Because android isn't that nice at providing a good desktop environment. the chromebook with normal nix running on it would allow much better interaction. I say this as someone with a very nice nexus 7 and an android phone.
Though take the arm chip out of the nexus 10 and give me a linux laptop with the chromebook pixels monitor\keyboard and most importantly battery:)
I believe one of the pirates started "locking up" the initial leviathan in an attempt to prevent it from escaping.
and in the initial stages i would imagine that they did not anticipate meeting as many as they did so throwing in the extra ships for an extraction made sense with imperfect intelligence
I don't know of an airline in.au (other than weight challenged ones) that charge for carry-on. though the rest of your issues are quite valid. prices advertised are usually ones without checked luggage. Choosing a seat in advance of check in (when booking) is extra, Better seats are extra, upfront seats are better (i don't see how these are better when flying the cheaper airlines as they typically do fore and aft boarding) priority lanes are also not included
2 i would think as it's going into the kernel but you should probably check that
Re:btrfs needed the work
on
Linux 3.4 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
>like RAID support that doesn't cover RAID5 Is on the way targeted for 3.5 (was held for the fast offline check code) >no online file system check btrfs scrub start/blah
Re:btrfs needed the work
on
Linux 3.4 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
GPL for ever.
early in the development of BTRFS commits were sourced from vocal and stubborn devs that would protect it from being re-licensed source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxWuaozpe2I
no because if you lose a disk in a striped array you lose everything. (perhaps you are thinking raid1 in which case it protects you from disk failure but does not provide backups)
but soon they will be working on a btrfs send\receive system so you would be able to take snapshots and push to another disk
IMO there are a number of different failure states that you must cater for. 1. Human failures (the oh shit I deleted something): a snap shot capable file system helps protect you from these (not perfect but fairly good) 2. Hardware failures (disks are dead): traditional backup systems work here (or btrfs\zfs send\receive) disk failures can have reduced impact due to mirroring your data (or strip plus parity) checksums and COW help defend against silent failure 3. Software failures (the OS is hosed, partition table is dead): traditional backup systems work here (or btrfs\zfs send\receive) (though COW file systems and marking shit read-only helps) 4. oh shit the building burnt down: Hope you do offsite backups
BTRFS helps in the first 3 by bringing awesome features to the table (snapshots, COW(so you can walk back up the tree to recover) and mirroring your data on multiple disks) but is only something that can supplement a backup system not replace it at all
only a good backup system helps in the 4th situation.
Re:btrfs needed the work
on
Linux 3.4 Released
·
· Score: 5, Informative
well comparing it to lvm ignores a significant amount of what btrfs is you would compare it with the entire stack mdadm + lvm +ext 3/4
btrfs gets you: Checksums on data mirrored metadata on a single disk lots of flexibility (online resizing and reshaping(single disk to raid 1 to 0 to single disk (or some variant of it) ( additionally raid5/6 like systems are coming) easy striping and mirroring across different sized disks snapshots and probably more go check https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/
That sounds a lot like wakefields bullshit study that was was retracted by the lancet and had his former co authors removing their names from their interpretation of it's results due to his deliberate fabircation of results and fraud
Hell Wakefield lost his medical license for his malpractice in that "research" project
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it does.
Standard remove will remove and rebalance i was testing that in 3.8 last night.
burn in hell Telstra!
I don't think they would make it through customs.
Some things are just too much for hell
You're on internode or iinet i take it?
They really don't want a filter and refused to implement one.
Because android isn't that nice at providing a good desktop environment.
the chromebook with normal nix running on it would allow much better interaction.
I say this as someone with a very nice nexus 7 and an android phone.
Though take the arm chip out of the nexus 10 and give me a linux laptop with the chromebook pixels monitor\keyboard and most importantly battery :)
Service isolation is a nice one.
hardware and infrastructure abstraction and guest portability
Shitty annoying fucking stupid events is my preferred option
Didn't the US get quite a significant economical boost with wholesale infringement of European IP in its early days?
I'll take that into account the first time i see 'colour' in a manual.
the robot arm style i am talking about are in the style of http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/stories/2011/11/21/the-next-generation-of-flight-simulation
when you talk about the full motion sims are you talking about the ones that are effectively chairs on the end of robot arms? or different styles?
I believe one of the pirates started "locking up" the initial leviathan in an attempt to prevent it from escaping.
and in the initial stages i would imagine that they did not anticipate meeting as many as they did so throwing in the extra ships for an extraction made sense with imperfect intelligence
So no one on a consumer grade network runs an xbox, ps3, wii or gaming pc? or uses skype? or voip?
I don't know of an airline in .au (other than weight challenged ones) that charge for carry-on.
though the rest of your issues are quite valid. prices advertised are usually ones without checked luggage. Choosing a seat in advance of check in (when booking) is extra, Better seats are extra, upfront seats are better (i don't see how these are better when flying the cheaper airlines as they typically do fore and aft boarding)
priority lanes are also not included
Plumbers and sparkies require licensing because when you don't you have live pipes and only a single colour of wiring for active, neutral and ground.
and 90s and 00s but the response shouldn't be to toughen up. it should be to take the fucking bullies and remove them.
More like a usb watchdog that restarts the server if it dies.
the UPS analogy is very wrong
2 i would think as it's going into the kernel but you should probably check that
>like RAID support that doesn't cover RAID5 /blah
Is on the way targeted for 3.5 (was held for the fast offline check code)
>no online file system check
btrfs scrub start
GPL for ever.
early in the development of BTRFS commits were sourced from vocal and stubborn devs that would protect it from being re-licensed source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxWuaozpe2I
no because if you lose a disk in a striped array you lose everything. (perhaps you are thinking raid1 in which case it protects you from disk failure but does not provide backups)
but soon they will be working on a btrfs send\receive system so you would be able to take snapshots and push to another disk
IMO there are a number of different failure states that you must cater for.
1. Human failures (the oh shit I deleted something): a snap shot capable file system helps protect you from these (not perfect but fairly good)
2. Hardware failures (disks are dead): traditional backup systems work here (or btrfs\zfs send\receive) disk failures can have reduced impact due to mirroring your data (or strip plus parity) checksums and COW help defend against silent failure
3. Software failures (the OS is hosed, partition table is dead): traditional backup systems work here (or btrfs\zfs send\receive) (though COW file systems and marking shit read-only helps)
4. oh shit the building burnt down: Hope you do offsite backups
BTRFS helps in the first 3 by bringing awesome features to the table (snapshots, COW(so you can walk back up the tree to recover) and mirroring your data on multiple disks) but is only something that can supplement a backup system not replace it at all
only a good backup system helps in the 4th situation.
well comparing it to lvm ignores a significant amount of what btrfs is
you would compare it with the entire stack
mdadm + lvm +ext 3/4
btrfs gets you:
Checksums on data
mirrored metadata on a single disk
lots of flexibility (online resizing and reshaping(single disk to raid 1 to 0 to single disk (or some variant of it) ( additionally raid5/6 like systems are coming)
easy striping and mirroring across different sized disks
snapshots
and probably more go check https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/
Think of it as the manufacturing tech that is in use.
Tick is the first in a new manufacturing tech tock is the further refinement and new micro architecture.
If you're talking about the catholic hospitals they don't have to comply they just have to comply if they want to take fed dollars.
Strings attached is not forcing
I'd say that's because the 117 has been retired for 4 years
That sounds a lot like wakefields bullshit study that was was retracted by the lancet and had his former co authors removing their names from their interpretation of it's results due to his deliberate fabircation of results and fraud
Hell Wakefield lost his medical license for his malpractice in that "research" project