That's not a "mysterious force field". That's an even more bogus version of the "Star Wars" missile defense system for intercepting ballistic attacks with ballistic attacks. Which has never even worked at the long distances, large scales and long times, as well as vast, complex, powerful systems and humongous budgets. This system is better known as "science fiction". The mysterious force you're sensing is the defense contractor budget propaganda marketing field. Which has been protecting this country from good sense for generations.
"Open" hardware is a design I can download to my FPGA. Covered only by GPL at most - no patents, other copyrights, or other restrictions on use and redistribution. That I can change and redistribute (possibly requiring publishing my changes, as per GPL). There's other kinds of open hardware, but I know the kind that I recognize: the same as open software.
Well that's all great news. I don't actually require "High Availability", any higher than a P4/3GHz/2GB/500GB (before it goes down:) in the pool. If I can pool the heterogenous IDEs in each host into a pooled RAID, that virtual server does what I want.
Now, if I can install it as an autoupgrade to my current (nonvirtual) LAN install, like I described in my original post, then it sounds like my dream is actually coming true:).
You get paid by the hour, on salary, per delivery - the way that developers get paid now. By the specifier and recipient of the software, like now. What's different? I didn't say "free software" I said "open source".
So when you go the rest of the way to completing your project, I'd be able to take my 4-host LAN (4 different P3/P4 motherboard/CPU/RAM/HD configuration hosts), add a 5th host, replace their internal IDE storage with iSCSI, and run your software to create a virtual pool with the extra host's capacity? Or allow a host to fail with immediate autorecovery? Does it have to be iSCSI - what kind of NAS do you support?
Are we really talking about a "compute RAID" (RAIH?) available sometime this year?
If more of the source code to these games were open, developers could be contributing not only to games with short lifecycles (and often dead ends before release). They'd also be contributing to systems usable for other simulations and telecommunications. Other UIs, networks, interaction engines. Their work would contribute to the overall telecom industry development. And their own skills would continue to be relevant to the actual platforms used throughout the industry, rather than going down the one-shot drain. And of course developers would have to spend less time learning unique platforms and environments for each project.
My dream is to run an installer on a single host on my LAN. Give it the root passwords of each of the various hosts on my LAN. Then watch as it halts and backs up each of those hosts, then installs the virtualization SW on each host, making a pool, then reinstalls each host as a virtual instance in the pool. Then I'd like to see the virtual pool balance load and failover among my hosts. When I add a new host to the LAN, I'd like the pool to just use the new capacity proportionately.
Of course a live, good sysadmin will be much better at that process until AI is more than just SF. But how close is an even barely adequate version?
I didn't say it was OK. I said exactly the opposite: "I respect Africans who try to stop getting screwed by the US and others.". And then I said that my priority was stopping the US, and me, getting screwed that way.
My post was absolutely clear. You just can't understand it because you're viewing the world through your own personal dogma. Don't condescend to me about ethics and global trade when you're preaching without even reading my post.
So? I respect Africans who try to stop getting screwed by the US and others. I'm American, and my priority is that my country not get screwed. There's always a bigger fish, so there's always a smaller fish. I'm not as interested in the fair-trade ideology (though I respect it) as I am in the results. There's no excuse for the US facing unfair competition. Especially when it's protected by so many rich Americans screwing the rest of us. And when it screws Chinese workers who stay poor under their own government's tyranny, it's really indefensible. So I attack it.
None of that crap is fair. That's why China gets to make so much of our stuff: they don't compete fairly. But the "slappers" are the American corporate owners and their political properties. They benefit as much from the unfairness as do the Chinese "Communists". But my short-term benefit in cheap manufacturing isn't worth the longterm destruction the unfair competition causes. So I want the trade to be made more fair - in my terms, and the terms of the hundreds of millions of Americans with whom I share an economy.
