Replies Given
|
Your replies to other users's reviews and comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
101
|
N/A
|
Reply of
badandy400's Reply
My humble understanding of it is that NTFS normally reserves 10% of the file size for the future file growth. It helps to reduce fragmentation in the beginning, but on the flip side it means as soon as disk usage reaches 90%, there is no contiguous space left, as all free space is contained in those "reserved" chunks. As soon as this point is reached, NTFS starts to use all that micro-chunks as a space for further files, which obviously makes fragmentation of these new files sky-rocket, which in turn leads to the system being slowed down A LOT.
Disclaimer: this is just my understanding, if somebody KNOWS how it really works, please don't hit me too hard :-).
|
04-19-09 11:00pm
|
Reply
102
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Monahan's Reply
> NTSF was the only formatting a PC user should ever use.
Ahem. I don't want to start a flame on this topic (there are lots of other much interesting topics to flame on :-) ), but NTFS has two big disadvantages:
1. while it is indeed more difficult to crash it, it is also much more difficult to retrieve something from it if it crashes.
2. NTFS slows to a crawl (IMHO much worse) on reaching magic number of "90% used" (and speed doesn't necessarily comes back when you're back to below-90%). I even think I know why, but this is beyond the scope of this poll :-).
|
04-17-09 06:37am
|
Reply
103
|
Ultimate Surrender
(0)
|
Reply of
mbaya's Reply
I'm not a member myself now, but the most recent videos I have from them (maybe half a year ago or so) is 960x540 @920kbit/s, and quality is good for these parameters.
As for re-joining - if it is your cup of tea, it should be worth it, but on the other hand I shall tell that even these days things like anal are quite rare, so personally I prefer to join once in a while (probably will do it again soon), grab more intensive content (especially tag teams), and then unsubscribe.
|
04-10-09 08:20am
|
Reply
104
|
Ultimate Surrender
(0)
|
Reply of
mbaya's Comment
Have you seen their "Tag Team" matches (2-girl teams)? They have been added not so long ago, and IMHO they have made a HUGE difference for the site. And if Amber is losing, it often leads to DP, though I agree that more anal overall definitely wouldn't hurt :-).
|
04-10-09 02:33am
|
Reply
105
|
Ultimate Surrender
(0)
|
Reply of
ramscrota's Review
Are you sure it's a good idea to put that low rating for the site just because it's not your cup of tea? I mean that all "cons" in your review (except for the first one) are HIGHLY subjective and there are will be LOTS of people who have an exactly opposite opinion. Personally I'm at least trying to avoid setting low (especially THAT low) ratings to the sites which just aren't my cup of tea, at least if inside member area they provide essentially the same stuff as advertised on the tour pages.
|
04-03-09 06:49am
|
Reply
106
|
Digamour
(0)
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
I see, thanks.
|
04-03-09 05:54am
|
Reply
107
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
hondaman's Reply
Oh, this background of yours indeed explains "attention to details" which sometimes crosses the border of "not seeing forest for the trees". And it's not your fault, but the one of the whole huge legal system which is built to make formalities dominate over common sense and reason. BTW, if I would be in your place (which is not too likely), I would care much more about "not guilty person behind the bars" rather than about "guilty person walking free".
Anyway, I don't see how this background of yours is relevant to the concern I have raised.
|
04-03-09 01:17am
|
Reply
108
|
Digamour
(0)
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
Wow, thanks for the information, but how can I see if any of the other users also has such suspicious "computer sharing"? Or you just automatically suspend them?
|
04-03-09 01:09am
|
Reply
109
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
hondaman's Reply
I don't "target" anybody (come on, do you really expect me to care that much about your image here?), I'm just expressing my concern. About those people "below you" - could you elaborate a bit? ANYBODY who will post his/her FIRST review with 98 or so rating is suspicious to me until proven otherwise, period. In formal terms - such rating in the FIRST review by definition carries significant negative credibility attached to it.
|
11-15-08 02:54pm
|
Reply
110
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
> I don't think it's suspicious when someone starts their posting career
> at PU giving the highest ratings ever - probably because that's what I
> did.
Interesting, maybe I'm suspicious because I didn't it? :-) But seriously, starting with 98 or so review is a "business card" of the typical "shill" (we've seen many of them here, and there is no doubt about it); while I agree it is not conclusive evidence, it is still suspicious.
> Met Art deserves high praise...
If only they would make their models look a bit more alive than current "dead fish" looks... But unfortunately there is no holy grail in porn, not even in softcore :-(.
|
11-15-08 10:16am
|
Reply
111
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
hondaman's Reply
> you cant really tell if any person on this site is honest or not
I think I can tell at least most of the time, otherwise what's the point of reading the site?
> I have the right to put out my opnion about a site
Right
> just cause you dont agree with my score dosent mean that I am lying
Right, but I'm suspicious about you _not_ because of disagreeing with you (come on, I disagree with every second person here, starting from exotics4me, but there are no regulars I can suspect), but because your pattern of reviews is quite close to a typical "shill" who tries to promote the site (or sites) for money.
|
11-15-08 10:06am
|
Reply
112
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
> I think hondaman done some fine things here after all
For the first review - yes, but IMHO it's still too one-handed. Ok, it can easily be "honestly one-handed", but it's still way too one-handed IMHO.
