So you are saying then that any product who's raw materials have already been taxed and the labor to create the finished product has been taxed shouldn't be taxed? And, the profit made from sale of such widget shouldn't be taxed because it's been taxed earlier in the production chain?
... and several other vendors deliver desktops and apps to end-user devices remotely and increasingly efficiently. TFA is on the wrong side of history - IT will own and control the apps "locked down" and delivered remotely, device-independently. Administration of the endpoint device is a nightmare, and through VDI and app delivery endpoint management is becoming nearly irrelevant as these technologies improve. In fact, the end point becomes irrelevant - the always-on, use anywhere application service is coming (just don't say "cloud" because I'm tired of hearing it).
Exactly. This does not mention diesel, pure ethanol, natural gas, hydrogen ICE, or any other kind of ICE besides petrol (gasoline) engines. There are plenty of other fuels you can combust inside a cylinder to move a piston.
These same people would have been dying taking those secondary roads over the mountain pass in their Thomas Guides. All this article shows is the steady hand of progress - turns out there are still stupid people out there.
... and then he'd pack it in for the day, take the camera crew out for a nice dinner at the nearest steakhouse, check into his hotel and be all fresh for the next day's shoot.
Bear is at best entertainment (think 'fear factor' outdoors), at worst a fraud. A real "survivorman" is Les Stroud, who packs in all his own gear and films everything himself, alone... and actually stays out in the wilderness for the duration.
Huh? How is providing healtcare to those that can't afford it wealth redistribution?
It's called using "grade school math" to make a judgement - something that is the pinnacle of the ability of a disturbing number of people in the US's ability to master. The burden on society, costs of treating emergency room versus prevention, and cascading effects of unhealthy people in the population (lost productivity, spreading of health problems, etc) are beyond the grasp of too many people. Calculating the 'total cost of health' is 'voodoo math' to many people.
Many seem to think it's a zero-sum game - if it's helping someone else then it must be hurting me.
It's illuminating that Costa Rica has a higher-ranked healthcare system than the US (ranked 37th), and that the US is ranked next to Cuba. None of the talking heads on the right have anything to say about this. All those 'darn socialist' nations dominate the top 10.
And while we're on that topic, why is always considered a bad thing when wealth redistribution benefits the lower-middle income, but it's a good thing when it benefits the upper 2% (e.g. tax breaks for the wealthy)?
Because the brainwashed masses believe that they have the ability and the real possibility to become the next Trump or Buffett - ya know, ya can't put a lid on the "American Dream". Also, see above regarding the zero-sum game.
Would it be easier to detect the existence of large (small planet-sized) moons around a gas giant than earth-sized planets around a star? Would not the perturbation of the gas giant be easier to detect because the mass ratios are closer (large moon to gas giant vs earth-sized planet to star)?
If so, detecting the gas giant in the habitable zone and then looking for evidence of large moons or companion bodies could allow detection of candidates for life.
I assume this would entail detailed, direct observation of the gas giant, but I would imagine that will happen sooner than detailed, direct observation of an earth-sized body.
This is not news. The first time I remember seeing this kind of feat was 2002: Balloon 1.0 This is from the time before disposable mobile phones with embedded GPS...this guy had to make his own telemetry gear - much more of an accomplishment!
I don't think you are going to get very much exploration in the private sector - there's no direct profit motive. If there's not a pure science motivation for a private sector entity, why would it toss money into space?
You can hardly take space exploration out of politics - the only reason we went into space was politicians! If it was not to one-up the Soviets (and vice-versa of course is true - Stalin wouldn't have wasted rubles on such things otherwise) we'd probably not have a few US flags stuck in the regolith.
The shuttle was a very poor compromise between NASA and the military - it ended up serving neither efficiently. Ares was an attempt to re-use some of those compromise-designed components on a follow-on vehicle which really amounted to a pork barrel project for Utah (Thiokol) and a few other subcontractors/Senate districts. We are better off without Ares as-was.
