"I just don't understand why a good paper ballot is so hard to accept..."
The simple answer: Because a good paper ballot is hard to forge (in time for the pre-counting of the votes).
Previously in US, Inc. where paper ballots have been used in the past, they've been "lost", "stolen", or switched out for "other" ballots with different counts.
Electronic voting doesn't have all of those pesky "accountability" issues that paper ballots have.
"When it comes to making engineering decisions these anecdotal references have zero value."
...except that 100% of them were posted by professional system administrators who are paid to support and maintain systems using these technologies. None of those were from any posts on Slashdot.
Now, whether any of those career sysadmins are also posting on Slashdot under different names from the ones they used on Google Groups, I don't know.
"Why no fsck? And if you really feel the need to do something:"
You DID see my previous reply, right? It has plenty (hundreds) of anecdotal references as to why fsck is absolutely required, especially when dealing with redundant disks and larger filesystems.
"Why can't Linux? Because of its license, not that of ZFS."
Sure, as long as you consider that the CDDL takes rights away that the GPL grants. See here for a MUCH better explanation than I can do justice with.
If you'd actually used ZFS in production on multi-terabyte filesystems, you'd know precisely why fsck is needed. Add to that, running it on laptops and machines where imminent failures are common, and filesystems have to be able to recover from that.
See here and Sun's silly response as to why they neglected to provide fsck support for ZFS in their OS.
From a previous mini-thread on the matter. See the full thread for plenty of other examples in defense of fsck utilities on "robust" filesystems.
"ZFS has checksums and will find errors, but only will be able to self-heal the errors in a redundant configuration. On a single disk, ZFS will find the error thanks to checksums but will not be able to recover your data. Since ZFS was mainly designed for systems that will use redundant configurations, it may have sense there, but desktops are not never going to do such things. IMO the ZFS people were a bit elitist here - "let's going to build a filesystem so good that we won't need a fsck". But in the real world you _are_ going to need a fsck util. Only in excepcional and very rare cases, but you're going to need it."
Start with a short plug, because where I'll be asking you to put your ZFS "plug" will most-definitely hurt if your "plug" is any larger...
Lacking in file system utilities (yes, fsck IS necessary even on healthy filesystems, especially on desktops and portables)
License-incompatible with anything worth running it on, other than Solaris itself... which is NOT worth running (see #1 above)
Proprietary and full of patented technologies (see #2 above)
Need I go on? There are plenty more reasons.
We'll have a viable replacement soon enough, which is already designed to have quite a few more features that ZFS does not have, and cannot delivery in its current incarnation.
Someone needs to tell the PM in England that Orewell's book 1984 was never meant to be a handbook on how to run a country. It was intended to be a warning against such control.
Sigh.. it's a slippery slope until those in the US begin looking at these with genuine interest, with the intent to deploy these measures within our own borders.
"It sounds like your 'stellar' CPA is setting you up to potentially be liable for back taxes and a hefty fine."
Nope, it's all been checked and re-checked, and it's all legit. In fact, shortly before my divorce, I had to go through a lengthy financial affidavit where all of this had to be disclosed and scrutinized by accountants from both sides (my side and my ex-wife's side). It all passed the muster.
It may sound implausible, but every claim and deduction is by the books. I don't need to get audited for some screwup on behalf of the CPA that handles my taxes and paperwork, nor does he need to tarnish his spotless rating in his own community of peers.
But thanks for checking with your wife on the matter.
"CPAs are not for tax preparation. You have a question about the tax code, you ask a tax lawyer, not a CPA. CPAs are accountants."
Unless your CPA is also certified as a tax lawyer as well, as mine is:) He knows the tax code inside and out, and lectures about it to other accountants, lawyer and tax lawyers every year. He is THE TOP in his game in this side of the country.
I've written off thousands of dollars every year to OSS, and continue to do so. I have a stellar CPA who was able to find all of the legal places where I can write off money. Here are some of them:
My vehicle gas/travel to and from our monthly LUG meetings
The telephone line into my home, where my DSL is connected (write code at home, upload to server using that connection)
A portion of the monthly power bill, used to keep that DSL, servers and equipment running which is dedicated to the pursuit of writing OSS
The cost of my laptops (running Linux) which is used to write, test and maintain OSS software
The cost of my VMware Workstation license, used exclusively to test code in operating systems I do not run natively
A portion of the taxes on my home, which is dedicated office space, used to write/maintain OSS software
All of the costs from my upstream provider's hosting ($150/month) which is used to host my own projects, as well as those from other FLOSS developers
All of the donations given to me/our projects via PayPal (it's "income", not a "gift", so treated accordingly)
Commission from the Google and LinkXL banner ads run on some sites (used to pay for the hosting and power of said sites)
..and so on.