I'd love to talk to those people in Shanghai. Those economics you mentioned are one reason economists in the 1990s forecast that China's central government would lose control of districts like Shanghai's which didn't want to "share the wealth" as much as the Communist Party demands. I'd like to hear from someone local, with their asses on the line, how they feel about those forecasts a decade later, when they're populated with real money.
I'm going to guess you're a young European who thinks taking the train once in a while, about as far as millions of commuters here in NYC travel every day to/from work, makes you cosmopolitan. Because not only am I considerably older than your feeble guess, I've lived in foreign countries, lived in several American states (around the continent), travelled to dozens of countries (probably including yours) on every continent where people outnumber penguins. Preferably to ones where I don't speak the language, alone, so I can really get into the rhythm of life and experience the people beyond the illusions of language. BTW, guesses about my race say only that you are a racist.
In real life, the American trademark/patent system certainly has quite a lot to do with Chinese industry, especially when the US government cares about the case. Even when it doesn't, such matters are determined in courts like WIPO, in which the US has quite a lot of power. And under which Chinese industry has quite a lot to lose: its global exports and purchasers of domestic labor, as well as any number of diplomatic, "humanitarian" and other investments.
And in my post, I didn't say that China was specifically afraid of Canadian courts, or American courts. You said that. You don't even understand my post, you don't understand me, you don't understand international competition. The evidence is in your posts. Which also suggests that you have an ignorance fortified by resentment of America's actual power in the world - as well as Canada's: RIM is Canadian.
Why isn't Bush slapping China with a WTO "unfree trade" suit? They've got our oil, and compete with us with artificially lowered Commie wages!
Besides, we opened our trade with Chinese corporations to open their markets for our advanced technology, manufactured there with their artifically lowered Commie wages for their Commie consumers to spend on our products. That's not fair!
China probably waited for the BlackBerry/RTP patent lawsuit to settle. So BlackBerry (RIM) would have the least cash, and maybe the case would reduce the risk China's corporation would be blocked by patents. While BlackBerry and the problems of a single supplier make all the headlines. The last couple of weeks since the settlement is just enough time to unleash the hounds, but too short for the timing to be merely coincidental.
In a sick twist, the Oklahoma City bomber can now posthumously claim he was right, that he blew up the Federal Building to protect us. A sicker twist would have Microsoft spyware catching him before he blew up the office in which Microsoft was writing the antispyware law.
The whole point of a revolution is to change who's in control. I didn't say "fuck 'em". I did say "don't treat them like children". If the USA cleans up their industries for them, we've reinforced American control while removing a powerful motivator for them to take their own control.
In fact, I want the US to back up our "globalizing democracy" rhetoric with US government assistance to democratic movements and organizations abroad. Not this "we'll invade you for your own good" BS like in Iraq (Vietnam, Nicaragua, Angola...). Real backup in finance, training, communications, and even security forces directed by viable local democracies. But I also want to stop draining the most aggressive freedom seekers from these countries by offering them simple "refugee" status. I want the US to offer their familiestemporary refuge, while the political victims work with American support to return home and change their own country. And I want preferential development loans for new democracies with which American industry can cooperate, rather than the current preference for foreign tyrannies which compete with American industry (but cooperate with "American" owners).
I want America's sponsorship of global freedom to stand under the motto "America helps those who help themselves". Not just those who abandon their homes to cash in on America. Hell, I want the option of fleeing America to a foreign democracy when the US collapses into tyranny, so I have a base from which to return to the US to work to free us again. Why shouldn't foreigners have the same kind of resource from America?
I'm interested in how a foreign company is in effect competing with Intel not by being a better vendor to Intel's customers, but by being a more demanding customer than Intel's other customers. They're really only half competing, by threatening the value of Intel's products perceived by the market, the same way a competing vendor would, though they're not doing the other half: offering a competing product that offers better perceived value to the market. Another vendor could do so, finding half their competition process already done for them,
Technology industries used to be nearly entirely "supply-side": driven by suppliers. Unpredictable innovation requiring risky investment, costs of production scaling and distribution, securing free-flowing intellectual property all defined a market always hungry for something newer, faster, smaller, safer. The market itself helped control the industry mainly to the extent that suppliers could guess what the market wanted. We're seeing the market gain power over the industry in many ways. Now we're seeing consumer processes actually resemble competition previously only performed by other producers.
