Well, firstly, we don't have absolute property rights. You can't imprison people by buying the land around them. Second, they couldn't sell themselves into slavery anyway, so what's the point?
Well that sure makes up for the dog attacks, stress positions, rapes, humiliation, sleep deprivation, shocks to the balls, waterboarding, beatings, and you know, being dragged out of your house and detained on the words of an anonymous informant who got paid for ratting on you.
You got any sources on that 'asked not to be released' thing? Because it sounds like something the guys at Fox News would pull out of their ass, not anything real.
Case by case basis? Haha, I wish. No, here we go by pharmaceutical company studies. You know, where every drug is proven to be better than every other drug. Where an anti stroke drug that not only kills people, but improves the condition of less than 1 in 1,000 gets labelled as 'preventing death and/or injury' meaning, it only prevents injury but they through in death too to make it sound better. Combined end-points are wonderful. Where positive studies are reported 97% of the time, but negative studies are buried 2/3 of the time.
If I were you, I wouldn't trust the medical system here. They are in it for money, and they don't care if you ever get better. In fact, more profit for them if you don't.
The health care market isn't like other markets. People aren't going to shop around, they don't know how to evaluate quality, so corporate health care is free to cut as many corners to save a buck as it wants to. People aren't doctors, they don't know any better, so they get raked over the coals.
How could they get charitable assistance when I have bought up all the land surrounding them, and won't let anyone onto my property to give them any? Or maybe you think I shouldn't have control over land that I own?
Your interpretation does not match that of US law. In the US, a contract where you give up an inalienable right is automatically null and void. If people could sign themselves into slavery, there would by people out there manipulating them into doing so. If I had enough money, I could bankrupt you and leave you with no other option but to accept slavery voluntarily. Thankfully, we don't live in a country like that.
Maybe twitter has multiple personality disorder. Hell, maybe some of his personalities don't like the others, and post nasty exposes about them. Or maybe this whole damn thing is a twitter publicity stunt.
Maybe YOU are twitter. If you aren't, you are doing him more of a favor than you realize. No publicity is bad publicity, and you keep publicizing the fuck out of him. The longer I see this go on, the more convinced I am that this is ALL twitter, trying to make himself look important, as if all these people actually give a fuck that he uses sock puppets. Guess what twitter? We don't care. You and your fighting sockpuppets are simply not interesting.
This may well qualify as the best long running troll on Slashdot. Seriously, if you keep this up I'm going to have to start a campaign claiming that this is ALL just twitter attention whoring, and no one should pay attention to ANY of it.
It may not be true, but it's plausible enough that people will believe it and begin to tar you with your own twitter brush so GIVE IT A REST.
Yeah, we get it, that's my point. You are currently beating a greasy, horse shaped patch on the ground. The reason I wasn't modded off topic is that people are obviously as sick of this game as I am. Take it as a hint and find another hobby.
Infants naturally fear snakes. Not just human infants, all primates. And even primates have an inborn sense of fairness. Sorry I can't point you at the research right now, it's all things I've read off line, in Nature, SciAm, and the like. I'm sure you could find it if it interests you.
By giving in to the temptation, as natural as it might be, you are conditioning others to act the same way, and co-creating the very situation you are reacting to. Catch 22, eh? Who makes the first move towards cooperation? I don't blame you or think any less of you, it's a combination of your genetics and environment.
By now, even twitter's grandmother's dog's fleas know he uses sockpuppets, mission accomplished, let it go. I'm bored to death of whiny people with twitter obsessions. So he uses sock puppets, get over it. No one else cares. Either refute what he says, or leave it alone, it makes you all look even nuttier than twitter himself.
You know, I read Mr. Twit's post several times looking for an MSFT reference. It isn't there. Are you suggesting that the twit is only allowed to post anti-MSFT screeds, and as this is not an MSFT related issue, he has no right to comment?
The you blather on about 'your rights' and 'taking your anti-corporate rants elsewhere.' In the same damn sentence. May I ask, who is endangering your rights if it isn't the corporations?
I think your irrational hatred of the twit is clouding your judgment. He's a sock puppeting fool, but you come across as even more of a loony than he does by lashing out at him like that.
Most of us just ignore him when he's being an idiot, which he's not even doing here.
The benchmarks I saw showed that it doesn't just beat out a few other filesystems on I/O performance, it beats them all like a rented mule. By an order of magnitude or more. Sure, processor utilization and memory usage go up, but what else does a file server need to be doing besides serving files?
No, that is where you are wrong. There is a fairness gene and sense of fairness, that is the point I'm getting at. It isn't learned behavior, or if it is, it is the most universal learned behavior ever investigated.
