> So as long as abuse is monitored and actively discouraged... I'm sure any abuse will be monitored and discouraged to the same extent it currently is:-)
Oh and by the way, your back-yard is now considered a public space. Don't be alarmed though, we won't tell anyone what you get up to there.
Seriously, if you can't be bothered collecting/maintaining the metadata that more structured solutions require, then just let Google index the lot. It'll work just as well (or not) as it does on the Internet. Although its not free it seems reasonably priced. It could be a quick answer to your problem.
I should probably expand on criterion 1 ("simple to use"):
ZFS has an absolute ton of features. Providing access to these in a meaningful and intuitive way would NOT have been easy. Its very hard to make a complex tool, "simple to use".
Nevertheless, I found playing with ZFS fun and strongly recommend it to those nerdier than the average nerd.
We never got a reproducible cause/effect explanation from the Sun engineers (which is one of the main reasons we started backing away).
Our particular problem seemed to occur when free-space shrank to below 20% and we had workloads with large numbers of connections doing lots and lots of very small write transactions in Oracle (using Oracle AQ as the backing store for our ESB/BPEL implementation). It wasn't 100% reproducible but seemed to be linked to those configurations more often that not.
Having said all that, we never used ZFS for production systems (we are far too conservative a company). We used it for dev/test/UAT environments where the ability to clone large numbers of test environments cheaply, quickly and with very little disk space cost was of great benefit. Its still used in some circumstances, just not all of them. Horses for courses.
I've played around with ZFS on the Mac a little bit.
I've also played with ZFS at work (Sun UltraSPARC platforms) where we went from true believers to backing away rapidly (let's just say that there are certain Oracle workload profiles for which ZFS causes some massive performance hits especially when the disks are close to full).
I'm guessing that ZFS failed to meet at least one of (what I imagine are) Apple's criteria:
1. has to be simple to use
2. has to be rock solid
There's a good chance it failed at both.
I'm not saying that ZFS is crap. Personally I think its a brilliant design, however it needs a bit more sunlight before its ready for the Steve.
> In all seriousness, this does not sound like a field that needs saving from itself.
>...
> Something doesn't get to be common practice unless a good portion of the field believes that it is good to do so, or at the very least, not harmful.
I agree with your last statement in application to almost any discipline other than economics and (more specifically) finance. I must disagree with your first though. The ability of greed to short-circuit the mind's ability for critical thought is unparalleled as is the obstinate willingness of great swathes of people to swallow snake oil by the gallon on the merest suggestion of the slightest whiff of profit. My memory may be hazy, but I can recall at least two occurrences of a "new economy" in the last three decades. And of course each "new economy" marks a break with "outdated" beliefs/dogma/tradition (you know - like that outdated belief that you can't make something out of nothing, or that other one about a "turd by any other name would smell as sweet").
I don't doubt that given another fifteen years or so, we'll have forgotten the "hard lessons", the sincere abjuration of pernicious practices and every other skerrick of common sense. The new "new economy" will have arrived. Only a fool would fore-go the chance to make real money. May I suggest however, that you watch this infotaining interview before you invest in the new "new economy".
You got me thinking about class-actions Does anyone know if any enterprising lawyers have tried suing MS around this? Can't see why you couldn't at least try.
Indeed. I find it ironic that a nation that increasingly acts as if every citizen were a potential enemy of the state, is so free with information that could aid real enemies of the state.
I do so wish George Orwell were alive to see the UK now.
As an atheist, I would suggest the difference is simply one of degree and that "established" religions are simply less obvious in their exploitation.
Note, that this is not to denigrate what I'm sure are many fine, well intentioned people who are religious that do great work in the name of their religion. However my personal view is that religion as a general rule is bad for you. It values faith over knowledge, obedience over critical thought and establishes a power heirarchy that the believers are expected to follow unquestioningly (since they speak with the voice of/on behalf of god).