Linux is open software. I want to be able to play DRM content, as well as non-DRM content. Why should my "more open" platform be more closed to some formats? Let proprietary systems, like Windows and RealNetworks' servers, suffer from less content because they support only DRM content. Support all the formats, make content creation cheap and easy without DRM, and let people choose what we want to produce and consume. The open, easy to share stuff will win. Along the way it might even bring low the high & mighty Hollywood brand franchises and the DRM-mongers who love them.
Chinese people should fight for their health and safety, despite the money they're getting to take that crap in their backyard. That's one of the best incentives to fight for freedom: health and safety. Why should the US do their fighting for them? That takes away their investment in their freedom, like in Iraq, Vietnam etc. We've shown them how to produce and manage an OSHA and recycling systems, as well as fighting off tyranny for freedom. They can take the examples and do it for themselves.
What makes Americans inherently better at cleaning up these computers than the "poor countries" that get them? The citizens of those countries should fix their own countries, just like Americans fixed our own country. They're not savages, slaves or animals. And we're not their keepers. We're just the country spending most of the money to produce these incredible productivity enhancing, communications-barrier-destroying miracles that poor countries get to use, even though they couldn't afford to produce them by themselves. They're the country that has all the low-hanging fruit dangling in their faces, with America's good examples of how to get and use freedom so well demonstrated, as well as so many ways to screw up freedom demonstrated - advantages we never had. Those countries should take our computers and take their own freedoms, like cleaning up their country instead of polluting it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not a "mysterious force field". That's an even more bogus version of the "Star Wars" missile defense system for intercepting ballistic attacks with ballistic attacks. Which has never even worked at the long distances, large scales and long times, as well as vast, complex, powerful systems and humongous budgets. This system is better known as "science fiction". The mysterious force you're sensing is the defense contractor budget propaganda marketing field. Which has been protecting this country from good sense for generations.
"Open" hardware is a design I can download to my FPGA. Covered only by GPL at most - no patents, other copyrights, or other restrictions on use and redistribution. That I can change and redistribute (possibly requiring publishing my changes, as per GPL). There's other kinds of open hardware, but I know the kind that I recognize: the same as open software.
My .sig is not GNU compliant. A GNU compliant wrapper, I believe, would be
make install --not-war
.
Well that's all great news. I don't actually require "High Availability", any higher than a P4/3GHz/2GB/500GB (before it goes down :) in the pool. If I can pool the heterogenous IDEs in each host into a pooled RAID, that virtual server does what I want.
:).
Now, if I can install it as an autoupgrade to my current (nonvirtual) LAN install, like I described in my original post, then it sounds like my dream is actually coming true
You get paid by the hour, on salary, per delivery - the way that developers get paid now. By the specifier and recipient of the software, like now. What's different? I didn't say "free software" I said "open source".
So when you go the rest of the way to completing your project, I'd be able to take my 4-host LAN (4 different P3/P4 motherboard/CPU/RAM/HD configuration hosts), add a 5th host, replace their internal IDE storage with iSCSI, and run your software to create a virtual pool with the extra host's capacity? Or allow a host to fail with immediate autorecovery? Does it have to be iSCSI - what kind of NAS do you support?
Are we really talking about a "compute RAID" (RAIH?) available sometime this year?
If more of the source code to these games were open, developers could be contributing not only to games with short lifecycles (and often dead ends before release). They'd also be contributing to systems usable for other simulations and telecommunications. Other UIs, networks, interaction engines. Their work would contribute to the overall telecom industry development. And their own skills would continue to be relevant to the actual platforms used throughout the industry, rather than going down the one-shot drain. And of course developers would have to spend less time learning unique platforms and environments for each project.