> But, bro - we'll see in the future - guess there's never any 100%..
For me there are a few 100%s here on PU, starting (surprise) from myself :-), and ending with about 50 or so people (yourself included :-) ); come on, suspecting roseman or exotics4me of shilling would be WAY too far fetching.
|
11-14-08 12:34pm
|
Reply
113
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
Well, bro, to put it bluntly - doesn't it look suspicious when somebody just STARTS his PU life with ridiculously high ratings? You're here longer than me, but even I myself have seen LOTS of different shills around here (coming, making 98 or so review for the site, seeing that rating doesn't count, then sometimes trying to make a few MUCH less detailed reviews to get points, and then usually giving up and disappearing). Granted, it doesn't look TOO suspicious for hondaman, but I'm still not 100% sure about him.
|
11-14-08 12:12pm
|
Reply
114
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
Sorry, I cannot agree that the very first review with the words "the best errotic art site on the net" and rating of 97 can possibly be a "fine" one.
|
11-14-08 11:52am
|
Reply
115
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
hondaman's Reply
> Not sure what you mean by "lack of fire".
I've meant that at least most of Met-Art models are plastic dollies without any personality. Please read my review and also comments of the other PU'ers to my review.
> Are you sure that you where ever a member of this site?
Yes, I am. Also I'm sure of lots of the other things, though not 100% sure about search on Met-Arts. If it is there, good for them, but my rating stays (I even think of reducing it because of "lack of fire", which IMHO is not compensated by brilliant photo work and locations); just wondering: are ALL Russian models have so little personality?
|
11-14-08 11:40am
|
Reply
116
|
Digamour
(0)
|
Reply of
muglore's Reply
Thanks, sounds good, maybe at some point I will give it another try.
|
11-06-08 06:41am
|
Reply
117
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
> That done, I'd view her stuff right before going to her place,
> thinking, "Wow, I'M going to bone this babe! For REAL!"
I think I'd react the same way.
|
11-01-08 04:24pm
|
Reply
118
|
N/A
|
Reply of
messmer's Reply
:-)
|
10-30-08 01:15pm
|
Reply
119
|
Naughty Athletics
(0)
|
Reply of
elonlybuster's Reply
Hm, it would be a kind of quite misleading guarantee, won't it? It would be interesting to see if anybody has tried to use this kind of guarantee to see if it is real or "30 days or 30 seconds whichever comes first".
|
10-30-08 01:13pm
|
Reply
120
|
Murder Lily
(0)
|
Reply of
monica's Reply
Thanks; your reply has indeed reduced my initial suspicions, but as you have said, we'll see how it goes later.
|
10-23-08 01:20pm
|
Reply
121
|
Murder Lily
(0)
|
Reply of
aamurphy's Review
Is it only my nose which smells something funny in this review and very quick subsequent webmaster reply?
|
10-23-08 06:43am
|
Reply
122
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
> Does anyone think that a stuntman would allow himself to be set on
> fire for that big scene without first putting some protection on?
Right, they take precautions - EXACTLY PRECAUTIONS THAT THEY THINK ARE APPROPRIATE. Why models should be denied THE SAME CHOICE?
> Yes some of them do get hurt, but it's not because of the lack of precautions.
Come on, when anybody get hurt in an accident it's ALMOST ALWAYS because of the lack of precautions, and is ALWAYS this way for stunts (to start with, they could easily refuse to participate in the particular stunt if they consider it too risky). BTW, the same is true for car accidents - the very basic precaution is to avoid driving completely, but very few people are taking it.
|
10-22-08 07:15am
|
Reply
123
|
N/A
|
Reply of
pat362's Reply
IMHO it is MUCH more complicated than simple "people have contracted some serious illnesses". People get infected and even get killed in all kinds of jobs (starting with medical ones), so IMHO just mere EXISTENCE of the chance doesn't make some thing "too bad" or not, for me it is important to know HOW BIG this chance is. To complete analogy with stuntman - some of them die or get permanently injured, but this doesn't mean that I won't watch "regular" movies which include stunts. Also it's quite obvious that using condoms does not GUARANTEE anything, it just reduces the chance, which again supports my point of view that it is all about "HOW BIG the chance is". EVERYTHING has some risk, even driving to work (this one is probably MUCH higher than any job-related risk BTW), so I tend to consider SOME risks as "normal" (yes, it is very sad if somebody dies in the car accident, but we won't give up cars because of it, will we?)
Now to the "HOW BIG the chance is" question for condomless porn - while I don't have any statistics on it (maybe somebody has? - then it would be interesting to compare it to statistics on stuntman injuries), I've got a feeling that with all the people who REALLY HATE porn, any such cases would be made VERY high-profile as a tool to fight porn, so as I don't hear of it every second day, it shouldn't be too bad even as it stands now. This obviously is just a wild speculation on my part, and I will be glad to see any real statistics (which in turn can make me reconsider my view of condomless porn).
|
10-21-08 09:55am
|
Reply
124
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Reply
> But selfish me that rubber ruins the fantasy.
Ditto. An ideal for me would be something safe but invisible.
|
10-20-08 11:18am
|
Reply
125
|
N/A
|
Reply of
roseman's Poll
Does "I don't chat" qualify as an answer? :-)
|
10-14-08 03:57pm
|
|
