An other reason is that SF is on a Peninsula, so it can't really have a workable suburb.
If you go South you get all the expensive "traditional" Silicon Valley cities. If you go East or North you have to cross a bridge, and a guaranteed commute nightmare. If you go West, well... You get to Hawaii.
At some point city planners should ask themselves how many billions of dollars of higher rents per year the benefits of a flat city skyline are worth to its residents (and how to fairly balance the interests of property owners and renters).
Gasp You mean you want a bunch of NIMBY idiots to quantify their issue? If they did that, there would be a big problem, because it would plainly illustrate how absurdly greedy they are being.
The rents of restaurant and residential properties seem like orthogonal issues. I have never read that San Francisco has a shortage of retail or restaurant space.
In other cities where I've lived, when a restaurant loses a lease in this manner, it's because the landlord has lined up a different tenant which they consider much higher value.
Think about it this way: if more high-rise apartments were built, then some rowhouses (or other inefficient [in terms of people per square foot of land] housing) could be torn down. Restaurants could be built in their places.
Thus the supply of restaurant space would increase, and the average price would accordingly decrease.
Blah blah blah. This isn't Econ 101. We have zoning laws, so no, all space is not the same.
I haven't checked, but I'm fairly certain that the Grove's location isn't zoned for residential use. In any case, I can guarantee that isn't what the owners are planning to do with the space, given its prime location on a high-foot-traffic, retail strip.
The zoning restricts the market somewhat, but it like anything else can be changed. Didn't mean to come across as patronizing above — sorry if I did.
One more thing... you may have misinterpreted my comment. The situation I'm imagining is not the case where The Grove is turned into a residential development. It's the opposite — some residential areas are razed and rezoned for business, driving down The Grove's rent.
More? Probably, although it depends on how you define proper, whether you factor in aftermarket costs and whether you already have prior hardware lying around(very likely with PCs).
But definitely not "way". The 600$ the PS4 is rumored to cost(yes, i know, just a rumor) can get you a decent gaming rig.
Not really, the thing is that implementations for accessing said file systems are under a GPL license. In order to integrate them to Windows, they'd have to re-implement from scratch which could lead to a ton of bugs and then they'd have to officially support all of those file systems.
They could implement it for the sake of interoperability. Surely it doesn't worth it from MS perspective since they didn't do it. But the reason is not because they don't have resources or it's some extremely hard problem to tackle. The reason is that they don't care about interoperability until forced. That's their whole approach.
Copy 2TB JSF partition over network sounds like something I wouldn't want to do... An easier solution is to just get a Live Linux distro, and another 2TB NTFS partition, and copy over the data... if you have another 2TB drive.
I know the world looks different when you're the server admin who has to deal with it, but how often does such a partition end up on a Windows server in the first place?