We now are keeping Orion - which could see life on top of another booster (how about man-rating some of our existing medium-lift vehicles??). But more interesting are projects like Dreamchaser - the HL20 lifting body derivative being built by Sierra Nevada Corp. They received the biggest chunk of the private sector manned spaceflight funding so far. And SpaceX has a capsule in the works as well. But those are only there because the government has created the initiative and is providing some seed funding.
Personally, I would like to see us on Mars in my lifetime, and my time is about half up. We are not going to get there because it will be profitable to do so. We will get there when the political winds make it possible to do so.
This is exactly what I am planning to do. I was trying to find a way to fit the iPad into a dash but it's just too big. This one will be perfect - I can't wait:-)
So the story goes, this dates back to some interns who worked at NetApp and then went to Sun and perhaps influenced ZFS.
The technology in WAFL is that of a pointer-based filesystem - which itself is pretty ingenious and is only now being feature-emulated (ZFS, BRTFS, etc).
One can say what they want of Netapp's pricing, but the technology is extremely solid and simple to operate compared to managing Linux or Solaris boxes running a filesystem as a NAS; the snapshots are without I/O penalty and you can take a lot of them, the clustering is *FAR* simpler than anything happening on general-purpose OSes, the support for protocols is industry-leading (FCoE, NFSv4, SMB 2.0 - they have a codeshare w/ Microsoft and do not use a reverse-engineered Samba implementation or run any kind of Windows storage server like competitors do).
ZFS has a lot of promise, but does not have nearly the performance that WAFL does (considering RAID-DP versus ZFS RAID6) and has only some of the feature set of mirroring, snapshot vaulting, filesystem and file cloning, WORM-compliance, etc. Companies don't want to bet their business on a science project of roll-your-own NAS which doesn't have the feature set the Netapps do, and no serious competitor (eg a company with the ability to financially stand behind the product) in the enterprise space has anything like the feature set.
I work for a systems integrator and I've messed with hundreds of Netapps, Sun and Linux appliances, and competitors over the years. I use ZFS at home because I can't afford a Netapp (and wouldn't want to pay the electricity bill if I could!) but if I ran an IT department I'd put my data on a Netapp FAS over a ZFS appliance any day.
ZFS is available as a user space filesystem (FUSE) and has lots of goodies including snapshots and snapshot replication for off-box disk-to-disk backup. It's got a much better feature set than LVM/ext3. I've used it and it seems stable - I've even imported and exported Zpools between Linux and Solaris without problems.
You can try to build it from source if not available for all your distros - not sure if it will compile on the 2.4 kernels though.
You are not going to find something you can 'drop on top of' a bare EXT3 filesystem and get robust, modern features like snapshots w/o some data migration.
You could also think about migrating these old physical servers into VMs and snapshot using the facilities available in the hypervisor (eg VMware or Xen).
You could also setup an NFS server or a NAS box with snapshots and migrate your data there, leaving the OS/apps to run via NFS mounts: OpenSolaris has NFS; Nexentastor, built on OpenSolaris, is free for up to 3TB and has ZFS/snapshots/etc, or you could deploy a Linux machine with BTRFS, etc.
Making sure that the data blocks which represented a file are *really* gone might not be the problem here. When a file is deleted from a NetApp (like it most other operating systems) the data is not scrubbed, but rather the directory entry is removed and the blocks are free to be written over again - they are returned to the 'free block pool'. However, it's not possible to 'undelete' a file on a NetApp - there is no such function (though perhaps NetApp does have such a tool in-house) and there are no third-party tools because NetApp does not allow the installation of any third party software (it's not possible to install any third party software packages because the OS is completely proprietary - eg not built on Linux or Windows like most other storage vendors - and completely locked-down).
Deleting a NetApp snapshot is not hard at all. There are technical reasons why a snapshot might be 'busy' - such as during a mirroring operation, or being used as the basis of a LUN clone - but that can all be readily resolved with someone who knows just a little about Data OnTap (NetApp's operating system).