"Whitedust"? Isn't that anthrax? Or cocaine? Meth? FETLA?
Smash White Powder!
My dream is to run an installer on a single host on my LAN. Give it the root passwords of each of the various hosts on my LAN. Then watch as it halts and backs up each of those hosts, then installs the virtualization SW on each host, making a pool, then reinstalls each host as a virtual instance in the pool. Then I'd like to see the virtual pool balance load and failover among my hosts. When I add a new host to the LAN, I'd like the pool to just use the new capacity proportionately.
Of course a live, good sysadmin will be much better at that process until AI is more than just SF. But how close is an even barely adequate version?
Moderation -1
100% Offtopic
TrollMods with tiny little minds can't see the bigger picture - bigger than Pentium microcode in French government translation.
I didn't say it was OK. I said exactly the opposite: "I respect Africans who try to stop getting screwed by the US and others.". And then I said that my priority was stopping the US, and me, getting screwed that way.
My post was absolutely clear. You just can't understand it because you're viewing the world through your own personal dogma. Don't condescend to me about ethics and global trade when you're preaching without even reading my post.
So? I respect Africans who try to stop getting screwed by the US and others. I'm American, and my priority is that my country not get screwed. There's always a bigger fish, so there's always a smaller fish. I'm not as interested in the fair-trade ideology (though I respect it) as I am in the results. There's no excuse for the US facing unfair competition. Especially when it's protected by so many rich Americans screwing the rest of us. And when it screws Chinese workers who stay poor under their own government's tyranny, it's really indefensible. So I attack it.
None of that crap is fair. That's why China gets to make so much of our stuff: they don't compete fairly. But the "slappers" are the American corporate owners and their political properties. They benefit as much from the unfairness as do the Chinese "Communists". But my short-term benefit in cheap manufacturing isn't worth the longterm destruction the unfair competition causes. So I want the trade to be made more fair - in my terms, and the terms of the hundreds of millions of Americans with whom I share an economy.
I'd love to talk to those people in Shanghai. Those economics you mentioned are one reason economists in the 1990s forecast that China's central government would lose control of districts like Shanghai's which didn't want to "share the wealth" as much as the Communist Party demands. I'd like to hear from someone local, with their asses on the line, how they feel about those forecasts a decade later, when they're populated with real money.
I'm going to guess you're a young European who thinks taking the train once in a while, about as far as millions of commuters here in NYC travel every day to/from work, makes you cosmopolitan. Because not only am I considerably older than your feeble guess, I've lived in foreign countries, lived in several American states (around the continent), travelled to dozens of countries (probably including yours) on every continent where people outnumber penguins. Preferably to ones where I don't speak the language, alone, so I can really get into the rhythm of life and experience the people beyond the illusions of language. BTW, guesses about my race say only that you are a racist.
In real life, the American trademark/patent system certainly has quite a lot to do with Chinese industry, especially when the US government cares about the case. Even when it doesn't, such matters are determined in courts like WIPO, in which the US has quite a lot of power. And under which Chinese industry has quite a lot to lose: its global exports and purchasers of domestic labor, as well as any number of diplomatic, "humanitarian" and other investments.
And in my post, I didn't say that China was specifically afraid of Canadian courts, or American courts. You said that. You don't even understand my post, you don't understand me, you don't understand international competition. The evidence is in your posts. Which also suggests that you have an ignorance fortified by resentment of America's actual power in the world - as well as Canada's: RIM is Canadian.
Why isn't Bush slapping China with a WTO "unfree trade" suit? They've got our oil, and compete with us with artificially lowered Commie wages!
Besides, we opened our trade with Chinese corporations to open their markets for our advanced technology, manufactured there with their artifically lowered Commie wages for their Commie consumers to spend on our products. That's not fair!
Where's the cheapest ultralight hovering flyer currently on the market that can carry a 50g payload for 10 minutes?