And of course, the Catholic church which I've mentioned, has shown time and again over the ages, that it values above upholding the faith, above shepherding its flock, above all morally and ethically correct behaviour - one single thing - that is the survival of the Catholic church. When it comes to its long-term survival, the Catholics (and other cults surely) have shown that nothing trumps the survival of the institution, and under that guise have condoned and pardoned a great many wrongs.
While I'm not suggesting this cannibalism is the likely source of the Cain and Abel myth, I will disagree with you and state that most myths aren't just "made up". Many stories get "made up" yet only a few turn into myths. Also, the commonality of myths across cultures and times implies a root other than sheer imagination. It may be some retelling of a historical event. It may be an expression of some psychological need (Jung anyone?).
I just happened to glance at Julian May's "The Golden Torc" the other day and the idea kind of stuck. Nevertheless, don't discount the length of time that oral traditions can stick around. The Australian Aboriginal culture has many stories going back many thousands of years which preserved some elements of truth from the time of their origins. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_mythology
Just had another thought: Myths may be like hash-functions on history. There is definitely a link, however its pretty much one-way, i.e. you'd be hard-pressed to reverse engineer the history from the myth. However, knowing the history and the myth you might be able to determine the way the myth developed (the "hash function").
There, that should keep my geek cred up for a while.
I first read that shortly after it was first published. At that time I thought the dystopian future he described was far fetched. Twelve years later I think he had great foresight. All the elements are now in place. The relentless re-education campaign that inures people to the loss of "little" freedoms here and there are preparing a generation that don't know any better. A generation of sheeple who aren't even aware of the blood-paid freedoms and rights which they are trading away very, very cheaply.
History will likely judge people like Orwell and Stallman as prophets of sorts.
Indeed. Worse is the combination of "reasonable" with the ability to hold people without charge for very long periods when "terrorist" (another wonderfully undefined term) activities are suspected.
One slightly paranoid police officer later, this guy might have easily found himself facing FBI questioning or worse.
> BUT, the key phrase of "reasonable suspicion about a crime" sounds, well, rather kind of reasonable to me.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him". Cardinal Richelieu.
"Reasonable" = a loophole so big that it makes goatse look...reasonable. What's reasonable to an east coast intellectual may be 180' from what a southern baptist considers reasonable...or not. Who can tell?
A term like "reasonable" requires subjective interpretation - the curse of laws, religions and the study of history.
Well, you don't give much away so its hard to tell if "going gold" on your own is as viable as you think it is. In any case, I would be asking myself the following:
Does the offer pay out all our current business and private debts and leave each of us with enough to be debt-free home/land/condo-owners?
Assuming you take the offer, do all of you have guaranteed paying work lined up (or investors for your next venture), such that each of you makes a decent living (at least as good as you've had so far), for the next 24 months?
Me, I'm financially somewhat conservative, so if I was in your shoes and answered YES to the above questions, then I would unhesitatingly take the money and run. I would probably insist though that some (minority) of the payout be in the form of shares in the buying firm (to retain a small stake in the resulting financial rewards the new product will potentially bring)
Slashdot Mirror
> So as long as abuse is monitored and actively discouraged... :-)
I'm sure any abuse will be monitored and discouraged to the same extent it currently is
Oh and by the way, your back-yard is now considered a public space. Don't be alarmed though, we won't tell anyone what you get up to there.
Astronomer's have confirmed it wasn't actually a supernova it was just Disaster Area tuning up for their gig tonight 600 years ago.
Let's hope Zaphod or Ford weren't visiting relatives at the time.
Google?
http://www.google.com.au/enterprise/mini/index.html
Seriously, if you can't be bothered collecting/maintaining the metadata that more structured solutions require, then just let Google index the lot. It'll work just as well (or not) as it does on the Internet. Although its not free it seems reasonably priced. It could be a quick answer to your problem.
> you are running a database engine on top of ZFS you have to tune it to that specific database engine
Been there, done that.