Selfishness is learned behavior. When a person realizes that the world isn't fair, and no one else is doing much of anything about it, they realize that they too must be selfish in order not to be taken advantage of.
The research I've read shows that about 15 percent of people will always try to act in a fair and reciprocal manner, no matter what anyone else does. About ten percent will act selfishly all the time. And the rest will do whatever the majority is doing.
NAFTA has been used to fuck over the American worker. Tax breaks for companies moving to Mexico, where rampant pollution and labor abuses aren't a problem. When dollars and goods can cross borders without hindrance but people can't, then the wealthy will move factories to the next desperately poor country as soon as workers start getting comfortable in the first. Capital will chase poverty across the globe, and everyone but the filthy rich will suffer.
That's what we've seen happen with NAFTA. If you want more of the same, I can only assume you make over $200,000 per year, and simply don't have the same interests as I and the rest of the working class.
No it isn't. History is filled with selfless acts. We are cooperative, social creatures.
I can tell you aren't a psychologist. Behaviorist theory is not a currently well accepted psychological theory. It has been shown to be inaccurate. You are basing your world view on incorrect assumptions. You need to get current on your research because you sound like a chemist talking about phlogiston.
I have pointed you in the direction of more current research. You refuse to consider it. I'd say you have a vested interest in maintaining your "selfishness is good" and "the world isn't fair" views. Look up the Ultimatum Game, do a google search on "fairness reciprocity economic research."
I am flat out saying, you are 100% factually incorrect. Fairness is human nature. What you are describing is sociopathic.
If people did not have a sense of fairness, they wouldn't feel one way or the other about the world. The very fact that we can sense whether a situation is fair or not tells me that although the world isn't fair, humans desire that it be. Sure, the world isn't fair, but most non sociopaths have a built in sense of fairness and will harm themselves in order to punish unfairness. You can claim I'm making that up all you like, but it is a documented fact. Do the research. Look up the Ultimatum Game.
I find my fairness in a strong sense of justice, too. Why would you think I don't?
It's called the Ultimatum Game. Sorry I didn't give a cite, I thought it was very well known.
My point is, our genes don't give a damn what is in OUR best interests. They are concerned about getting passed on by any means necessary. If that means killing you off childless in order to promote the chances of a number of others carrying those genes, so be it. Cooperative genes are selfish! They will do what is best for cooperator genes, not necessarily individuals expressing those genes. If you define 'long term interests' as 'the interests our genes have in getting more copies of themselves into the next generation,' then I'd agree with you.
But this is all fairly irrelevant. Long term interest is not short term interest in any case. Trying to conflate the two, or claim that 'selfishness is good,' or using the idea to excuse stupid short term selfish behavior, is simply wrong.
Whatever the reason, people desire fairness and reciprocity. The fact that they desire it because that is in their long term self interest is irrelevant.
If two phrases, 'long term self interest' and 'selfless reciprocity and fairness,' are equivalent, why choose one over the other? What is the purpose of pointing out that they are equivalent? In many cases, I've found that people who prefer to look at it as 'long term self interest' are not practicing long term self interest at all, but looking to excuse their short term selfishness by conflating the two.
In one of the many experiments done recently, person A is offered a certain amount of money. He may keep all of it, or give some of it to person B. Person B may accept the offer, or reject it, in which case, no one gets any money.
It is in person B's self interest to accept any non zero amount offered no matter how unfair. Something is better than nothing. Each participant plays the game once, so future performance or reputation are irrelevant. Conventional economic 'selfish actor' theory predicts that person B will accept any amount over zero. In reality, person b won't. He will reject unfair offers, hurting himself in the process. These games were played in India, for the equivalent of many months of salary. Again, contrary to conventional theory, the more money at stake, the more likely a person is to reject an unfair offer.
So, how does this outcome represent enlightened self interest? It is obviously what the person wanted to do, but it is nonsensical to say it was in their self interest, even long term.
I know what people who espouse this stuff claim. They are wrong. History has proved them wrong time and again. In fact, I doubt they actually believe any of it. Its a scam.
Recent economic research shows that most people value fairness and reciprocity over 'taking care of their own.' People are willing to forgo months worth of income in order to punish unfairness. Almost all humans are born with an innate sense of fairness and a desire to act in a reciprocal fashion.
In short, the basis of free market capitalist economic theory is false. People are not primarily 'selfish actors.' They are social creatures, genetically programmed to be fair, to seek out fairness, and to punish unfairness.
