Haha.

If you are 16, the courts decide whether to treat you as a minor on a case-by-case basis.

A "sealed" record only means that the word "sealed" is printed on it somewhere.

If you are 16 or under, get arrested for a felony, and it is handled under the juvenile system, your record will show a felony arrest (all the expungement and sealing in the world will not get rid of this). The expungement/sealing that takes place will prevent the record from showing that it was handled in this manner, and it will look like an open felony case. If an employer is generous, they will allow you to get the records - which being sealed, requires an in-person visit from the defendant. Either way, if you succeed you start off your employment in a bad light, and if you fail, you just quit your old job to take a new one that fired you in your first month due to background check issues.

Nothing looks worse on a background check than a charge that was dropped or otherwise resolved without a conviction.

If you are charged with a felony and plead guilty to a misdemeanor, you have a misdemeanor record. If you are charged with a felony and the charges are dropped, employers will often consider this to be a felony record.

Someone who actually used an application for their profession should have better "anecdotal evidence" about it than someone who has never used it at all.

How would being acquainted with an actress be relevant to this at all? It's really not related to post-production work. And why would that be related to being a "better human being"?

Although my linux firewall has always been subjected to random brute-force attacks, the pattern of the attacks is somewhat different than it used to be. More attempts of varying usernames, or slow attempts to log in as root.

Interestingly when I tried to modify sshd to not log passwords when attempts are made on bogus accounts, I found that the code was so obfuscated/abstracted that there was no clear place to modify the daemon to log passwords. I quickly decided it wasn't worth it, although I don't understand why an encrypted log of the password used on an invalid account is not a feature.

For analysis/understanding of the attacks it's clearly helpful that I know what passwords were tried. Imagine if you saw passwords that were close a correct one, or converging towards a correct one. Or if they had your root password for some reason, and they're trying this against a huge list of usernames because you're not allowing logins as root directly.

This shouldn't matter, you should accept that all cheap NAS solutions suck, and mega-cheap ones mega-suck.

Just naming an example of one is useless.

Quality order, ignoring SAS vs SATA.
1) Netapp
2) Solaris software RAID using ZFS
3) Linux or Windows hardware RAID with HP SmartArray (cciss) cards
4) Linux software RAID or hardware RAID with 3Ware or LSI cards
5) high-end NAS solutions besides Netapp
6) Windows software RAID
7) Linux or Windows hardware RAID with cheap cards
8) cheap NAS solutions.

The thing to publicize to prevent others from making the same mistake is to warn everyone who can listen that your storage choices are high-end storage or SATA storage with software RAID on Solaris (ZFS), Linux, or Windows (in that order of quality

But this is going to be afflicted by the same problem that causes people to buy bad storage solutions in the first place. If it is easy to set up and works for at least a week, it's going to get negative reviews. The average person posting may not even understand what a hard drive is. In fact, it seems that less than 50% of the computer-using population now understands the difference between the hard drive and the case holding the computer, to the point where they will fight and insist that the computer be called a hard drive, or consider it an annoying piece of technical pedantry.

All cheap NAS solutions suck. Sorry.

If you are not buying a netapp, you need to think about the suck-factor of your NAS solution versus hosting it on a Linux or even Windows server.

I have never seen a NAS solution - even high end ones - that I consider acceptable, besides the Netapp.

It is a tough call whether a given high-end NAS solution (betsides netapp) is better that a software RAID on a cheap server.

I have never seen a super-low-end NAS solution that was acceptable even for MP3s or backups. The hassle of failure and data loss will quickly exceed the cost savings, even if it's just for non-critical storage where data loss is no problem.

Basically, either go Netapp or set up a Linux server with software RAID. All other solutions are distant third/fourth/fifth.

In between those two choices, a Solaris server doing software RAID with ZFS is better than Linux's software RAID. NFS server quality is about equal (it is absolutely no longer true that Solaris's NFS server is far better than Linux's).

If you need redundancy, a pair of Linux machines with heartbeat and DRBD (therefore two copies of the data) will be far cheaper than any sever-based solution that involves redundant servers sharing storage with no single point of failure.

Sorry, this is just a fact of life. Expensive storage is expensive because you're paying for the manageability, reliability, availability. Cheap storage throws these all away to meet a price point, and ends up making you wish you had just done it on a server.

What are the problems with cheap storage, especially a NAS? Rather than listing every problem I've ever seen, how about I give you an example of the design apathy. A cheap NAS may have never been tested by the vendor in the case of a failing drive. Pulling a drive out while it's running is too clean of a failure to be considered anything more than a preliminary test (however some cheap storage can't even handle this!). I've even seen higher end storage where this was basically the case.

Oh. I stand corrected. Glass clearly is a liquid. I'd better get started on taping up my windows.

Then what's the difference between a liquid and solid?

I'm in the US in a major city and I'm living under threat of being cut off from the Internet altogether. My only Internet choice (for under $500/month) is Comcast. If you violate the 250GB/month limit twice in a year, they ban you for a year. 250GB is a day and a half at full speed. Comcast provides no way to query my bandwidth usage, so I must track it on my firewall and hope that the accounting is the same and that no one sends packets to my address with a TTL one-less than required to arrive at my firewall.

EMC during the dot-com boom would indeed see to this for you if you bought a few million in storage.

It's regulated. It's not scheduled or listed.

Not why. In surgery, some drugs are "background" drugs to keep you always anesthesized. Some are stronger and shorter-acting, and are meant to keep you actually half-dead, requiring closer monitoring. But the background drugs ensure that you're still on something when they back off of the serious ones.

Nitrous and Propofol are in the 'background' drug category. Longer acting and less strong.

So like 99% of the nitrous you breath in, you end up breathing back out

You waste your $5 that way. Take small breaths, mix it with some air so you can hold it it in longer. SIT DOWN before you fall down. Wrap the balloon end around your finger so you don't slip and lose any. Don't breathe out until you have to.

Of course not.

Name a nontrivial example of mature code in wide use anywhere today.

Not a single legacy system. Not a few lines of code in a huge application or OS. An actual complete mature application in use today. Name one.

It doesn't take quibbling over the definition of mature for this to be readily apparent. If you're finding bugs in it yourself, if bugs aren't fixed because there are higher priority bugs to fix - it isn't mature!