I periodically mail a DVD of important stuff to my parents and ask them to toss it in the basement. You could do the same thing with backup tapes, or whatever.

Drives/tape/flash/dvd is pretty damn cheap and easy. These S3 type solutions would have to be much cheaper to be interesting.

A DVD holds 4.7GB. Box.net offers 5GB for free.

Besides, how do you verify that those backups can be restored when you need them, if they're offline in some remote location? That seems rather untrustworthy to me. I run checks against parity files regularly to verify their integrity.

10 DVDS hold 47GB. How much does that cost on Box?

And can you download 47GB faster than your mom can mail you a DVD?

Storing 47GB would cost you 47 cents/month on Glacier.

And can you download 47GB faster than your mom can mail you a DVD?

Probably, though I'm not quite sure about the speed of S3. I use a cheap VPS instead (much more expensive than Glacier, but also much, much more useful), from which I can easily get 3MB/s, so that would definitively be yes.

I keep seeing articles about Go where Python developers seem to be shocked to discover that interpreted dynamically typed languages are very slow. This wasn't obvious from the get-go? Practically anything not disk bound will be many, many times faster in C++ or whatever.

On the other hand, serving it WILL get you bit. It takes out a chunk of your personality right away, and then there is the agenda itself, which is an omnivore.

You know, given the choice.. even being a face that is trampled on by a boot, forever, is better than becoming a boot, forever.

You probably got downvoted due to reading comprehension issues. Fixed it as much as I could :)

Thanks :) Moral high ground is usually a lame "argument", but in response to physical high ground it's good enough I guess, and why not jump to the general case right away, especially at the bottom of a thread ^^ There are (so many) games that really are won by not playing them, Schadenfreude is self-injury, and what people mistake with power is often just a web of desires and fears. So in conclusion, may all beings come to know themselves and achieve enlightenment, and find a pair shoes they really like.

I'll take the ones with the hob-nails on the bottom.

You seem sort of pathetically proud of what happened to him.

Technical debt can accrue to the point where a piece of software is "bankrupt." Any successful refactoring amounts to extracting a subset and redoing everything else, which can practically amount to a rewrite.

I don't think corporatism is the right word as it has distinct political connotations. I think you're just talking about mass industrial employment.

I think the important dynamic you're hinting at is the failure of the Protestant Ethic. The Protestant Ethic brings material achievements into measure of your value as a human. This was generally warned against in Catholic and Orthodox theology.

It's a formulaic little disco song. It's calculated soulless pop. I don't get the appeal.

> minimum wage or some kind of socialist initiative

The socialist initiative we need is to shut down unskilled immigration entirely. Read the article; they're all Hispanic. These people's plight is going to be made even worse by the coming wave of even greater unskilled immigration promised by the senate bill. This is why Caesar Chavez was vehemently anti-immigration.

"The socialist initiative we need is to shut down unskilled immigration entirely."

This is the exact opposite of a "socialist" initative. Either you are being ironic or do not really know in what sense "socialist" is being used here.

Either way, feels kind of cheap considering that unskilled migration has historically been one of the driving forces behind US growth and progress, and that many first class US citizens today are probably descendants of some of those migrants.

I'm actually curious why you associate open borders with socialism/communism. That's usually considered an anarcho-capitalist position. Pro-worker policies like organized labor and immigration restriction are historically associated with the left.

Actual anarchists are socialist/communist, and quite often use anti-borders slogans. Not to mention standby organizations like No One Is Illegal..

Furthermore, one of the fundamental tenets of communism is a stateless society, so there's that. And many communists thought it was one of the more important initial goals, hence 'one world communism.'

The communists did call their organization 'International Workingmen's Association', the first international, in 1864. In fact, I think that the nationalist/internationalist question is what most closely resembles the traditional left/right axis of politics.

Maybe he's a European leftie? They were historically much more internationalist.

In the US at least, the strongest anti-immigration sentiment usually comes from the right, for the usual boring list of xenophobic reasons.