China probably waited for the BlackBerry/RTP patent lawsuit to settle. So BlackBerry (RIM) would have the least cash, and maybe the case would reduce the risk China's corporation would be blocked by patents. While BlackBerry and the problems of a single supplier make all the headlines. The last couple of weeks since the settlement is just enough time to unleash the hounds, but too short for the timing to be merely coincidental.
In a sick twist, the Oklahoma City bomber can now posthumously claim he was right, that he blew up the Federal Building to protect us. A sicker twist would have Microsoft spyware catching him before he blew up the office in which Microsoft was writing the antispyware law.
The whole point of a revolution is to change who's in control. I didn't say "fuck 'em". I did say "don't treat them like children". If the USA cleans up their industries for them, we've reinforced American control while removing a powerful motivator for them to take their own control.
In fact, I want the US to back up our "globalizing democracy" rhetoric with US government assistance to democratic movements and organizations abroad. Not this "we'll invade you for your own good" BS like in Iraq (Vietnam, Nicaragua, Angola...). Real backup in finance, training, communications, and even security forces directed by viable local democracies. But I also want to stop draining the most aggressive freedom seekers from these countries by offering them simple "refugee" status. I want the US to offer their families temporary refuge, while the political victims work with American support to return home and change their own country. And I want preferential development loans for new democracies with which American industry can cooperate, rather than the current preference for foreign tyrannies which compete with American industry (but cooperate with "American" owners).
I want America's sponsorship of global freedom to stand under the motto "America helps those who help themselves". Not just those who abandon their homes to cash in on America. Hell, I want the option of fleeing America to a foreign democracy when the US collapses into tyranny, so I have a base from which to return to the US to work to free us again. Why shouldn't foreigners have the same kind of resource from America?
I'm interested in how a foreign company is in effect competing with Intel not by being a better vendor to Intel's customers, but by being a more demanding customer than Intel's other customers. They're really only half competing, by threatening the value of Intel's products perceived by the market, the same way a competing vendor would, though they're not doing the other half: offering a competing product that offers better perceived value to the market. Another vendor could do so, finding half their competition process already done for them,
Technology industries used to be nearly entirely "supply-side": driven by suppliers. Unpredictable innovation requiring risky investment, costs of production scaling and distribution, securing free-flowing intellectual property all defined a market always hungry for something newer, faster, smaller, safer. The market itself helped control the industry mainly to the extent that suppliers could guess what the market wanted. We're seeing the market gain power over the industry in many ways. Now we're seeing consumer processes actually resemble competition previously only performed by other producers.
Linux is open software. I want to be able to play DRM content, as well as non-DRM content. Why should my "more open" platform be more closed to some formats? Let proprietary systems, like Windows and RealNetworks' servers, suffer from less content because they support only DRM content. Support all the formats, make content creation cheap and easy without DRM, and let people choose what we want to produce and consume. The open, easy to share stuff will win. Along the way it might even bring low the high & mighty Hollywood brand franchises and the DRM-mongers who love them.
I don't know about "all markets". Steven A. Silvers seems to own kids' googling.
Chinese people should fight for their health and safety, despite the money they're getting to take that crap in their backyard. That's one of the best incentives to fight for freedom: health and safety. Why should the US do their fighting for them? That takes away their investment in their freedom, like in Iraq, Vietnam etc. We've shown them how to produce and manage an OSHA and recycling systems, as well as fighting off tyranny for freedom. They can take the examples and do it for themselves.
What makes Americans inherently better at cleaning up these computers than the "poor countries" that get them? The citizens of those countries should fix their own countries, just like Americans fixed our own country. They're not savages, slaves or animals. And we're not their keepers. We're just the country spending most of the money to produce these incredible productivity enhancing, communications-barrier-destroying miracles that poor countries get to use, even though they couldn't afford to produce them by themselves. They're the country that has all the low-hanging fruit dangling in their faces, with America's good examples of how to get and use freedom so well demonstrated, as well as so many ways to screw up freedom demonstrated - advantages we never had. Those countries should take our computers and take their own freedoms, like cleaning up their country instead of polluting it.