Do you include screwing over others in your definition of 'taking care of your own' and 'doing whatever you can to improve yourself and your situation?"
The issue of fairness will never be a non-issue. It is built into our genetics. It is one of the major motivational factors in human society. You may be a loner, that's fine. But the majority of people on this planet do not see the world as you do, so do not expect people to sit back and accept unfairness. Sorry if that puts a damper on your plans.
That is abominable. The wealthy do not create most of their wealth. Certainly, many of them do work, but they are no smarter or more talented than many poor and middle class citizens, who could be doing their job if the system wasn't set up to exclude them. Certainly, being a CEO is a hard and stressful job, but so is being a factory worker, and I've known plenty of factory workers who had better ideas about how to make their plant work better than the CEOs ever had, but everyone prejudges them as too stupid to have good ideas.
Most of the wealth that the wealthy steal is created by the working people they steal it from. Supposedly, they receive this wealth for the 'risks' they are taking, but taxpayer funded bailouts have made a joke of that hypothesis.
Why not give the surplus to the people who actually create the goods and services? Then they will buy more and stimulate the economy. That has actually been shown to work, time and again, while trickle down economics has been shown to concentrate wealth into a few well connected hands.
But please, give me your explanation as to why the wages of the wealth creators have been stagnant for so long while the income of the wealth thieves has risen dramatically? Or simply answer this: do you think the situation is fair?
Really? Then why have wages for the middle class and poor been stagnant for so long while the income for the top 10% has skyrocketed? Are you suggesting that only the wealthy are responsible for the extra wealth created, and therefore they should get it ALL?
Please. The wealthy are siphoning off as much as they can get their greedy, amoral hands on. They are not creating wealth, they are standing in the way of wealth creation. The policies the wealthy have their conservative lapdogs put in place are entirely aimed at keeping the average citizen poor and desperate, so that they will accept whatever meager rewards the rich deign to dole out.
That's what I meant. It is memory efficient from its point of view, not from the system's point of view. The point being, ZFS makes a memory for speed tradeoff that might not be the best choice for systems that aren't primarily file-servers.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, firstly, we don't have absolute property rights. You can't imprison people by buying the land around them. Second, they couldn't sell themselves into slavery anyway, so what's the point?
I'll have to check out WAFL, sounds interesting,
Good point about tuning. In high end situations, tuning for your particular workload is often more important than choice of file system.
No.
Well that sure makes up for the dog attacks, stress positions, rapes, humiliation, sleep deprivation, shocks to the balls, waterboarding, beatings, and you know, being dragged out of your house and detained on the words of an anonymous informant who got paid for ratting on you.
You got any sources on that 'asked not to be released' thing? Because it sounds like something the guys at Fox News would pull out of their ass, not anything real.
Case by case basis? Haha, I wish. No, here we go by pharmaceutical company studies. You know, where every drug is proven to be better than every other drug. Where an anti stroke drug that not only kills people, but improves the condition of less than 1 in 1,000 gets labelled as 'preventing death and/or injury' meaning, it only prevents injury but they through in death too to make it sound better. Combined end-points are wonderful. Where positive studies are reported 97% of the time, but negative studies are buried 2/3 of the time.
If I were you, I wouldn't trust the medical system here. They are in it for money, and they don't care if you ever get better. In fact, more profit for them if you don't.
The health care market isn't like other markets. People aren't going to shop around, they don't know how to evaluate quality, so corporate health care is free to cut as many corners to save a buck as it wants to. People aren't doctors, they don't know any better, so they get raked over the coals.
How could they get charitable assistance when I have bought up all the land surrounding them, and won't let anyone onto my property to give them any? Or maybe you think I shouldn't have control over land that I own?
Your interpretation does not match that of US law. In the US, a contract where you give up an inalienable right is automatically null and void. If people could sign themselves into slavery, there would by people out there manipulating them into doing so. If I had enough money, I could bankrupt you and leave you with no other option but to accept slavery voluntarily. Thankfully, we don't live in a country like that.
Maybe twitter has multiple personality disorder. Hell, maybe some of his personalities don't like the others, and post nasty exposes about them. Or maybe this whole damn thing is a twitter publicity stunt.
Maybe YOU are twitter. If you aren't, you are doing him more of a favor than you realize. No publicity is bad publicity, and you keep publicizing the fuck out of him. The longer I see this go on, the more convinced I am that this is ALL twitter, trying to make himself look important, as if all these people actually give a fuck that he uses sock puppets. Guess what twitter? We don't care. You and your fighting sockpuppets are simply not interesting.
