At the time I used it (around 2006), I don't believe QuickTime was required, but it was Trojan-horsed onto me every time iTunes updated. It was an opt-out, and Apple definitely fostered the impression that it was required (it was for some features I guess).
It also hijacked file associations without warning, which was one of the most annoying/aggressive things about it.
I'll also add that having to install bloated garbage like iTunes in the first place was aggressive (due to Apple's policy of locking iPod owners into using iTunes), so adding another piece of bloated garbage on top of that was really irritating.
Vote for whom exactly? Obama has done very little for labor. Do you content Romney would of done a better job? Or that a 3rd party candidate is viable? That trend trickles down to the local level in my experience. The US is not a democracy anymore more drastic action is required.
Politicians naturally drift to the issues that people will vote over. If the electorate cares about an issue, you'll see political action. In this sense, your parent comment is correct. Obama and hypothetical Romney aren't doing anything about this because it isn't a voting issue.
This is quite an interesting argument because except funding nothing prevents us from eliminating crime and poverty. The government is simply not interested in doing these things. They'd rather cater to the needs of their 'sponsors'.
I think it's kind of funny that politicans are not interested in their own country.
Why? I'm not interested in my country either, I'm interested in my own household. Why would politicians be any different, given that it's not their country, they're just temporary CEOs? (We know how well the CEO situation works for large companies.)
An absolute monarch might be interested in his country, because it's actually his property.
Not really. In the 50+ year history of amateur mycology clubs in the U.S., there hasn't been a single recorded death from mushroom poisoning.
By far the biggest risk involved with foraging mushrooms is tick-related illness, including, but not limited to, lyme disease. Followed by getting in a car/bike accident on the way to forage, getting lost in the woods, falling injuring yourself, getting shot by hunters or pot farmers, or getting trampled by a cow -- all of which are orders of magnitudes more likely than accidentally poisoning yourself.
And fwiw, there actually are chemicals that you can use to identify some mushrooms, but the government has banned them -- one for being a date rape drug, the other because it's a precursor to meth.
> Until recently, we kept copies of repository data using off-the-shelf, disk-layer replication technologies—namely, RAID and DRBD. We organized our file servers in pairs. Each active file server had a dedicated, online spare connected by a cross-over cable.
With all the ink spilled about creative distributed architectures, it's really humbling to see how far they grew with an architecture that simple.
I'm not surprised really. I never worked at GH scale, but anyway learned early that simple solutions just work. Want a db cluster? Why not active-passive M-M instead. Want a M-M setup? Why not dual server and block replication.
Complicated things fail in complicated ways (looking at you, mysql ndb cluster), while simple solutions just work. They may be less efficient, but you'd better have a great use case for spending time on a new, fancy clustering solution - and even better idea how to handle it's state / monitoring / consistency.
For the real use cases for the fancy clustering solution, the benefits can be huge... and complicated things built with failure in mind actually fail in quite simple ways. DGit is an example in itself. Sure it heavily leverages the complexity of git's versioning/branching/distributed vcs mechanism to get the job done, but compared to a SAN or RAID + DRBD, the failure scenarios are much more straightforward to deal with.
I agree. As long as you have people who can build it tailored to the service and handling all the errors. GH can afford doing that almost from scratch. Or if you're sure that this is exactly the solution you need and are familiar with the failure scenarios.
But from what I've seen in a few places, a lot of people jump to cluster solutions without either a real need or enough people to support it.
Consumption of TV has moved almost entirely to platforms that can track that data themselves (for example through a set top box or directly on the web), without requiring someone to have a smartphone turned on, running spyware, in the room.
I think this data is still useful because there isn't a one-to-one correspondence between those devices and the viewers. A box might be left on with nobody around, or it might be the center of a viewing party with twenty people. They also want to know who is watching, since demographics count for a lot.