> any IT worth their salt would not have let the disk get that close to full that it causes issues
I don't consider 80% a threshold which any FS should start to cause issues
> As for 1, ZFS is extremely simple to use
For unix admins perhaps. For the remaining rather large subset of Mac OS X users perhaps not.
> I don't think that Apple has had the time to make sure that everything fits in with their way everything has to work
Totally, 100% agree.
I should probably expand on criterion 1 ("simple to use"):
ZFS has an absolute ton of features. Providing access to these in a meaningful and intuitive way would NOT have been easy. Its very hard to make a complex tool, "simple to use".
Nevertheless, I found playing with ZFS fun and strongly recommend it to those nerdier than the average nerd.
We never got a reproducible cause/effect explanation from the Sun engineers (which is one of the main reasons we started backing away).
Our particular problem seemed to occur when free-space shrank to below 20% and we had workloads with large numbers of connections doing lots and lots of very small write transactions in Oracle (using Oracle AQ as the backing store for our ESB/BPEL implementation). It wasn't 100% reproducible but seemed to be linked to those configurations more often that not.
Having said all that, we never used ZFS for production systems (we are far too conservative a company). We used it for dev/test/UAT environments where the ability to clone large numbers of test environments cheaply, quickly and with very little disk space cost was of great benefit. Its still used in some circumstances, just not all of them. Horses for courses.
I've played around with ZFS on the Mac a little bit. I've also played with ZFS at work (Sun UltraSPARC platforms) where we went from true believers to backing away rapidly (let's just say that there are certain Oracle workload profiles for which ZFS causes some massive performance hits especially when the disks are close to full).
I'm guessing that ZFS failed to meet at least one of (what I imagine are) Apple's criteria:
1. has to be simple to use
2. has to be rock solid
There's a good chance it failed at both. I'm not saying that ZFS is crap. Personally I think its a brilliant design, however it needs a bit more sunlight before its ready for the Steve.
Your post shows elements of learning and apologising. This just won't do.
> I reject your reality and substitute my own! /mythbuster /Wallstreet broker
...
>
> or
Disdain for the "reality based community" is nothing new.
> In all seriousness, this does not sound like a field that needs saving from itself.
>
> Something doesn't get to be common practice unless a good portion of the field believes that it is good to do so, or at the very least, not harmful.
I agree with your last statement in application to almost any discipline other than economics and (more specifically) finance. I must disagree with your first though. The ability of greed to short-circuit the mind's ability for critical thought is unparalleled as is the obstinate willingness of great swathes of people to swallow snake oil by the gallon on the merest suggestion of the slightest whiff of profit. My memory may be hazy, but I can recall at least two occurrences of a "new economy" in the last three decades. And of course each "new economy" marks a break with "outdated" beliefs/dogma/tradition (you know - like that outdated belief that you can't make something out of nothing, or that other one about a "turd by any other name would smell as sweet").
I don't doubt that given another fifteen years or so, we'll have forgotten the "hard lessons", the sincere abjuration of pernicious practices and every other skerrick of common sense. The new "new economy" will have arrived. Only a fool would fore-go the chance to make real money. May I suggest however, that you watch this infotaining interview before you invest in the new "new economy".
> gcc is miles better than whatever crappy C compiler it originally replaced
That would be...gcc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/History
> Microsoft is guilty of exploiting this.
You got me thinking about class-actions Does anyone know if any enterprising lawyers have tried suing MS around this? Can't see why you couldn't at least try.
I was halfway through posting a vitriolic response which included this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_scandal_in_the_Congregation_of_Christian_Brothers#Commission_to_Inquire_into_Child_Abuse
when the light-bulb came on. I can't believe I almost missed the sarcasm. Well done sir.
Indeed. I find it ironic that a nation that increasingly acts as if every citizen were a potential enemy of the state, is so free with information that could aid real enemies of the state.
I do so wish George Orwell were alive to see the UK now.