The problem might be that they have some kind of compliance requirements and are using NetApp's SnapLock Compliance, which will *not* allow you to delete data, period. It's a software module which makes volumes WORM-compliant to the satisfaction of several standards organizations and makes it such that data can not be deleted before the expiration time set for it.
I would imagine IF you had the Data OnTap source code and tried hard enough you could find a way to delete files thus protected; nothing is impossible of course, but would in fact be hard. No reseller like this Israeli organization is going to be able to help them... that would have to come from NetApp.
Huh? It's not bullshit. The vehicle consumed x amount of gallons of fuel for travelling y miles.
Now, a PLUG-IN hybrid needs a better metric because the estimation of dino fuel used per kilowatt sucked from the grid is a bit cloudy... but for an unplugged hybrid MPG is completely valid.
FYI the site is/. -ed so I can't read whether it's a plug-in or not, so I'm basing this just on the summary...
If you look at VLBI it says that it's been used to make "infrared and optical images...". If this technology has applications in the visible light wavelengths is it not possible to array together a large number of optical telescopes similarly?
I understand that timing is the big problem (the light has to assemble in perfect sequence to make it work). Could this be overcome with higher interconnect speeds (eg internet2)?
How long until we have another Seti@Home with amateur optical telescopes?
Because if you drive out of state you'd be paying for mileage not accrued on Oregon roads, and that would likely annoy people.
In addition, odometers are seriously easy to mess with. You can bet they'd be readily messed with if that was the measurement for this tax. This would require a whole new type of tamper-proof odometer.. special just for Oregon.
You might want to investigate running a data network w/ jumbo frames (change ethernet MTU size from 1500 to 9000).
1500 MTU was good when networks were 10M, but with Gig they are really just too small. The CPU gets pummelled with packet assembly/disassembly; setting the MTU to the jumbo (9000) size reduces the required CPU overhead greatly. However, all devices on the network segment must be set to jumbo (9000) byte MTU.
On a larger corporate network we'd setup a private, non-routed VLAN for NAS; all servers involved would have a second NIC attached to this VLAN at 9000 MTU. You could still manage this in a SOHO with multiple NICs on a separate LAN/switch (be sure the switch supports jumbo frames) just for storage. These days a good percentage of motherboards come with dual NICs anyway.
Jumbo frames can significantly increase ethernet throughput, particularly with large streaming I/O, which sounds like what you have.
Another option, particularly on your NAS/server, would be to setup an ethernet trunk (also called 'etherchannel' or 'nic teaming') - logically bonding two network interfaces to send/receive data as one IP address. If you have multiple clients uploading/downloading data to the server at the same time this is essential.
All 'modern' operating systems support jumbo frames and trunking; many of the cheapo SOHO ethernet switches do not, so you might have to shop around. I think I've seen models which support both jumbo frames and trunking for under $300.
You could also investigate getting TOE (TCP Offload Engine) cards which have 'packet co-processors' to perform the packet assembly/disassembly of the small 1500 byte packets - but these are usually pricey and jumbo frames often work just as well.
Forgive the Chinese for using an old-school capsule for their first ever manned spacecraft, but the Russians at least are moving to a lifting-body design (the Kliper) with their Soyuz replacement program. They are planning to have the Kliper in service in 2015.
Even the newly-spacefaring Chinese are designing a 'shuttle' - it's known as Project 921-3.
So, yes, the Ares/Orion project does seem like a cobbled-together throwback using sub-optimal systems such as the solid booster as the primary engine. If we really wanted to re-use shuttle components the Direct Launcher proposal's Jupiter platform might make more sense as it retains the liquid/solid primary stage from the shuttle program but with more survivability and less complexity.
However, I for one prefer the lifting body approach proposed for Orion and adopted by the Russians. This allows more re-entry flexibility and landing profiles than does a capsule, and is far less complex and fragile than a winged craft.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are saying then that any product who's raw materials have already been taxed and the labor to create the finished product has been taxed shouldn't be taxed? And, the profit made from sale of such widget shouldn't be taxed because it's been taxed earlier in the production chain?
Then be leery of the House majority.
