You're assuming the desired target is within range...

Synology is busybox-based, with md/lvm tools etc., and for the most part behaves properly. The GUI is handy for remote access and management (with self-signed cert), and is pretty functional for all but the corneriest of corner cases.

This past week I needed to ssh in in order to e2fsck my storage prior to lvextending it. Kinda disappointed I had to do that, but the fact is that I could and did. Also, since the RAID is in software, in theory I could pull my 7 drive RAID out and stick it in another linux box and vg(im|ex)port it.

My 1812+ has adequate power for pushing ~100+MB/s with its dual-core Atom and 3GB (it took a spare laptop SO-DIMM), and runs at a pretty low wattage rate vs. a handbuild mid tower. It can't transcode, but I have WDTV Live boxes that support most codecs fairly well for that.

Whut up, yo? Mostly moved to Twitter... You have an account... why don't I see you there much?

You repost by posting again. You are allowed to do this.

My point, which appears to have flown above you like an exploding Hindenberg showering corposes all over (sorry, too soon?) is that if the entire world started focussing on a different terrorist target, terrorists would be unlikely to immediately think "Let's kill people in NYC" as their first thought.

And let's be honest, nobody would miss Tallahassee. Not even those of us in Florida. Rick Scott's an asshole.

Also Texas, while (obviously) having a lower population density, probably has more people in it than Manhatten. So diverting terrorists there would both make it more difficult for them (more work per person killed) and would ensure that if they did they do the world a few favors by getting rid of the largest number of loudmouthed jerks possible.

Look people. Can we knock it off with the "Terrorists attacking New York City" scenarios? If we're going to protect NYC in the long term, we need to start playing up the relative importance of cities we actually wouldn't mind being attacked.

Can you repost your scenario as an attack on Tallahassee, or Phoenix, or some city in Texas or something?

NYC is awesome. Sure, the inhabitants get a little arrogant from time to time, but you kinda understand their point. We need to divert the terrorists to somewhere else, somewhere where the country would benefit from a terrorist attack.

FWIW, it doesn't matter if Google buys a baby mulching building (all running OpenBSD, natch'...), starts selling your information to advertisers (I mean really, not selling services to advertisers that work more effectively because Google has information about you, I mean actually selling your name, address, and fetishes to anyone who wants to advertise with them), arranges a Presidential assassination, blows up the Empire State Building, and worst of all, builds a private monorail to ferry employees between San Francisco and its offices.

Even if Google does all of those things, Android is still open.

This story is not about whether Android is open. It's about whether Google is putting pressure on its partners to ensure they stick with Google's vision about Android when distributing it, and likewise whether Microsoft are doing what they've done since the dawn of time.

Is Google right to this? Probably not. That said, the backlash seems far greater than it ought to be, probably because of a combination of anti-Google shill campaigns of late, because people expect Google to be better than this (nobody expects this of Microsoft which is why it's not a shock), and because several other things they've done lately with Android, such as pushing GMS, which were actually aimed at ending criticisms of Android for being "Fragmented" have been closed and against the entire perceived ethos of Android.

Also their search engine is worse than BIng these days, and that's not because Bing is any good.

Android? It's still open. Ask Amazon. Ask CyanogenMod and the non-commercial phone modding community. Google can't, and probably won't try to, close it. They will continue to try to control it, understandably, but the cat is out of the bag.

Also, it follows the standard. (and by standard, I don't mean the computer industry's informal, approximated, bastardized de-facto 'standard', I mean the actual standard that just about every other scientific and engineering enterprise on the planet conforms to)

It's not that they'll make a hash of it, so much as that a complete rewrite will take much longer than they think it will, because they've forgotten (or weren't around to experience) the thousands of niggling little corner cases whose correct handling is what makes the current codebase so, um, interesting to work with. Then when they do finally get the ground-up rewrite done (years later than they thought they would), they'll find that it is now a complicated mess too, for most of the same reasons the first codebase was.

Well there's still ads. He didn't say anything about blocking ads, just tracking and content. Of course, I'm not sure why you'd want to do that.

No, it is obvious if you follow development mailing lists that the announcement of Mir was a big kick in the pants for the Wayland developers and they started actually working on the real thing. So I think Mir did a good thing.

Yea I would agree that it seems more fair if the company instead made a 50/50 split, so the employee is now paying $100 and the company another $100. The main reason this seems fair is that I'll be that if the cost went *up* they would not eat all the extra but would have split the higher cost so the employee paid more.

Real answer: I have had or experienced medical care in England, Spain, and the US. Despite horror stories I saw no difference and the English medical care at an Emergency room was far faster and got directly to the solution rather than using referrals. They tried to get me to stay overnight and I kind of got out of that but I now feel (having later had to spend a significant stay in a very new American hospital and realizing the English one was just as clean and new-looking) that perhaps I had been scared by propaganda. Spain was completely free clinic even though the patient (not me) was a visiting tourist and was also really fast and friendly. But that was not a major medical emergency.

In England there certainly are complaints about the Dental system. The NHS is not paying enough and dentists can get out of serving NHS patients so there is either huge lines or you pay a lot. I did not experience it so I can't say first-hand, but this is the one area where I believe the US system is superior. There was some other posts here pointing out that how Dental works here with users actually able to and having a motive to do price comparisons may be an explanation. I also know first-hand (being across from the USC Dental School) that poor are served by these for free, though I am unsure if this is enough to make up for the lack of an NHS-style government program to serve them.

I am unsure how that could be applied to major medical however: if your deduction is $3000 then you don't care if the hospital is going to charge $10000 or $50000, that's a good deal different from comparing a $50 or $100 cleaning. Maybe it could apply to doctor's visits but then people just don't go at all if it is not free, while they will get their teeth cleaned because it is an obvious service, not just somebody looking at you.

By far the worst place I ever saw was when I was a kid and went with my father to an emergency room in Vegas. We went to the public hospital and it was a kafka scene, pretty horrible. After hours we finally saw somebody, who realized my father had insurance and said we were at the wrong hospital, and sent us to the really nice and clean and completely empty private one where he was treated within 30 minutes of arrival (it was a fractured ankle). This is before Reagan signed the law that said all emergency rooms must treat all incoming patients. I think it is interesting that this has not turned all emergency rooms into this scene, instead the ones I have been to since seem to be as nice as that empty private one was.

Unfortunately there's no simple, black-and-white answer to this question.

Ideally, in a good democratic society, people would decide democratically what the minimum "bar" is, and anything below that is considered neglect. We already do this to an extent in the US, with "CPS" in many states taking kids away if they're found to be abused or neglected. Usually, though, CPS is criticized for allowing too much abuse before they intervene (or just being plain incompetent, or overworked/understaffed, etc.), rather than being too heavy-handed (though this happens too occasionally). Societies do have a right to decide on minimum levels of acceptable conduct, and punish people who don't conform ("disturbing the peace" laws are an example of this). The main problem we have is our democracy isn't very good (too much corruption, bad voting systems), so the actions of the government can't really be assumed to accurately reflect the will of the people.

Transient-for hint works across process boundaries.