Now, to be completely clear - I feel overselling bandwidth is wrong. I feel the proper response to issues like this on the larger network is guaranteed access to the full amount of bandwidth sold at all times. On the local scale, these men should have brought in another source of internet. On the larger scale, the telco should do the same.
You're completely delusional if you actually believe this.
Lets take a tiny data center with 1000 servers for example, each server gets a 100mbit ethernet connection, if the hosting provider wasn't overselling their bandwidth they would need 100GBit of upstream bandwidth. Sorry but that just isn't going to EVER happen.
If Google has over 500,000 servers, each with 100mbit ethernet connection, do you think they have a nice fancy 50terrabit connection to the internet?
Overselling bandwidth is business as usual, and always will be. The internet by design is just one big bottle neck at some point or another, you may as well just get used to it now.
I watched the video and the BMW was driven BEHIND the Prius at "speeds as fast as possible".
I think that favors the BMW significantly considering the how close the BMW was driven behind the Prius, the Prius was doing most of the work pushing the air out of the way for it.
What a horrible test on so many levels, its completely useless to base anything on it.
If "Rich" guy somehow knows that your entire networth is $500,000 (most of it equity in your home) and he offers $505,000 for the company, he is either a complete idiot or the company isn't worth that much to begin with.
If "poor" guy can't come up with $505,000 by mortgaging his house and getting a $5000 loan from his family/bank, then the project obviously isn't worth that amount, let alone $5000 to someone on the "outside". Selling a 1% stake in your company to retain 99% is a small price to pay. If the company has any worth whatsoever, a bank isn't going to have a problem loaning you the money for a lowball shot-gun clause offer.
As I mentioned in my other post, I would rather walk away from a bad business relationship with $505,000 in my pocket, then what the alternative would be without a shot-gun clause.
If your business partner is that much of a jerk and "rich" it would be guaranteed a few years in court, guaranteed several hundred thousand dollars in lawyer bills, all for what? The CHANCE (no guarantee) of getting only PART (assuming 50/50 partnership) of the company if there is anything left of it in the end.
Shot-gun clauses are the last resort, they are not ideal by any means, but when you are dealing with someone who is completely unreasonable, its the best case scenario and you should be thankful to get anything out of it. Thats the price you pay for having a bad business partner.
If you would rather spend years in court and help your lawyer pay for his fancy car/house, be my guest, don't use a shot-gun clause.
Okay and not having a shot-gun clause results in this:
Rich telling Poor to go screw himself, taking whatever he can and continuing to build the project and sell it... Poor doesn't have the 10s of thousands of dollars to take Rich to court where there is still a 50/50 chance at best that he may or may not walk away with anything other than a fat lawyer bill. At this point the court has to decide who is in the "wrong" when there may or may not be clear cut terms.
I've personally been involved with the sale of a business which exceeded 6 figures, the sale contract was done up by experienced lawyers in which the buyer would make two payments, one up front and another X days after. The buyer also provided personal promissory notes from himself, his wife, and signed over collateral in the form of real-estate.
Well, the buyer never made the 2nd payment, and even with the promissory notes and collateral it still cost 40K in lawyer fees and took almost two years to get a judgment against them before the seller could legally have access to any assets, which turns out by the time this all panned out they were all mortgaged to the hilt and the economy went into the dumps making the collateral (real estate) is worth a fraction of what it originally was. Since the banks get first priority on mortgages, its all worthless to the seller. The best course of action is to wait it out and hopefully the buyer gets into a position to actually make the payment, or have something worth taking.
Now a shot-gun clause wouldn't have helped in this situation, but the point is, going to court is pretty much guaranteed lose situation for "regular folk". At LEAST a shot-gun clause has a "out" with clear and simple terms. If one party tries to get nasty at that point there really isn't any decision for a court to make other than uphold the exchange of money/property/intellectual property. It would still probably cost thousands upon thousands of dollars to actually enforce, but that is a fraction of the alternative.
Its not ideal by any means, but its the lesser of two evils and its always a way out that is as fair as possible.
So? The "rich" guy needs to make the "poor" guy a reasonable offer, because as per the shot-gun clause any offer that is made first can be countered by the other party at the exact same price. So if the "rich" guy tries to lowball the "poor" guy, it could easily come back to bite him.
It basically comes down to this, if the "poor" guy can't get his hands on enough capital to meet the original shot-gun clause offer, likely the project isn't worth it to begin with, but at least he gets to walk away with some cash, likely more money then he or any outside investors think the project is worth.