This may well qualify as the best long running troll on Slashdot. Seriously, if you keep this up I'm going to have to start a campaign claiming that this is ALL just twitter attention whoring, and no one should pay attention to ANY of it.
It may not be true, but it's plausible enough that people will believe it and begin to tar you with your own twitter brush so GIVE IT A REST.
I heard they were gonna put a severed horse head in his bed, but it turns out that's copyrighted.
Yeah, we get it, that's my point. You are currently beating a greasy, horse shaped patch on the ground. The reason I wasn't modded off topic is that people are obviously as sick of this game as I am. Take it as a hint and find another hobby.
Yeah, but I never saw it benchmarked against breakfast foods or mystery file systems that can't be named, so I can't comment on that. :P
Nah, there's no way you could make that accusation stick, I'm too well known here and hated in my own right. :P
Infants naturally fear snakes. Not just human infants, all primates. And even primates have an inborn sense of fairness. Sorry I can't point you at the research right now, it's all things I've read off line, in Nature, SciAm, and the like. I'm sure you could find it if it interests you.
By giving in to the temptation, as natural as it might be, you are conditioning others to act the same way, and co-creating the very situation you are reacting to. Catch 22, eh? Who makes the first move towards cooperation? I don't blame you or think any less of you, it's a combination of your genetics and environment.
WE DON'T GIVE A FUCK!
By now, even twitter's grandmother's dog's fleas know he uses sockpuppets, mission accomplished, let it go. I'm bored to death of whiny people with twitter obsessions. So he uses sock puppets, get over it. No one else cares. Either refute what he says, or leave it alone, it makes you all look even nuttier than twitter himself.
You know, I read Mr. Twit's post several times looking for an MSFT reference. It isn't there. Are you suggesting that the twit is only allowed to post anti-MSFT screeds, and as this is not an MSFT related issue, he has no right to comment?
The you blather on about 'your rights' and 'taking your anti-corporate rants elsewhere.' In the same damn sentence. May I ask, who is endangering your rights if it isn't the corporations?
I think your irrational hatred of the twit is clouding your judgment. He's a sock puppeting fool, but you come across as even more of a loony than he does by lashing out at him like that.
Most of us just ignore him when he's being an idiot, which he's not even doing here.
The benchmarks I saw showed that it doesn't just beat out a few other filesystems on I/O performance, it beats them all like a rented mule. By an order of magnitude or more. Sure, processor utilization and memory usage go up, but what else does a file server need to be doing besides serving files?
No, that is where you are wrong. There is a fairness gene and sense of fairness, that is the point I'm getting at. It isn't learned behavior, or if it is, it is the most universal learned behavior ever investigated.
Selfishness is learned behavior. When a person realizes that the world isn't fair, and no one else is doing much of anything about it, they realize that they too must be selfish in order not to be taken advantage of.
The research I've read shows that about 15 percent of people will always try to act in a fair and reciprocal manner, no matter what anyone else does. About ten percent will act selfishly all the time. And the rest will do whatever the majority is doing.
NAFTA has been used to fuck over the American worker. Tax breaks for companies moving to Mexico, where rampant pollution and labor abuses aren't a problem. When dollars and goods can cross borders without hindrance but people can't, then the wealthy will move factories to the next desperately poor country as soon as workers start getting comfortable in the first. Capital will chase poverty across the globe, and everyone but the filthy rich will suffer.
That's what we've seen happen with NAFTA. If you want more of the same, I can only assume you make over $200,000 per year, and simply don't have the same interests as I and the rest of the working class.
No it isn't. History is filled with selfless acts. We are cooperative, social creatures.
I can tell you aren't a psychologist. Behaviorist theory is not a currently well accepted psychological theory. It has been shown to be inaccurate. You are basing your world view on incorrect assumptions. You need to get current on your research because you sound like a chemist talking about phlogiston.
I have pointed you in the direction of more current research. You refuse to consider it. I'd say you have a vested interest in maintaining your "selfishness is good" and "the world isn't fair" views. Look up the Ultimatum Game, do a google search on "fairness reciprocity economic research."
I am flat out saying, you are 100% factually incorrect. Fairness is human nature. What you are describing is sociopathic.
If people did not have a sense of fairness, they wouldn't feel one way or the other about the world. The very fact that we can sense whether a situation is fair or not tells me that although the world isn't fair, humans desire that it be. Sure, the world isn't fair, but most non sociopaths have a built in sense of fairness and will harm themselves in order to punish unfairness. You can claim I'm making that up all you like, but it is a documented fact. Do the research. Look up the Ultimatum Game.
I find my fairness in a strong sense of justice, too. Why would you think I don't?