... and several other vendors deliver desktops and apps to end-user devices remotely and increasingly efficiently. TFA is on the wrong side of history - IT will own and control the apps "locked down" and delivered remotely, device-independently. Administration of the endpoint device is a nightmare, and through VDI and app delivery endpoint management is becoming nearly irrelevant as these technologies improve. In fact, the end point becomes irrelevant - the always-on, use anywhere application service is coming (just don't say "cloud" because I'm tired of hearing it).
All your apps are belong to us.
Exactly. This does not mention diesel, pure ethanol, natural gas, hydrogen ICE, or any other kind of ICE besides petrol (gasoline) engines. There are plenty of other fuels you can combust inside a cylinder to move a piston.
These same people would have been dying taking those secondary roads over the mountain pass in their Thomas Guides. All this article shows is the steady hand of progress - turns out there are still stupid people out there.
... and then he'd pack it in for the day, take the camera crew out for a nice dinner at the nearest steakhouse, check into his hotel and be all fresh for the next day's shoot.
Bear is at best entertainment (think 'fear factor' outdoors), at worst a fraud. A real "survivorman" is Les Stroud, who packs in all his own gear and films everything himself, alone... and actually stays out in the wilderness for the duration.
Huh? How is providing healtcare to those that can't afford it wealth redistribution?
It's called using "grade school math" to make a judgement - something that is the pinnacle of the ability of a disturbing number of people in the US's ability to master. The burden on society, costs of treating emergency room versus prevention, and cascading effects of unhealthy people in the population (lost productivity, spreading of health problems, etc) are beyond the grasp of too many people. Calculating the 'total cost of health' is 'voodoo math' to many people.
Many seem to think it's a zero-sum game - if it's helping someone else then it must be hurting me.
It's illuminating that Costa Rica has a higher-ranked healthcare system than the US (ranked 37th), and that the US is ranked next to Cuba. None of the talking heads on the right have anything to say about this. All those 'darn socialist' nations dominate the top 10.
And while we're on that topic, why is always considered a bad thing when wealth redistribution benefits the lower-middle income, but it's a good thing when it benefits the upper 2% (e.g. tax breaks for the wealthy)?
Because the brainwashed masses believe that they have the ability and the real possibility to become the next Trump or Buffett - ya know, ya can't put a lid on the "American Dream". Also, see above regarding the zero-sum game.
Would it be easier to detect the existence of large (small planet-sized) moons around a gas giant than earth-sized planets around a star? Would not the perturbation of the gas giant be easier to detect because the mass ratios are closer (large moon to gas giant vs earth-sized planet to star)?
If so, detecting the gas giant in the habitable zone and then looking for evidence of large moons or companion bodies could allow detection of candidates for life.
I assume this would entail detailed, direct observation of the gas giant, but I would imagine that will happen sooner than detailed, direct observation of an earth-sized body.
This is not news. The first time I remember seeing this kind of feat was 2002: Balloon 1.0
This is from the time before disposable mobile phones with embedded GPS...this guy had to make his own telemetry gear - much more of an accomplishment!
I don't think you are going to get very much exploration in the private sector - there's no direct profit motive. If there's not a pure science motivation for a private sector entity, why would it toss money into space?
You can hardly take space exploration out of politics - the only reason we went into space was politicians! If it was not to one-up the Soviets (and vice-versa of course is true - Stalin wouldn't have wasted rubles on such things otherwise) we'd probably not have a few US flags stuck in the regolith.
The shuttle was a very poor compromise between NASA and the military - it ended up serving neither efficiently. Ares was an attempt to re-use some of those compromise-designed components on a follow-on vehicle which really amounted to a pork barrel project for Utah (Thiokol) and a few other subcontractors/Senate districts. We are better off without Ares as-was.
We now are keeping Orion - which could see life on top of another booster (how about man-rating some of our existing medium-lift vehicles??). But more interesting are projects like Dreamchaser - the HL20 lifting body derivative being built by Sierra Nevada Corp. They received the biggest chunk of the private sector manned spaceflight funding so far. And SpaceX has a capsule in the works as well. But those are only there because the government has created the initiative and is providing some seed funding.