Given the alternative, the "poor" guy couldn't afford any court costs anyways and would be likely to lose everything PLUS lawyer costs if it ever went to court, so with a shot-gun clause in tact he at least has the option to raise more capital, or he gets bought out for a reasonable amount.
You can't get a more fair system then the shot-gun clause, and one party being "rich" and the other being "poor" makes virtually no difference either.
ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS have a shot-gun clause with a hard time limit in any significant partnership agreement. This "co-owned" 50/50 split stuff is BS and is way too likely to go sour.
If they had a shot-gun clause in their agreement, this would be a simple matter of one party or the other buying full rights and continuing on with the project, no legal system and multi-year drawn out court battles designed to put all the money in lawyers pockets. The issue would be resolved in a matter of days and both parties would essentially be happy.
Its a common myth used to sell work-out DVDs, Pilates and other similar stuff that you can "tone" muscles. Muscles do one of three things, they maintain themselves, they shrink, or they grow. When you get on a treadmill and do "cardio", your muscle doesn't go into "toning" mode and magically start to "look" better.
What makes muscles "look" better is reducing the fat around them (muscle definition), or increasing their size so they are more visible. So when doing "cardio" you are really just attempting to reduce your overall fat which subsequently makes muscle look more defined.
However for most average (not obese) men and women they will need to spend hours on the treadmill and watch their caloric intake with military precision to see much benefit. Instead if you spent that time actually building muscle they would spend less time in the gym overall, see results faster, and not have to watch what they eat as much. The more muscle you have, the more calories you burn even when your sleeping, that beats any time spent on a treadmill.
Of course virtually every women you mention this too will say: "I don't want to be muscle bound or look like a body builder, thats gross.". Its not going to happen unless you approach it like a Olympic athlete or a full time job. So you don't need to worry about this and even if you do, simply stop going to the gym and eat a few more twinkies, problem solved.
How do you build muscle while spending the least amount of time in the gym as possible? Easy, lift weights so heavy you can only do AT MOST 8 reps before your muscles give out in fatigue, then add 10% more weight to that, and don't worry about "form", thats all crap too, just make sure you don't injure yourself, which doesn't exactly set the bar very high. You want to focus on your strongest range of motion, which usually means you may only move the weight a few inches (yes, 1-2 inches is enough) just before you fully extend any joint. Heck, you could just hold the weight in one place and it'll work just as well.
Most people laugh at me when I tell them this, because since they were kids in school they were always taught "form" and full range of motion is the most important, well it only is if you want to spend hours in the gym every day for little or no results. What is most important is building muscle, and with this "idea", you should be able to increase the weight you lift for any one exercise between 5-10% EACH WORKOUT. I only go to the gym once a week now and spend less than 30 minutes. After each work-out I'm sore enough that it takes a few days minimum to recover fully so I can lift more the next time... If you can't lift more the next work out, its likely you are doing it wrong, or not waiting long enough between workouts to fully recover.
What most people don't understand is that in order for muscle to grow, you need to literally tear your muscle fibers so your body notices and starts to grow new ones. This increases the size of the muscle and subsequently the strength. Do not confuse this with PULLING your muscle, that is obviously different. But your muscles should HURT one or two days after a "proper" workout, if they don't, then you just wasted your time.
If you want to read more, google "static contraction training".
Is AT&T seriously that dumb with their contract changes? Up here in Canada, I have an iPhone on Rogers, and they just recently changed their terms in the contract, but they have this wonderful clause at the bottom that roughly states:
If you do not agree with these changes, the original contract is still enforced.
Hence putting an end to people getting "free phones" or out of 2-3yr long contracts.
Uhh, last I checked Canonical hasn't actually turned a profit yet. Its just being funded by someone who has very deep pockets. It could be years before he recovers his investment, if it ever happens.
If you have full access to the computer remotely, follow the lead of the phishers... Setup a fake web-site that is sure to get their contact information and make it the home page of their web browser:
You just won a brand new big screen TV. Enter your mailing address here and we'll ship it to you immediately!
It sounds like you are getting confused between Reiser3 and Reiser4, making assumptions that they are similar. This is a common mistake, Reiser4 is pretty much a completely new file system written from scratch, you wouldn't know that from the name though.
