I own two Teslas and I take a lot of road trips. It takes a bit longer than 10 - 15m for the most part, at least on road trips. If you are just cruising around town, you're probably right. But either way, I'm going to guess you live on one of the coasts. That skews your perspective. In the majority of the country (such as where I live) I have rarely, if ever, seen another Tesla at a Supercharger. All of the Superchargers between St. Louis and Denver are completely empty most of the time and are, quite literally, NEVER full. This change doesn't affect most of th country (geoloation wise), so they should just implement it on congested chargers, not on vacant, little used chargers.

My Tesla stops just fine with only regenerative braking. I apply the brakes to keep from moving on hills until it's time to move again.

My problem with BTRFS and ZFS, and I admit I may be in the minority, is the handling of RAID. Creating a raid setup is fantasically easy in ZFS and BTRFS and is miles ahead of mdadm. However, the problem comes when you want to expand your raid. If you want to increase your capacity, you have to create a whole new raid the same size as your old raid.

I'm sorry, but I really don't want to put together another 16 TB of disks and add another 16TB to my raid. I just want to add another 3 or 6 TB hard drive and expand it that much. I don't consume TB of data in the span of a few weeks or month. Adding an additional 3 TB to my RAID will last me for another year or so. It would be pointless to add another 16 TB and it would waste 2 additional disks for no reason.

If I add another 3 TB disk to my RAID6 under mdadm, I get another ~3 TB. If I add another 8 3 TB disks to my current raid, I get another 24 TB. If I add anothe 8 disks to a ZFS or BTRFS raid setup, I get another... 16TB. Fuck that.

Other than that, I haven't found anything that I dislike about ZFS or BTRFS... but the RAID situation is a real deal killer.

One of the major problems with IT and engineering departments is that they are treated as an expense. They are something distasteful but necessary to the business, but the business would rather do away with it if it could. When you and/or your department are viewed like that, it's hard not to become cynical and annoyed with the other departments.

Often times IT is the gatekeeper of information and much like dentists and doctors, they are often times the bearers of bad news, even though they aren't the cause. They are just the messenger, but when you're told "No, you can't access Facebook during work hours," the IT department is often blamed, even though they didn't make the policy.

Engineering is seen as an impediment to sales and progress because they are the ones that have to keep saying "No, it's not ready yet." or "No, we can't do that." Engineering is like the police department... everyone hates them until they need them. Then when that need is over, it goes right back to hating them.

This is one of the few strip I would pay to access. While I wouldn't be paying to access the strip itself, I would be paying to support Breathed and to encourage him to continue the strip. I can't really think of many other comic strips, modern or otherwise that I would do this for.

Yes, advertising is morally justifiable as long as there is choice to not be exposed to that advertising. If there is a website that you are required to go to for say the IRS or other government services. Or you're required to go there for your school or some other "required" website, then it gets far more murky. But if you are going to a commercial or entertainment or even a news site, then it is totally morally justifiable, since there is no requirement that you visit that site. You are agreeing to the consumption of the content for "free," you are really paying with your attention, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Then when you throw in AdBlock and it's ilk into the mix, which allows you to bypass the attention sale, I think it's totally justifiable.

To take it a step further, if you could somehow mandate (haha) that advertising be easily blockable, then it goes even further into the justifiable category, since only those wish to see the advertising would be seeing it. That's the choice... We should not limit people in what they can and can't do just because we don't agree with where we "spend" out attention. Not that anyone is suggesting that. I don't think the question is whether it's morally justifiable or not, since advertising really doesn't have a moral component, so long as there is choice (and there currently is) - if and when the advertising crosses over into the forced and unavoidable advertising, then it absolutely is NOT justifiable under any circumstance.

I really think that is the ultimate crux here: If a person can avoid the advertising (either through a switch, through AdBlock et al or by not visiting the site) then it's totally justifiable. If it is forced upon the person or on a site that you are required to visit for something that is unavoidable (Government services, etc...) then no, it's not justifiable at all.

Other than that, the free market should decide. If the advertising is too much on a site, then don't visit it... that company will either change it's ways or go out of business.

If your data is not backed up in 3 separate places, it's not backed up.

So to answer your question, you should have it on your drive where you access it. Stored on an external HD (or CD/DVD/ETC) in a fire proof safe and in the cloud (preferrably in an encrypted container). So if your house burns up and your fireproof backup fails, you'll have the cloud. If the cloud provider goes bust, you'll have your backups that you can restore to a different cloud provider.

If you don't want to store it "in the cloud" have a trusted friend store a backup drive at their house or put one in a safe deposit box somewhere. But the bottom line is, one backup of your primary data is not enough and never will be.

Oh, so the US Government can be trusted to not fuck up a monetary system? I mean, it's worked so well with USD, why wouldn't it work with another version of it?

You are the reason there is a problem. You don't even understand what the problem is, so how can you be expected to form an viable opinion on it?

You do realize that it takes much more energy to create and distribute the US dollar than it does to create and distribute bitcoins, right? So if Bitcoin is anti-environment, then the US Dollar is super-anti-I-fucking-hate-all-living-things environment.

So why are you using USD, since that is so anti-environment?

Logged in to say this, but see you already got to it. This monopoly crap is what needs to be fixed. Right now, I would gladly take a difficult (and expensive) to terminate service over the choice I have now: Take Comcast or take nothing reasonable (satellite? Riiight...)

We need someone to bust up these monopolies and let other companies in to compete. This "we are locking in this neighborhood" crap has got to stop and I think it's the biggest hurdle to any sort of competitive broadband in this country (compared to other countries).

T-Mobile in the US is different than T-Mobile in Europe. I realize they are owned by the same parent company, but the operate very differently. You are absolutely right that T-Mobile Europe is a piece of shit. T-Mobile US is actually pretty awesome on many fronts.

A more important question is why are you using a cloud provider without using encryption? No one should be storing any sort of sensetive file on a cloud service without first encrypting it. I use Boxcryptor on all of my cloud services... Truecrypt also works well for that sort of thing... anything. Use something to protect yourself instead of giving unfettered access to the cloud provider and their (lack of) security.

They have little reason to protect you.

By this same logic, they don't take USD, GBP, JPY or, in fact, any currency. They use a third party exchange called Paypal, Visa, Mastercard, etc...

Idiot.

The ASIC era will aim to fix the 51% attack problem... or at least make it extremely costly. The farther we get into the ASIC era, the less and less likely and more costly it will be for someone to subvert the network.

1 year ago, it would have taken less than 1 million dollars to wreck the bitcoin network. 1 year from now it will take at least $100 million, if not more, assuming the price of BTC doesn't tank or something.

Granted, $100 million is pocket change for some large corporations and of course governments, so the threat is still there. But as time goes on, the cost starts to rise further and further out of reach of all but richest of entities, until it gets so costly as to be unfeasible. At that point, it's cheaper to wage a legal or physical war, but that's another problem entirely.

The Core2Duo was built on 65nm technology. It's not THAT old.

For this type of device, 65nm is pretty freaking awesome actually.