I don't quite think you quite realize what it is you're advocating. In fact, I don't think many people that advocate revolution realize what it is they're calling for. Let's get this straight, a revolution would make things a lot WORSE before it made things better. In fact, it would take decades before our standard of life would approach what it is now if there was a revolution.

We are facing very complex problems as a country now. Admittedly, the system needs reform. But it does not need a revolution. Why? Because too much of the world economy depends on America. Things may be bad for us now, but if unrest starts to take hold then faith in the US economy would surely falter. If companies get concerned about our ability to function or the government to maintain control then panic would grip the global markets. Trade would virtually stop and the world would be thrown into a global depression far worse than what we are facing right now. Kiss your electronics good bye. We import all of them, you know. Maybe you could live without them, but what about food? You think gas and food prices are high now? If a revolution took place then they would skyrocket. People would be thrown into true poverty. People would die, and not because of the revolution battles - because of starvation and not being able to afford the inflated prices. The kicker in all of this? It wouldn't be the 1% or the politicians you're complaining about that would suffer. No, they'd have the means to escape. The common man? The one that's advocating the revolution. He'd be the one that would suffer.

Don't be naive. Calls for a revolution must be taken very seriously because they would drastically affect your daily life. This is why movements such as OWS need to be watched very closely. People are upset. They don't have jobs. The future doesn't look bright. But they don't realize that if they actually start introducing unrest then their lives will get far, far worse.

We need reform. New political parties and representatives - not just left and right. OWS could play a part in this. They should be forming a party with ideas and proposed solutions. That would be a means to achieving their goals. Right now, sitting in parks and protesting is merely raising the probability of unrest. And whether the protesters realize that or not, it will help no one.

It's quite clear that we possess the technology to make a 100+ MPG vehicle. The real question, though, is whether a practical vehicle can be made to attain those figures that the public would be willing to buy. Would tens of thousands of people be willing to buy it? No way.

People give American car companies a lot of crap for their vehicles performing inefficiently, but truthfully they're providing what the American consumer is willing to buy. Your average Joe won't buy a vehicle without trunk space and without comfortable seats. There are also factors such as appearance/design, safety (where are the airbags on these?), and the very basics like radio and cruise control. Keep in mind that up until the past few years, the best selling vehicle in the world was a pickup truck.

These Xprize vehicles would be hard pressed to make even the tiniest of dents in the market. They're a PR stunt and research platforms more than anything. Could the technology be used elsewhere? Absolutely. But don't expect to see these mass produced and highly sold anytime soon.

Here is the clip. YouTube is processing it now (might take a few minutes). The HD version should also be at the same link in an hour or so (again, YouTube processing time).

The footage is a bit rough since I just threw it together now. However you kind of get the idea. People were standing around just watching and the police decided to disperse the crowd with the sound cannon. Apologies for the bad camera work - we weren't filming anything in particular and the police refused to let us set up near the major news networks. Interestingly, they also pushed back another Japanese news network.

I have a clip of the sound cannon in action in Pittsburgh. I'm editing it now and will post it on YouTube. It's quite impressive technology but it sucks to be on the wrong end of it.

I'm not sure what you're looking at, but the ribbon has a label for every single icon visible. Don't like the icons? Ignore them and look at the text.

Honestly, I think most users are upset because Microsoft changed what they had used for over half a decade. The new ribbon scheme makes perfect sense to me. And it's much easier to find what you're looking for than with the old menu system where you were constantly searching huge menus. Everything is now organized how it should be. Looking for margins or page orientation? It's in a logical location - the page layout tab.

If people would learn to adapt, try new things, maybe they'd realize that they could like the new layout. Instead it just seems people are too busy complaining about how they want the old way back as opposed to attempting to learn a new way of doing things.

I'm not the asker but I also work in the campus TV station and can provide additional details.

The primary method of storage right now is a RAID 5 based array containing around 6 TB of data. We'll be adding a Drobo Pro in the next few days with an additional 6TB of storage. Together this will serve the 12TB of data on the server located in the studio. The system storing the data now is running CentOS 5.

However, this is not a good method of backup. It just provides redundancy in case a hard drive fails. What we want is an offsite server which will serve as a backup system. The system will be located in a separate building but on the campus network (transfer speeds not an issue).

We want the backup system to be able to store the original 12TB. HOWEVER, it needs to be expandable or at least have enough space to accommodate additional data over the years. So I'm thinking the original setup could have around 16TB of storage. However this needs to be expandable up to 24TB or 32TB without too much extra work involved. With a transition to HD video we plan on having at approximately 1TB of new data per year and this will increase over time.

Because we want the system to be expandable we don't think RAID would be ideal. The idea of having to use identical drives feels very limiting. Hence the reason a Drobo Pro is very appealing. However, it just doesn't support the capacity we require beyond the initial studio server. We want to have a version control system which will require additional storage as well. We don't need daily complete backups. Just something like subversion or CVS which will log when changes are made and save them. That way if someone decides to delete all the directories a history will be stored. The snapshots of the versions don't have to be in real time - they can be done daily. If there are no changes in one day then no snapshot will be required. Typically we do a dump of all the data to the studio server once a month from each editing machine. So snapshots would occur approximately once per month. This data is rarely read - maybe once/twice per year and not all of it.

Restoration time is not that important. As long as it takes less than a few days. No application data is being stored. It's just raw project files and video files that are in directories.

We'd like this to cost between $3000 and $4000 for everything. Obviously, cheaper is preferred.

Google Voice is a really nice service but the key issue I have with it is that I can't port my number. Sure, I'd love all the extra little perks it offers like visual voice mail, but I won't get any of these features until I tell everyone to use my new Google number. Call me attached and lazy if you will, but that's a fair amount of effort. Let me port my number and then I'll use your services.

That being said I've only used my Grand Central / Google Voice number on two occasions: helping my parents buy a car and buying a car myself. It's fantastic to give them this number and throw it on Do Not Disturb mode. I never had to deal with a single sales call.

I will admit that I haven't read the full text of that paper but I have read the conclusion. It certainly does not suggest that DST does not save us energy. In fact, it says there is not enough data to draw a conclusion. The data is either outdated, conflicting or based on constraining assumptions. Point being, don't try to twist your sources into saying something they're certainly not!

That being said, I view myself as a proponent of DST. Yes, it has its flaws (switching clocks is annoying), but I do believe it saves energy. I notice a lot of people here say "get up earlier or change business hours if you want more light." Do you really think that would work? We have a hard enough time getting people to go out and vote in a presidential election every 4 years and you want them to change their sleeping schedules? No, I don't have that much faith in others. DST standardizes everyone waking up earlier because most people wouldn't be bothered to on their own.

I suppose my assumption that it saves energy could be wrong, but I can't say I've seen a conclusive paper that gives a good argument either way.