As an atheist, I would suggest the difference is simply one of degree and that "established" religions are simply less obvious in their exploitation.
Note, that this is not to denigrate what I'm sure are many fine, well intentioned people who are religious that do great work in the name of their religion. However my personal view is that religion as a general rule is bad for you. It values faith over knowledge, obedience over critical thought and establishes a power heirarchy that the believers are expected to follow unquestioningly (since they speak with the voice of/on behalf of god).
And of course, the Catholic church which I've mentioned, has shown time and again over the ages, that it values above upholding the faith, above shepherding its flock, above all morally and ethically correct behaviour - one single thing - that is the survival of the Catholic church. When it comes to its long-term survival, the Catholics (and other cults surely) have shown that nothing trumps the survival of the institution, and under that guise have condoned and pardoned a great many wrongs.
In case you were all wondering, this
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/21/2576569.htm
is what I was referring to.
> The organization stands accused of targeting vulnerable people...
I'm looking forward to the Irish government shutting down the Catholic church.
While I'm not suggesting this cannibalism is the likely source of the Cain and Abel myth, I will disagree with you and state that most myths aren't just "made up". Many stories get "made up" yet only a few turn into myths. Also, the commonality of myths across cultures and times implies a root other than sheer imagination. It may be some retelling of a historical event. It may be an expression of some psychological need (Jung anyone?).
I just happened to glance at Julian May's "The Golden Torc" the other day and the idea kind of stuck. Nevertheless, don't discount the length of time that oral traditions can stick around. The Australian Aboriginal culture has many stories going back many thousands of years which preserved some elements of truth from the time of their origins. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_mythology
Just had another thought: Myths may be like hash-functions on history. There is definitely a link, however its pretty much one-way, i.e. you'd be hard-pressed to reverse engineer the history from the myth. However, knowing the history and the myth you might be able to determine the way the myth developed (the "hash function").
There, that should keep my geek cred up for a while.
As I was reading this I wondered if this is perhaps the origin of the "Cain and Abel" myth?
I first read that shortly after it was first published. At that time I thought the dystopian future he described was far fetched. Twelve years later I think he had great foresight. All the elements are now in place. The relentless re-education campaign that inures people to the loss of "little" freedoms here and there are preparing a generation that don't know any better. A generation of sheeple who aren't even aware of the blood-paid freedoms and rights which they are trading away very, very cheaply.
History will likely judge people like Orwell and Stallman as prophets of sorts.
Hahahahahahaha!
Na' se kala. Eskasa ap' ta gelia. Dystixos den exo mod-points.
Doh! Got my degrees and arc-minutes symbols mixed up.
Indeed. Worse is the combination of "reasonable" with the ability to hold people without charge for very long periods when "terrorist" (another wonderfully undefined term) activities are suspected.
One slightly paranoid police officer later, this guy might have easily found himself facing FBI questioning or worse.
> BUT, the key phrase of " reasonable suspicion about a crime" sounds, well, rather kind of reasonable to me.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him". Cardinal Richelieu.
"Reasonable" = a loophole so big that it makes goatse look...reasonable. What's reasonable to an east coast intellectual may be 180' from what a southern baptist considers reasonable...or not. Who can tell?
A term like "reasonable" requires subjective interpretation - the curse of laws, religions and the study of history.
Well, you don't give much away so its hard to tell if "going gold" on your own is as viable as you think it is. In any case, I would be asking myself the following:
Does the offer pay out all our current business and private debts and leave each of us with enough to be debt-free home/land/condo-owners?
Assuming you take the offer, do all of you have guaranteed paying work lined up (or investors for your next venture), such that each of you makes a decent living (at least as good as you've had so far), for the next 24 months?
Me, I'm financially somewhat conservative, so if I was in your shoes and answered YES to the above questions, then I would unhesitatingly take the money and run. I would probably insist though that some (minority) of the payout be in the form of shares in the buying firm (to retain a small stake in the resulting financial rewards the new product will potentially bring)