My first suggestion would be to interview and find a top-notch CPA, and book an appointment with him to pour over your finances to see where things can be deducted. They can also retroactively go back years and reclaim funds you did not claim the first time around, if you miss critical deductions.
"Emergency Exit Doors have a pressure seal, and will not open in flight. They actually need to swing in before they swing out."
Not to mention it would take several TONS of strength to be able to pull the doors in during a higher-altitude flight, before one could swing them back out. The inside of the cabin is pressurized to 1 atmosphere, and at 15k, 20k, 30k, 40k feet... you're talking about a super-human amount of strength required to pull that door inward.
I realize that "slowing down" may seem like an obvious tactic to some (and maddeningly annoying to others), but there are plenty of other ways to save fuel costs... improper tire pressure, improper alignment, excess weight in the trunk and others are documented and explained there (I count 13 other things in the article linked here).
Give it a read and pass it on, you might help others conserve as well.
"...it would be quite a neat (even if small) engineering challenge. Of course, it does depend on if they require a pressurized cabin when flying."
Everything with humans in it (submarine, airplane, space shuttle) requires a pressure of 1 atmosphere to keep them from being crushed or disemboweled. 1 atmosphere is equivalent to what we have here on the ground. When you're in an airplane at 40,000 feet, the inside of the cabin is pressurized to 1 atmosphere. When you land on the ground, the inside of the plane is pressurized to 1 atmosphere.
Space has no inherent atmospheric pressure; it's a vacuum (devoid of an atmosphere), so it has 0 atmosphere's of pressure. So the OP is right... and the Futurama quote is right.
What's that? It doesn't have a headphone jack, it can't play movies, it also cannot tether and is locked in to a carrier? Wow.. sounds like a real iPhone killer to me.
What's that?
No replaceable battery?
Proprietary charging/data connector?
Restrictive "mono" bluetooth support?
Can't use non-Apple headsets?
Doesn't sync to Linux?
Have to jailbreak it to return function other handsets have by default?
Ridiculously-restrictive AppStore?
Can't install my own applications without a signed NDA and key?
Fragile glass face?
No proper keyboard?
Camera can't record video?
No memory card support?
Capacitive touchscreen (not resistive)?
Sounds like a Star-Tac killer to me, but my 5 year old PalmOS-based Treo trumps the iPhone in almost every single feature. The iPhone does not provide any new functionality, not revolutionary in any way, and there were plenty of full-screen, touch handsets out before the iPhone hit the market.
The one, the ONLY thing Apple has going for them is marketing. That's it.
"Citizens it is your responsibility to stop future government-controlled building demolitions because the government can't always protect you from crazy ass-wipes with box cutters".
There, fixed that for you. WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 did not collapse due to any sort of aircraft involvement. They collapsed because they were the subject of a very tightly-controlled demolition. There's reams and reams of evidence out there validating this in plenty of respected and official places.
I never quite understood this whole "push email" myth people keep floating around. ALL email is "push" email. I log into my mail on any of my 1/2 dozen email accounts, and there in my Inbox is my mail... "pushed" there from everyone that has sent me email. I don't "pull" (poll) my email from the Internet into my mailboxes, it is pushed (delivered) there.
So how is this any different than any of the 10+e24 mobile devices that have had email capability in the last 10 years?
"Outlook's been around for what, 11 years? And in all that time, nobody's thought to make a viable Linux alternative?"
Oh, we've thought about it, we just don't care to. It's not an itch we feel we need to scratch.
Now, if someone were to put up say a few million dollars of funding, it might change our priorities, but right now... this isn't one of them for us, even if it is one for you.
It is public, until all of that data is aggregated in some unknown and unavailable-to-the-general-public database.
Do you mind having someone email you a turn-by-turn itinerary for every single place you went, how fast you drove, where you stopped, how long you stopped, and so on... from your front door in the morning until you come home at night, in your email every day? Do you have any major problem with that?
This isn't about "seeing" you in public, it's about TRACKING your movements in public. Run that through some beta software to track "suspicious" activity, or appear in more than one place that a "known terrorist" was seen (fast food joint and then the carwash? Now you're a "person of interest").
