Someone will come along and try to find some way to make it out to be an act of evil. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Even a thick terminal supporting remote GUIs like X require less than 10 gb of space, even if you are supporting something like X.
A $170 gets you a 480 GB SSD: http://www.newegg.com/Product/...
If you setting up terminals that take up 480 GB, then you are doing it wrong.
I have 240 GB SSD and I have Windows along with several varations of Linux VMs and a Windows VM for isolated testing. Numerous repositories. SQL Server, Postgre Server, all the client tooling that goes with them. Numerous multi GB games.
Even 480 GB is plenty for most amateur audio/video production if you are moving finished projects off to a NAS.
And as for the phone comment, show me a single microSD that costs $170 and offers 480 GB of space.
Every aspect of your response is littered with stupidity.
Let me clarify, alot of other major players sell your information and or give third parties access to it. This is how people end up with their picture in Facebook ads from third parties. Facebook has enabled a system where to do just about anything, you have to share information with a third party. Google on the other hand decides which ads are shown where, so they have no need to share your information outside of their own system.
Now you're going to bring up Google sharing your information with government requests, but that's different because they have a legal obligation to do so, and they have done what they can within their legal power to fight that. Additionally, that is very limited amount of sharing when compared with what Facebook does of their own design and intent, AND on a much larger scale, involving sharing with a very large number of third parties.
Google shows targeted ads, without revealing or transferring your information to questionable ad networks, nor do they serve ads to show you ridiculous popups and resource hogging flash. Compare that to other major players in the market, and what they offer users, and you'd see they pan out as being much more responsible in how they support the cost of providing services.
They've also fought for more transparency in government information requests, so the public knows exactly what the government is demanding from Google.
When they discovered oppressive governments were hacking their services to obtain information in political dissidents, Google took steps to correct the problems.
They've made a few missteps along the way, but overall they've taken positive initiatives they didn't have to.
For $150 you can get a SSD with plenty of space for the vast majority of desktop roles, and it will beat out HDD by at least 10 times or more on speed, heat, power consumption, and noise.
The only thing HDD is king of, is being slow. King of maybe certain roles that require a very large amount of cheap space.
And if you want to argue capacity needs for servers, you need to start talking about enterprise HDDs, and their $/gb is not as high as consumer HDDs, and it gets worse when you factor in power consumption and cooling costs(yes HDDs generate heat even though they don't need heatsinks, and in data center cooling costs you $). By the time you factor that in, the $/gb of a enterprise drive gets close to SSDs.
You said: "The article writer mist be smoking some amazing shit to come to such a wacky claim."
Are you referring to the article summary, or one of the specificly linked articles? Because summary says: "Oh, and price. We'll have to wait and see on that."
So they are not making any claims about price. It seems maybe you are the one smoking too much?
Anyhow, there are only a few niche roles where a desktop needs that much space. Give me a 240 GB SSD with 10 times faster IOPs, 10th of the heat and power consumption, zero noise, and no moving parts. That's plenty.
HDD's still have there place for certain use cases, but SSDs beat them by an order of magnitude on just about every factor except price per gigabyte. $/gb is not as relevant when you realize $150 will get you enough of space on an SSD for most desktop roles, and way more than you need on an HDD.
Yes, but they employ alot of techniques to mitigate this. The endurance is so high that unless you are recording audio/video almost constantly, it will usually not become an issue. There's plenty of literature on it so not going to be redundant.
Yeh, a bit of throwing the baby out with the bath water. They gave up because they couldn't make renewables cheaper than coal. However, if you really want to help mitigate(I emphasize mitigate based on the article's information, RTFA) CO2 output, you might be willing to pay more for renewable energy and not have to suffer the economic loss of climate change impact later(that of course being a whole different argument).
It was a business venture, and they knew it wouldn't succeed based on morals alone. It'd have to be cheaper than coal to be viable, and coal is dirt cheap, cause there's a ton of the stuff. It's alot more available than oil is, it's just not the nicest stuff to burn on the same planet you happen to live.
Normalize your data and use rates, or GTFO
"to enrich himself"
This is what really sets him apart from other copyright cases. He knowingly hosted massive amounts of copyright content, regardless of how it got there, and created a system that gained him massive revenue from it.
HTML5 is not capable of capturing your screen. You could write the client in HTML5, but then you wouldn't have the option for clients to occasionally share their screen.
I know NPAPI wasn't exactly the most elegant thing, but at least it was supported by a few major browsers. Are there any good plugin API alternatives that are cross browser? Or is everyone having to implement a version of the plugin for each browser using whatever API that browser has decided to support?
Chrome 64bit didn't support NPAPI and so WebEx didn't work for me, but in last couple weeks they recently completely redid WebEx plugin and now it works. I assume they now have a non-NPAPI dependant plugin. I may be mistaken though.
They certainly misplaced their trust. I don't have a great deal of sympathy for these individuals either. But I would never say they deserve it unless they entered the market with malicious intent. Maybe they were selfish to try and capitalize on the currency, or perhaps they just believe in it from a philosophical standpoint and wanted to support it.
The logic of they-deserved-it-so-its-justified-because-they-let-it-happen is a worn fallacy I'm tired of hearing. If we all believed in such logic, we'd all wear a helmet at all times, otherwise anyone who caves your skull in from behind with a rock would be perfectly justified and socially acceptable. There would be no crime because everything would be legal. Anything you propose as being illegal would be dismissed on that same logic. Oh someone robbed you at gunpoint? Too bad, shouldn't have been outside carrying valuables unarmed. You will probably reply that "anyone who is too weak or goes out unarmed deserves to whatever happens to them, let the weak be weeded out", but even the most well armed and prepared could, and eventually would, find themselves in a situation where they didn't see their assailant in time. Children are pretty uninformed of many of the dangers of the world. Sometimes the best lessons learned are those that are learned the hard way, but there are certainly some terrible things that happen to the uninformed which they didn't by any means deserve. It would be chaos.
"Erm what do you mean 'if'? "
If you don't understand what a conditional statement is then you're an idiot. I'm sorry, I started that with "If" so you aren't going to understand that sentence either, so let me rephrase. You're an idiot.
"They DO have their own CA's added to all browsers. Lots of governments do."
I've never seen a major browser delivered with a known government CA. There have been cases where it has appeared that a CA began issuing fraudulent certificates, and it appeared to be under the influence of a government entity. You might claim those are one and the same, but a legitimate independent CA is indistinguishable from a CA that is acting on behalf of a government entity until it starts issuing fraudulent certificates.