Reiser3 is an excellent file system, it works EXTREMELY well for what it was designed to do, and is pretty much the only file system you can use for certain systems, mainly large mail servers using maildir, or large caching servers like squid. In my job it has been a life saver, because without it we would be severely limited in a lot of ways.
Has it had its share of issues over the years? Of course it has, it is much younger then EXT2/3 is, so things like properly handling rare failure cases takes time and experience to address properly. Go back 7 years and read some of the mailing lists regarding file recovery on EXT2/3, its far from perfect as well.
The bottom line is if you don't have good backups, your are going to lose data on ANY file system. Some file systems you may lose more data, some less. That is the nature of the beast, keep good backups! If you don't need the features Reiser3 offers, why are you using it in the first place? Reiser3 is much more complex then EXT3 is, it was designed to address a severe gap in functionality which existed at that time, and continues to exist to a large extent, and it fills that gap very well to this day.
Reiser4 is a complete re-write that is designed to address the original short comings of Reiser3, and further add functionality to reach the vision that Hans has had for over a decade. It is designed in a way to make it easy to add "extensions" or the infamous "plugins" that can have A LOT of power within the file system.
This is key to file system improvement in my opinion... How many programs out there have taken off and now have a huge repository of plugins? Firefox and Thunderbird are some of the popular ones, and it could well be argued that without extensions they would not have caught on like they have. Now think of this in the file system context, how nice would it be to download an extension that allows you to enable greater consistency checks in a certain directory where you keep your databases or other important data? Then download another extension to enable compression on your massive mail directory, and yet another extension to enable encryption on the directory where you keep your taxes and other financial statements?
Right now you can kinda do those things, but its a nightmare of loopback mount points and having to use a whole whack of different file systems, few people even bother, because its not as simple as just enabling an extension and flipping a switch. Don't even get me started on the mess that is FUSE file systems.
Personally I would be much more likely to trust my data to a robust underlying file system with extension capability to handle specialized functionality then to a completely new file system that does just one thing well, like encryption or compression.
There were many reasons not to include Reiser4, yes, coding style and code re-factoring issues were some of them. Those I'm not arguing about, and those are also being addressed, if they haven't been already.
Reiser4 doesn't add a "second way" of doing file systems, it simply adds another METHOD of working WITH files, among other things. Should kernel developers understand how that works, of course they should, but that is no different then asking to include a driver for some obscure hardware device that 99% of the kernel developers don't have access to.
You quoted Linus as saying: "the filesystem shouldn't make its own internal plug-in architecture that bypasses the VFS layer and exposes functionality that isn't necessarily sane."
On the whole, I agree with Linus. The problem arises when the argument then shifts, Okay, lets take the Reiser4 API for pseudo files and merge it into the VFS layer so any file system can use it... As soon as this topic comes up the question is then asked, why? No application uses pseudo files, we don't even know if its a good idea, or if anyone WILL use them in the future. So why would they burden the ENTIRE VFS layer with all this code that is potentially useless?
Its a chicken and egg problem essentially...
This is why I suggest allowing Reiser4 into the kernel with its own implementation of pseudo files as an EXPERIMENT, and marking it as such. Its something that can be enabled/disabled easily, and it won't affect anyone NOT using Reiser4 (this seems key to me), so in that regard it is low risk. Doing it this way gives people the opportunity to use pseudo files, see if they are of any actual use in the real world and make a decision from there.
If they catch on, then by all means they should work on taking the Reiser4 specific API and create a generic VFS layer API to do the same thing so any file system can take part. If they don't catch on, no harm no foul, they didn't modify the entire VFS layer and place every single kernel user at risk of bugs in the process.
I agree with you wholeheartedly... However the Kernel developers seem very opposed to even experimenting in new design. Reiser4 and its pseudo files is a perfect example, the kernel developers seem to want nothing to do with it because it violates layers, no other file systems support it, and no user space applications support it.
Huh? Of course they don't! It isn't in the kernel yet, and no one in their right mind would waste 5minutes of their time supporting it until it gets in! But they don't even want to add it to the kernel when it can be enabled/disabled on the fly and when it is clearly marked EXPERIMENTAL.
Instead they just point to FUSE... Well if you want to access file meta-data like ID3 tags in MP3 with regular file tools (cat, ls, echo, rm, etc...) then use the "MP3-ID3" FUSE filesystem on your MP3 directory and use its custom API. But then if you want to access meta data on your digital photos, well install the "JPEG-EXIF" FUSE file system on your photos directory and use its custom API. Oh, you have a million photos and the FUSE file system is so slow its useless now? Sucks to be you. That doesn't make a lot of sense at all.