The implications of this are so massive it is unbelievable.
"So, if there is a law on the books restricting photography in the jurisdiction of the place you are at the moment you click the shutter, and the guard threatens to arrest you and confiscate the camera, he may not be blowin' smoke up your butt. And even if it's just "private-public" property like a mall, and he goes no further than asking you to leave or face trespassing charges, if you decline you may not have to wait for the cops to arrive and bust you."
There's a very clear distinction here... IF the person is a police officer, and IF there is a crime being committed, and IF he arrests you.. he may inventory and hold your property, but under NO MEANS may he "confiscate" your property, nor may be delete images on your camera (or flip through them, in fact). This is called "Theft" (even when done by a sworn police officer), and if he deletes images or in any way corrupts images on the memory card, he is guilty of "destruction of private property".
Also, if he THREATENS to arrest you, and in the process of that, takes your camera and brings you the "Mall Security Office".. and then decides to let you go only after he's deleted the "offending" images, he has also broken several laws (see above, but also include "Coercion" in there as well).
They may not take, destroy or confiscate your camera, film, lenses or memory cards. Period... whether they're Mall Security, sworn police officer or otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
The simple answer: Because a good paper ballot is hard to forge (in time for the pre-counting of the votes).
Previously in US, Inc. where paper ballots have been used in the past, they've been "lost", "stolen", or switched out for "other" ballots with different counts.
Electronic voting doesn't have all of those pesky "accountability" issues that paper ballots have.
...except that 100% of them were posted by professional system administrators who are paid to support and maintain systems using these technologies. None of those were from any posts on Slashdot.
Now, whether any of those career sysadmins are also posting on Slashdot under different names from the ones they used on Google Groups, I don't know.
You DID see my previous reply, right? It has plenty (hundreds) of anecdotal references as to why fsck is absolutely required, especially when dealing with redundant disks and larger filesystems.
Sure, as long as you consider that the CDDL takes rights away that the GPL grants. See here for a MUCH better explanation than I can do justice with.
See here and Sun's silly response as to why they neglected to provide fsck support for ZFS in their OS.
From a previous mini-thread on the matter. See the full thread for plenty of other examples in defense of fsck utilities on "robust" filesystems.
"ZFS has checksums and will find errors, but only will be able to self-heal the errors in a redundant configuration. On a single disk, ZFS will find the error thanks to checksums but will not be able to recover your data. Since ZFS was mainly designed for systems that will use redundant configurations, it may have sense there, but desktops are not never going to do such things. IMO the ZFS people were a bit elitist here - "let's going to build a filesystem so good that we won't need a fsck". But in the real world you _are_ going to need a fsck util. Only in excepcional and very rare cases, but you're going to need it."
Start with a short plug, because where I'll be asking you to put your ZFS "plug" will most-definitely hurt if your "plug" is any larger...
Need I go on? There are plenty more reasons.
We'll have a viable replacement soon enough, which is already designed to have quite a few more features that ZFS does not have, and cannot delivery in its current incarnation.
There are actually four boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Use in that order. Starting NOW.
Someone needs to tell the PM in England that Orewell's book 1984 was never meant to be a handbook on how to run a country. It was intended to be a warning against such control.
Sigh.. it's a slippery slope until those in the US begin looking at these with genuine interest, with the intent to deploy these measures within our own borders.
Nope, it's all been checked and re-checked, and it's all legit. In fact, shortly before my divorce, I had to go through a lengthy financial affidavit where all of this had to be disclosed and scrutinized by accountants from both sides (my side and my ex-wife's side). It all passed the muster.
It may sound implausible, but every claim and deduction is by the books. I don't need to get audited for some screwup on behalf of the CPA that handles my taxes and paperwork, nor does he need to tarnish his spotless rating in his own community of peers.
But thanks for checking with your wife on the matter.
HAhAHahHAhahAHaHa.... thanks for the late-night humor. Good one!
Unless your CPA is also certified as a tax lawyer as well, as mine is :) He knows the tax code inside and out, and lectures about it to other accountants, lawyer and tax lawyers every year. He is THE TOP in his game in this side of the country.
I've written off thousands of dollars every year to OSS, and continue to do so. I have a stellar CPA who was able to find all of the legal places where I can write off money. Here are some of them:
My first suggestion would be to interview and find a top-notch CPA, and book an appointment with him to pour over your finances to see where things can be deducted. They can also retroactively go back years and reclaim funds you did not claim the first time around, if you miss critical deductions.