Personally, I would like to see us on Mars in my lifetime, and my time is about half up. We are not going to get there because it will be profitable to do so. We will get there when the political winds make it possible to do so.
This is exactly what I am planning to do. I was trying to find a way to fit the iPad into a dash but it's just too big. This one will be perfect - I can't wait :-)
So the story goes, this dates back to some interns who worked at NetApp and then went to Sun and perhaps influenced ZFS.
The technology in WAFL is that of a pointer-based filesystem - which itself is pretty ingenious and is only now being feature-emulated (ZFS, BRTFS, etc).
One can say what they want of Netapp's pricing, but the technology is extremely solid and simple to operate compared to managing Linux or Solaris boxes running a filesystem as a NAS; the snapshots are without I/O penalty and you can take a lot of them, the clustering is *FAR* simpler than anything happening on general-purpose OSes, the support for protocols is industry-leading (FCoE, NFSv4, SMB 2.0 - they have a codeshare w/ Microsoft and do not use a reverse-engineered Samba implementation or run any kind of Windows storage server like competitors do).
ZFS has a lot of promise, but does not have nearly the performance that WAFL does (considering RAID-DP versus ZFS RAID6) and has only some of the feature set of mirroring, snapshot vaulting, filesystem and file cloning, WORM-compliance, etc. Companies don't want to bet their business on a science project of roll-your-own NAS which doesn't have the feature set the Netapps do, and no serious competitor (eg a company with the ability to financially stand behind the product) in the enterprise space has anything like the feature set.
I work for a systems integrator and I've messed with hundreds of Netapps, Sun and Linux appliances, and competitors over the years. I use ZFS at home because I can't afford a Netapp (and wouldn't want to pay the electricity bill if I could!) but if I ran an IT department I'd put my data on a Netapp FAS over a ZFS appliance any day.
ZFS is available as a user space filesystem (FUSE) and has lots of goodies including snapshots and snapshot replication for off-box disk-to-disk backup. It's got a much better feature set than LVM/ext3. I've used it and it seems stable - I've even imported and exported Zpools between Linux and Solaris without problems.
You can try to build it from source if not available for all your distros - not sure if it will compile on the 2.4 kernels though.
You are not going to find something you can 'drop on top of' a bare EXT3 filesystem and get robust, modern features like snapshots w/o some data migration.
You could also think about migrating these old physical servers into VMs and snapshot using the facilities available in the hypervisor (eg VMware or Xen).
You could also setup an NFS server or a NAS box with snapshots and migrate your data there, leaving the OS/apps to run via NFS mounts: OpenSolaris has NFS; Nexentastor, built on OpenSolaris, is free for up to 3TB and has ZFS/snapshots/etc, or you could deploy a Linux machine with BTRFS, etc.
Better make it Space: 2099. We are a way off from having a moonbase....
I used to get up early in the morning before school to watch this :-) :-)
I have all three seasons of it at home. Very cool
All these worlds belong to you.
Except Titan.
Do not attempt to land there.
Oh, wait... wrong planet.
Never mind... carry on, as you were!
And thus dies the mirror site after a brave fight against the hoards of Slashdotters with a sense of morbid curiousity.
Making sure that the data blocks which represented a file are *really* gone might not be the problem here. When a file is deleted from a NetApp (like it most other operating systems) the data is not scrubbed, but rather the directory entry is removed and the blocks are free to be written over again - they are returned to the 'free block pool'. However, it's not possible to 'undelete' a file on a NetApp - there is no such function (though perhaps NetApp does have such a tool in-house) and there are no third-party tools because NetApp does not allow the installation of any third party software (it's not possible to install any third party software packages because the OS is completely proprietary - eg not built on Linux or Windows like most other storage vendors - and completely locked-down).
Deleting a NetApp snapshot is not hard at all. There are technical reasons why a snapshot might be 'busy' - such as during a mirroring operation, or being used as the basis of a LUN clone - but that can all be readily resolved with someone who knows just a little about Data OnTap (NetApp's operating system).