In my opinion they should restrict the pseudo files to JUST reiser4, enable it and clearly mark it as experimental, then wait... Do people use it? Do people like it? Let the reiser4 guys hash out the problems, and re-designs, and when/if they come up with something useful, then think about how they can write a generic API so that ANY file system can use the same pseudo file system.
If it blows up completely, well hey, its marked experimental and they can remove the pseudo file functionality (while still keeping Reiser4 intact), no harm, no foul. If it catches on, well they just had a year of beta testing and API stabilization that didn't affect a huge amount of users, now they can take their experiences and build upon them.
How? The code is all open source. Hans owned the company called "Namesys" that does all the development, apparently that company is still alive to some degree anyways, because developers continue to post patches from @namesys.com addresses. All I know is that there still seems to be a decent amount of activity surrounding it (note the date, April 25th 2007).
My understanding is that Hans was the "brains" behind the operation as far as high level ideas and direction is concerned, but he spent a good portion of his time looking for funding and trying to raise money in other capacities, while he paid other programmers to work on Reiser4 itself.
As far as your comment regarding journaling and htree's, you are obviously severely lacking in knowledge as far as what Reiser4 is capable of, it goes FAR beyond fast access to many files and journaling. Speed, encryption and compression are just a few of the other major features it offers... According to the benchmarks, with the speed of CPUs today you can almost double your disk performance by enabling compression, contrary to what most people would think.
Its not dead at all. I'm not even sure how much coding of Reiser4 Hans did himself, but Reiser4 is still actively developed by pretty much the same people it was before Hans was arrested.
There was talk just last week again about taking another crack at getting it included in the Kernel.
Reiser4 introduced us to all sorts of interesting capabilities never before seen in a file system (at the time) but I believe this same "layering violation" attitude pretty much put a stop to any of it getting into the kernel. The Reiser guys were forced to pretty much cripple their file system feature wise if they were to have any hope of getting it included in the kernel.
I can understand that in certain cases "layering violations" are bad, but Linux kernel developers don't even seem to be willing to experiment or think outside the box at all.
Both sides have valid arguments... I don't think there is any easy solution, but it would be nice to see more forward thinking in the community.
Re:Did anyone see the "Landing Anomoly" on CNN (LA
on
Flying the Airbus A380
·
· Score: 1
I don't think that had anything to do with breaks, I'm not a pilot, but my father is and usually you don't apply the breaks until ALL wheels are on the ground to help prevent just this sort of problem, and to prevent the front wheels from coming down too hard. This clearly happened well before the front wheels touched down. Having one set of tires touching down before the other set can cause enough drag to twist the plane some too, so that is a possibility. Not only that but on large planes the breaks are next to useless at high speeds, they use reverse thrust instead, which takes some time to engage.
While this is no where close to a "smooth landing", it was FAR from being out of the ordinary. Take a look at this video to see what the planes are really capable of. Search google for: "boeing crosswinds flight test" to find more of the same, those pilots are insane.
This is partly why in Canada commercials for pharmaceuticals are restricted to one of the following:
1. Explain what the drug does, WITHOUT saying its name. 2. Say the drugs name, but don't explain what it does.
Hence the reason why our Viagra ads have some guy bouncing (jumping) in a very stiff standing position down a street with a huge smile on his face, then it says: "VIAGRA" at the end.
I figured it was all BS too... Until my uncle started actually doing it.
Keep in mind I get this information 2nd/3rd hand usually... Take a look at this site explaining how it is done with regards to income tax in both US and Canada:
I just heard another story of my uncle latest adventures... The last three times he has been in court (he defends a bunch of other people as well) he just takes a color laminated photocopy (intended as a copy) of his (or the defendants) birth certificate, walks into court, when called upon goes up and hands it to the judge and walks out of the court room. Thats the last he hears from them.
The reason for this that I understand is that the vast majority of laws only apply to "fictional entities", essentially a birth certificate. By handing over your birth certificate to the judge, they can prosecute the fictional entity all they want, it has no consequence on a "person in the truth".
Again, call BS all you like, thousands of people do this sort of thing every day, and it just keeps growing. It works in both Canada and the US. But you NEED to know exactly what you are doing. Any Joe Blow can't just do this, they need to study law for several years usually first.