>The socialist initiative we need is to shut down unskilled immigration entirely

So, giant Berlin Wall/border fence with drones and armed guards? Or viable trade/economic policy with Mexico? Nevermind, we've made that choice.

I would pay more and tolerate slower flying times if the trade off was a less hellish flying experience. The TSA sucks. Flight attendants suck and the seats suck. Airport public transportation is usually lousy.

In fact I often tolerate substantially longer travel times to ride on Amtrak rather than deal with the nightmare that is modern air travel.

Agreed, for most of my trips, especially if I could reliably get work done.

I'm also too cheap for bullet trains. Lots of people cheer-lead for high speed rail in America, but all I want is normal trains that run quite frequently.

Depending on what your routes and usage, higher speed is better than more frequent service.

For example, let's say your options are a 2 hour train that runs hourly, and an hour long ride that departs every other hour.

* Fast train: best case, 1 hour. Worst case, 2:59. Average case - about 2 hours. * Slow train: best case, 2 hours. Worst case: 2:59. Average case - about 2.5 hours.

Of course this is one example - but there are definitely cases where increased speed is strictly better than increased frequency. (Unless being on the train is better than whatever you could be doing waiting for the train)

The reality though is that high speed trains aren't nearly as fast as you'd think from the claims of 250-300 km/h top speeds. Particularly in Germany, 130kph average speed on a route is very good. Replacing a 100kph train with a 130kph train doesn't make an enormous difference. In order to get double the usual speed, you need to have totally dedicated tracks, end-to-end, and they haven't done that in most places. Having trains run more often makes a huge difference in convenience and also allows you to not worry too much about missing your train.

They have done that on a lot of routes in France.

Not to mention if the trains are faster you will need fewer trains to transport the same number of people in the same time interval.

Enjoy your 36 hour commute across the US.

Currently takes 6 hours by airplane. I don't see a bullet train beating that.

OTOH, there are a number of < 1500 km routes that could easily be served by train, if we didn't have some of the worst train service in the world. Bullet trains would be nice, but require new grading in many cases. I too would be happy just to get our old train network back.

I was thinking more like Philadelphia to Charlotte.

Why the heck do these people want to advertise to Americans? This is a Turkish issue among Turks. What does Uncle Sam have to do with this? Inviting foreign involvement and commentary seems like an obviously horrible idea to me.

Reminds me of the "color revolutions" and the Iranian protests a while ago. You knew it was all BS when they kept trotting out so many slick people speaking flawless English.

Because they can't advertise in a mainstream Turkish newspaper. The whole blowup happened because the government has been increasingly turning into a dictatorship. Newspapers and TV stations are heavily censored.

I think they may guess, not without reason, that the US would be involved anyway, and want more of the American opinion on their side. Makes sense?

Sadly, it makes sense.

I only hope American's don't get too generous and try to bring democracy to Türkiye. You know, American flavored democracy with marines and smart bombs.

Given Turkey's status as a NATO member, that's exceedingly unlikely.

I think a lot depends on Turkey here. Quite a lot, indeed.

Furthermore, it has two more consequences.

1. Americans will read the news and think "Oh wow, I'm not going to Turkey anytime soon" then move on. (Much like when they read an article about violence in Mexico, etc.)

2. Americans will read the news and think "What a hell hole out there. I'm so happy America is the best. We have it so good here". This will further re-enforce their (incorrect) views about America.

I have to wonder, who stands to gain the most if these full-page ads actually run in American media?

Most of the threads on this post and some other recent ones on HN provide a counterpoint: Many people in the West (note that NYT is widely read all over the world) don't know what's happening in Turkey and are curious. At best they are getting the government's version of events. Now, at least they'l have a single page of information from the other side.

I agree that a compaign to advertise to Americans (or any international public) is suspicious. They must reach for their own people, and this is the only right long term strategy. However, I'm afraid that most of Turks can be just too apathetic.