The problem might be that they have some kind of compliance requirements and are using NetApp's SnapLock Compliance, which will *not* allow you to delete data, period. It's a software module which makes volumes WORM-compliant to the satisfaction of several standards organizations and makes it such that data can not be deleted before the expiration time set for it.
I would imagine IF you had the Data OnTap source code and tried hard enough you could find a way to delete files thus protected; nothing is impossible of course, but would in fact be hard. No reseller like this Israeli organization is going to be able to help them... that would have to come from NetApp.
Balloon 1.0
Huh? It's not bullshit. The vehicle consumed x amount of gallons of fuel for travelling y miles.
Now, a PLUG-IN hybrid needs a better metric because the estimation of dino fuel used per kilowatt sucked from the grid is a bit cloudy... but for an unplugged hybrid MPG is completely valid.
FYI the site is /. -ed so I can't read whether it's a plug-in or not, so I'm basing this just on the summary...
If you look at VLBI it says that it's been used to make "infrared and optical images...". If this technology has applications in the visible light wavelengths is it not possible to array together a large number of optical telescopes similarly?
I understand that timing is the big problem (the light has to assemble in perfect sequence to make it work). Could this be overcome with higher interconnect speeds (eg internet2)?
How long until we have another Seti@Home with amateur optical telescopes?
...which, of course, would not affect my radio telescope at all. But could you please turn off your phone!
Because if you drive out of state you'd be paying for mileage not accrued on Oregon roads, and that would likely annoy people.
In addition, odometers are seriously easy to mess with. You can bet they'd be readily messed with if that was the measurement for this tax. This would require a whole new type of tamper-proof odometer.. special just for Oregon.
You might want to investigate running a data network w/ jumbo frames (change ethernet MTU size from 1500 to 9000).
1500 MTU was good when networks were 10M, but with Gig they are really just too small. The CPU gets pummelled with packet assembly/disassembly; setting the MTU to the jumbo (9000) size reduces the required CPU overhead greatly. However, all devices on the network segment must be set to jumbo (9000) byte MTU.
On a larger corporate network we'd setup a private, non-routed VLAN for NAS; all servers involved would have a second NIC attached to this VLAN at 9000 MTU. You could still manage this in a SOHO with multiple NICs on a separate LAN/switch (be sure the switch supports jumbo frames) just for storage. These days a good percentage of motherboards come with dual NICs anyway.
Jumbo frames can significantly increase ethernet throughput, particularly with large streaming I/O, which sounds like what you have.
Another option, particularly on your NAS/server, would be to setup an ethernet trunk (also called 'etherchannel' or 'nic teaming') - logically bonding two network interfaces to send/receive data as one IP address. If you have multiple clients uploading/downloading data to the server at the same time this is essential.
All 'modern' operating systems support jumbo frames and trunking; many of the cheapo SOHO ethernet switches do not, so you might have to shop around. I think I've seen models which support both jumbo frames and trunking for under $300.
You could also investigate getting TOE (TCP Offload Engine) cards which have 'packet co-processors' to perform the packet assembly/disassembly of the small 1500 byte packets - but these are usually pricey and jumbo frames often work just as well.
Forgive the Chinese for using an old-school capsule for their first ever manned spacecraft, but the Russians at least are moving to a lifting-body design (the Kliper) with their Soyuz replacement program. They are planning to have the Kliper in service in 2015.
Even the newly-spacefaring Chinese are designing a 'shuttle' - it's known as Project 921-3.
So, yes, the Ares/Orion project does seem like a cobbled-together throwback using sub-optimal systems such as the solid booster as the primary engine. If we really wanted to re-use shuttle components the Direct Launcher proposal's Jupiter platform might make more sense as it retains the liquid/solid primary stage from the shuttle program but with more survivability and less complexity.
However, I for one prefer the lifting body approach proposed for Orion and adopted by the Russians. This allows more re-entry flexibility and landing profiles than does a capsule, and is far less complex and fragile than a winged craft.