Has to be their client :-(

I restored something like 350GB in smaller files, and that all went smoothly. It seems that it generally DOES support resuming. But for some reason, the 50GB file just keeps restarting in the middle. My guess is actually something weird about the FS interaction or the output buffers they're using, but who knows for sure. It's taken about 2 weeks of back and forth on a support ticket to get them to even _mention_ that they might eventually need to hand this off to Tier 2 support. Everything else about the service has been pretty good, but this is a pretty big downer.

Watch out for Crashplan in certain cases. I'm currently trying to restore a 50GB file, and it keeps restarting the download halfway through. Their support is useless, basically leaving it at "sorry dude, nothing we can do". For other files it's been good, but their testing and support of edge cases doesn't seem especially solid.

That seems uncommon. At a lot of the major tech companies (Amazon and Microsoft for sure) managers make at least 20% more than the equivalent engineer, and often even more than that. Sort of shows you what they value.

If you took 10 seconds to read the source, it would be clear this is obvious sarcasm. Good lord, this is one of the dumbest stories to hit the /. front page in a long time.

I'd also like to point out that trying to ban DRM at this level is stupid. Certain publishers are going to continue to want DRM protection before they allow their content onto the web, regardless of the fact that every DRM scheme out there is functionally useless. Trying to block it by prohibiting the technology will only lead to many competing and poorly implemented technologies. At least let's have a standard so we can stop playing whack-a-mole with technology, and start the real discussion: convincing publishers that using DRM is NOT NECESSARY rather than NOT ALLOWED. That's a much easier conversation to have, and one that companies like Amazon are already having success with.

Programs are getting too complex for humans to understand

That's just silly. I have yet to see a programming problem that couldn't be made to wind up looking dirt simple by factoring out abstractions and reusable pieces. The real problem is effort and attention span. A lot of people see a complex problem and give up, instead of looking for the first black box sub-system they can factor out.

And yet, somehow, the written word has managed to survive.

There's a very specific set of concepts that's easier to express on the command line than in traditional programming languages, and it's pretty much entirely limited to processing streams of text. Which is nice, and it's great that this is easy to do. For what it's worth, a lot of programming languages have string buffers that can operate much like pipes to let you code in the same style internally.

However, text streams as a foundation for coding break down really quickly. Command line pipe "programs" basically require that all the data you care about be represented as a series of lines of text at every point along the way, and while that representation is very powerful for things that fit the model, it becomes a giant pain in the ass to use it to write logic that doesn't fit well.

Some newer languages are adding things like lambdas and comprehensions to move closer to this style in certain cases. And while they're nice, they're really just syntactic sugar. The fact remains that programming needs to be able to operate on variables and objects in ways that stream processing just can't do. The Unix command line paradigm is a specialized tool, while procedural/functional/OO/aspected programming is a much more general purpose one.

Desire works the other way too. More employees are available in the city because people want to live there, so the company has to go where the people are. And there are likely many companies competing for employees in the same field, so they have to pay competitive wages, which people generally view as accounting for cost of living.

Anyway, theory aside, the trend right now in a lot of fields is for there to be a marked cost of living differential reflected in salaries. A job that would pay 60k in Des Moines, IA pays 100k+ in any city on the west coast, and more like 120k-130k in NYC.

On average you'll find that the same work pays as good or better in a more expensive area (maybe better because for a lot of careers the "big" companies that can afford more competitive salaries are often in the city). So in most cases, your major costs (housing, food) should be the same percentage of your salary because your pay is adjusted for the area. However, national things like books, clothes, music, furniture, cars, airfare, etc. all cost the same wherever you live, so they'll be "cheaper" for you if you live in a more expensive town.

Put another way, 70k in Alabama is probably more like 110k in Chicago. You could pretty easily pull a 350k house on that salary, which gets you a nice 3-bedroom in a quiet neighborhood (according to a quick search). And now a new car is now 27% of your yearly salary, rather than 43% so you can upgrade almost twice as often (or buy more books, go on more vacations, or just save more).

That's not to mention all the cultural opportunities you give up living in Alabama instead of Chicago. I'm sure Alabama has some nice countryside, and I know it's not all Deliverance-style back-country. But it can't compete with Chicago in terms of world-class theater, museums, symphony, cinema, or restaurants either.

Matter of fact, I don't think I have even gone into the city in the last year and I don't feel I have missed anything.

Either that's false, or you need a better city.

Not all cities are Detroit. Many of them are actually quite nice.

Regarding the overall claim that "smart people don't live in the city", that's flat-out ridiculous. Cities provide a much greater wealth of quality and diversity in food, entertainment, and culture than the suburbs or rural areas. You could get that by living out in the burbs and driving to the city, but some people are smart enough to value their time for more than sitting in traffic. I guess you could go the other way and do nothing but stay home and watch TV, but I think that kind of disqualifies you from the "intelligent" part we mentioned earlier.

Uh... no. This is grossly inaccurate.

Probably because of this

Gmail doesn't recognize dots as characters within usernames, you can add or remove the dots from a Gmail address without changing the actual destination address; they'll all go to your inbox, and only yours.

Like Facebook. Hooray!