It's called the Ultimatum Game. Sorry I didn't give a cite, I thought it was very well known.
My point is, our genes don't give a damn what is in OUR best interests. They are concerned about getting passed on by any means necessary. If that means killing you off childless in order to promote the chances of a number of others carrying those genes, so be it. Cooperative genes are selfish! They will do what is best for cooperator genes, not necessarily individuals expressing those genes. If you define 'long term interests' as 'the interests our genes have in getting more copies of themselves into the next generation,' then I'd agree with you.
But this is all fairly irrelevant. Long term interest is not short term interest in any case. Trying to conflate the two, or claim that 'selfishness is good,' or using the idea to excuse stupid short term selfish behavior, is simply wrong.
Whatever the reason, people desire fairness and reciprocity. The fact that they desire it because that is in their long term self interest is irrelevant.
If two phrases, 'long term self interest' and 'selfless reciprocity and fairness,' are equivalent, why choose one over the other? What is the purpose of pointing out that they are equivalent? In many cases, I've found that people who prefer to look at it as 'long term self interest' are not practicing long term self interest at all, but looking to excuse their short term selfishness by conflating the two.
In one of the many experiments done recently, person A is offered a certain amount of money. He may keep all of it, or give some of it to person B. Person B may accept the offer, or reject it, in which case, no one gets any money.
It is in person B's self interest to accept any non zero amount offered no matter how unfair. Something is better than nothing. Each participant plays the game once, so future performance or reputation are irrelevant. Conventional economic 'selfish actor' theory predicts that person B will accept any amount over zero. In reality, person b won't. He will reject unfair offers, hurting himself in the process. These games were played in India, for the equivalent of many months of salary. Again, contrary to conventional theory, the more money at stake, the more likely a person is to reject an unfair offer.
So, how does this outcome represent enlightened self interest? It is obviously what the person wanted to do, but it is nonsensical to say it was in their self interest, even long term.
I know what people who espouse this stuff claim. They are wrong. History has proved them wrong time and again. In fact, I doubt they actually believe any of it. Its a scam.
Recent economic research shows that most people value fairness and reciprocity over 'taking care of their own.' People are willing to forgo months worth of income in order to punish unfairness. Almost all humans are born with an innate sense of fairness and a desire to act in a reciprocal fashion.
In short, the basis of free market capitalist economic theory is false. People are not primarily 'selfish actors.' They are social creatures, genetically programmed to be fair, to seek out fairness, and to punish unfairness.
Do you include screwing over others in your definition of 'taking care of your own' and 'doing whatever you can to improve yourself and your situation?"
The issue of fairness will never be a non-issue. It is built into our genetics. It is one of the major motivational factors in human society. You may be a loner, that's fine. But the majority of people on this planet do not see the world as you do, so do not expect people to sit back and accept unfairness. Sorry if that puts a damper on your plans.
That is abominable. The wealthy do not create most of their wealth. Certainly, many of them do work, but they are no smarter or more talented than many poor and middle class citizens, who could be doing their job if the system wasn't set up to exclude them. Certainly, being a CEO is a hard and stressful job, but so is being a factory worker, and I've known plenty of factory workers who had better ideas about how to make their plant work better than the CEOs ever had, but everyone prejudges them as too stupid to have good ideas.
Most of the wealth that the wealthy steal is created by the working people they steal it from. Supposedly, they receive this wealth for the 'risks' they are taking, but taxpayer funded bailouts have made a joke of that hypothesis.
Why not give the surplus to the people who actually create the goods and services? Then they will buy more and stimulate the economy. That has actually been shown to work, time and again, while trickle down economics has been shown to concentrate wealth into a few well connected hands.
But please, give me your explanation as to why the wages of the wealth creators have been stagnant for so long while the income of the wealth thieves has risen dramatically? Or simply answer this: do you think the situation is fair?
Really? Then why have wages for the middle class and poor been stagnant for so long while the income for the top 10% has skyrocketed? Are you suggesting that only the wealthy are responsible for the extra wealth created, and therefore they should get it ALL?
Please. The wealthy are siphoning off as much as they can get their greedy, amoral hands on. They are not creating wealth, they are standing in the way of wealth creation. The policies the wealthy have their conservative lapdogs put in place are entirely aimed at keeping the average citizen poor and desperate, so that they will accept whatever meager rewards the rich deign to dole out.
That's what I meant. It is memory efficient from its point of view, not from the system's point of view. The point being, ZFS makes a memory for speed tradeoff that might not be the best choice for systems that aren't primarily file-servers.