Not to mention it would take several TONS of strength to be able to pull the doors in during a higher-altitude flight, before one could swing them back out. The inside of the cabin is pressurized to 1 atmosphere, and at 15k, 20k, 30k, 40k feet... you're talking about a super-human amount of strength required to pull that door inward.
I'm with the OP on this one. If you can turn it off as a passenger, what's to stop me from turning it off AS THE DRIVER also?
I realize that "slowing down" may seem like an obvious tactic to some (and maddeningly annoying to others), but there are plenty of other ways to save fuel costs... improper tire pressure, improper alignment, excess weight in the trunk and others are documented and explained there (I count 13 other things in the article linked here).
Give it a read and pass it on, you might help others conserve as well.
Everything with humans in it (submarine, airplane, space shuttle) requires a pressure of 1 atmosphere to keep them from being crushed or disemboweled. 1 atmosphere is equivalent to what we have here on the ground. When you're in an airplane at 40,000 feet, the inside of the cabin is pressurized to 1 atmosphere. When you land on the ground, the inside of the plane is pressurized to 1 atmosphere.
Space has no inherent atmospheric pressure; it's a vacuum (devoid of an atmosphere), so it has 0 atmosphere's of pressure. So the OP is right... and the Futurama quote is right.
If you want to play with your computer/hardware, use Microsoft Windows.
If you want to use your computer/hardware, use Linux.
If you want to experience your computer/hardware, use Apple OS X.
What's that?
Sounds like a Star-Tac killer to me, but my 5 year old PalmOS-based Treo trumps the iPhone in almost every single feature. The iPhone does not provide any new functionality, not revolutionary in any way, and there were plenty of full-screen, touch handsets out before the iPhone hit the market.
The one, the ONLY thing Apple has going for them is marketing. That's it.
There, fixed that for you. WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 did not collapse due to any sort of aircraft involvement. They collapsed because they were the subject of a very tightly-controlled demolition. There's reams and reams of evidence out there validating this in plenty of respected and official places.
I never quite understood this whole "push email" myth people keep floating around. ALL email is "push" email. I log into my mail on any of my 1/2 dozen email accounts, and there in my Inbox is my mail... "pushed" there from everyone that has sent me email. I don't "pull" (poll) my email from the Internet into my mailboxes, it is pushed (delivered) there.
So how is this any different than any of the 10+e24 mobile devices that have had email capability in the last 10 years?
Answer: It isn't.
No US GSM frequencies, no keyboard, no support for AT&T.
Those three alone make it a non-starter for most of us.
Oh, we've thought about it, we just don't care to. It's not an itch we feel we need to scratch.
Now, if someone were to put up say a few million dollars of funding, it might change our priorities, but right now... this isn't one of them for us, even if it is one for you.
It is public, until all of that data is aggregated in some unknown and unavailable-to-the-general-public database.
Do you mind having someone email you a turn-by-turn itinerary for every single place you went, how fast you drove, where you stopped, how long you stopped, and so on... from your front door in the morning until you come home at night, in your email every day? Do you have any major problem with that?
This isn't about "seeing" you in public, it's about TRACKING your movements in public. Run that through some beta software to track "suspicious" activity, or appear in more than one place that a "known terrorist" was seen (fast food joint and then the carwash? Now you're a "person of interest").
The implications of this are so massive it is unbelievable.
...which is why XFS makes sense here, and always has. Deleting a 1GB or 1TB file takes the same amount of time... under 1 second.
The final total was about 11 MILLION people. And Bush called the protesters a "focus group"
How many more people is it going to take?
There's a very clear distinction here... IF the person is a police officer, and IF there is a crime being committed, and IF he arrests you.. he may inventory and hold your property, but under NO MEANS may he "confiscate" your property, nor may be delete images on your camera (or flip through them, in fact). This is called "Theft" (even when done by a sworn police officer), and if he deletes images or in any way corrupts images on the memory card, he is guilty of "destruction of private property".
Also, if he THREATENS to arrest you, and in the process of that, takes your camera and brings you the "Mall Security Office".. and then decides to let you go only after he's deleted the "offending" images, he has also broken several laws (see above, but also include "Coercion" in there as well).
They may not take, destroy or confiscate your camera, film, lenses or memory cards. Period... whether they're Mall Security, sworn police officer or otherwise.