever can get you the disks the cheapest; it may work out that you can get volume pricing from the manufacturer by telling them "I'm going to need X disks over all and am willing to pay for them up front, but I need them shipped (X/52) per week from current stock at the time of shipping, don't set aside my disks out of the current batch to ship at a future date".

It's a bit more labor, but compare serial numbers and attempt to color code by batch. Use colored dot stickers for this. When fetching drives for an installation, try and get an even distribution of colors, so you don't have an excess of drives from any given batch, and always record who has which drives, so if you start getting failure reports that indicate a bad batch, you can proactively alert the customers who have those drives that it might be a good idea to have you swap them even if they still appear to be functioning.

All of that drives up the cost, of course. I'm not going to sit here and to the math to figure out what the cost would be, as there are simply too many assumptions and I have too little time, but if you've nothing better to do and don't mind making a couple dozen, likely provably wrong, assumptions, you can have at it.

Yup, this is going to come back and bite them. Their "only criminals, security agencies, and banks encrypt everything" attitude means that anyone who encrypts everything they possibly can is a person of interest. As more and more people begin encrypting by default, they're gonna need a bigger net in order to catch all of that data, and the SNR just keeps getting lower and lower.

My old laptop, which crapped out last week, had no trouble keeping up with me, I never found myself waiting for it, and I'm not a gamer, so when I ended up with a new machine that was roughly 20% faster, I decided to enable FileVault on it. I figured, worst case, it'll slow the new laptop back down to what I'm used to. And now, if my laptop is every analyzed by a law enforcement agency, I'll just become another bit of noise the NSA has to filter out.

And Apple has made FileVault a "checked by default" option when setting up a new Mac, so the same class of user who would end up with every toolbar and fake anti-virus in Windows (e.g. average or below average) will have FileVault enabled on their Mac. if Microsoft takes the same route (I haven't installed Windows 8 or newer recently, so I don't know, they may have already), we're looking at something like 2/3 of computer users with file encryption enabled by default, without even knowing it, and some portion of the remaining 1/3 who enabled it purposefully.

I can imagine the high-ranking NSA official who instituted the "record all encrypted data we find" policy, on the basis that only people with something to hide would bother, is sweating right now, as his colleagues are starting to realize he's just made all of their jobs that much more difficult; it has come to pass that only a handful of criminals, and no known terrorists, have made effective use of encryption, but they're still having to sift through all of the metadata recorded along with all of that encrypted data.

Also, before someone else makes the joke: "only criminals, security agencies, and banks" is redundant.

What?

I'm assuming it's a user-moderated forum? In which case, welcome to true democracy. Sucks being a minority, eh?

You're also an edge case in that most people simply wouldn't care. The vast majority of users of any given site have connectivity while they're using the site.

That said, I do wonder what some of these implementations do when a user tries to print the page. Does the print view also lazy load, or does it load all of the content because, well, you know, it can't pop it on the printed page when you go to view it; it has to be there for printing.

In short, I guess I'm asking if you've ever tried the print view as a solution for your use-case, as it would have to be *severely* broken (in which case, let the site operators know, maybe they care enough to fix it) to not do pretty much exactly what you want. And if they're doing lazy loading and don't have a print view, well, then they're just asshole developers; in which case, you should probably let them know that, as well.