I actually have an uncle who copyrighted his name and also became his own "sovereign nation" (or something along those lines) which actually enabled him to skirt many laws in Canada at least. I can't remember the exact name of the "program" he got the information from, something like "In The Truth", but its pretty interesting stuff. The stories he tells are hilarious.
Stories like fining judges large amounts of money for using his name without permission (it was copyrighted after all) and they ACTUALLY PAID, not to mention the charges were dropped.
Laws are apparently designed to screw over anyone who isn't in the "know". Ever wonder what a birth certificate is REALLY for? Look on the back of a Canadian birth certificate and you'll notice that it is actually a BANK NOTE. When you are born and your parents obtain a birth certificate for you, you are essentially agreeing to pay back your portion of the Canadian debt. No birth certificate? No debt obligations, no obligation to pay taxes, etc... etc...
Drivers licenses is apparently similar. By obtaining a drivers license you are agreeing to abide by the motor vehicle laws. If you don't have a drivers license and you know what you are doing, they can't touch you for breaking any of the laws. My uncle didn't renew his license, and was hauled off to court one day after being pulled over by the police. After a short trial where he basically told the judge (in the proper words) to go to hell, the charges were dropped and he was released. The police in his town know him pretty well and seem to stay clear.
Its crazy what people are doing with this sort of thing.
I like to relate open source software to the car industry. If a new car company was established that sold its car for a few thousand dollars less then everyone else, but the catch was the hood was locked shut and the only people with the key to it was the dealership themselves. Thus forcing ALL maintenance and repairs to be carried out by the original dealer at a premium. Do you think this company would survive? Would YOU buy a car from them?
Most people would say, HELL NO! Even though MOST people don't have a clue about car maintenance. Most people will never even change their own oil, but still they have the common sense not to purchase a car knowing they are going to get bent over the barrel for repair costs.
I believe open source is similar. Sure, most people aren't programmers, most have no clue what it takes to develop a piece of software. But MOST people have used a piece of software in the past that had a bug, or that lacked a certain feature they really need. If they had access to the source code at least they could ATTEMPT to get the bug fixed, or feature added. Just like they attempt to take their car to the local garage to get the oil changed and the weird engine sound fixed. It doesn't always work out that way, but at least they have the option. Not every garage you take your car to is going to do quality work, just like not every programmer you hire is going to get the job you request done. The bottom line though is you at least have OPTIONS.
Regarding your statement about open source programmers being more "nimble" and the community being able to implement bug fixes/features faster then commercial companies. You need to keep in mind that open source programmers and the community itself aren't paid. Just because some John Doe requests a feature that might suit him doesn't mean the programmer is going to call in sick to his day job to implement it for you. Try donating to the project FIRST, then requesting something back second and you might get better results. Your donation doesn't have to be money either, donate documentation, donate testing and feedback, donate any service you may have to offer and after that I bet any requests you have will be less likely to fall on deaf ears. The community is what drives open source, so become part of that community and everyone wins.
No distro comes close to Mandriva for ease of use.
on
Mandriva 2007 Released
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
In my opinion Mandriva still takes the cake as far as distro ease of use is concerned. The installer is dead simple (yet has an advanced mode) but the most important part is once you get it installed, it has the most complete set of utilities to configure and maintain your system which are accessible from a single "control panel". Everything from one click network printer discovery, to setting up TV cards/scanners, to firewall configuration.
Sure some of the other distros are just starting to catch up now, they usually have a hodge-podge of utilties that work similar to the Mandriva ones, but few have a consistent interface and you usually need to know what they are called before you know what to click on, they aren't all located in one easy to find place. If you want a distro your mom can install and use, this is about as close as it comes currently.
Here is the list of just some of the custom utilties Mandriva (Mandrake) offers for configuring your system:
"The feature set was comparable to your standard Cisco router," Knox said. "They were offering translating, gateway capability, Samba file sharing, VLAN trunking to 11q... it really looked like a corporate-level router," he said.
Since when do "corporate-level routers" offer samba file sharing? This seems like the LAST thing I would ever want to put on a router. The only thing I could possibly see Samba being useful for is downloading log/config files. But on a router that is kinda scary, SCP seems much more secure and just as useful.
Open source routing is definitely an option now though. Over 3 years ago the web hosting company I worked for swithced out their Cisco routers that couldn't handle the slighest DDoS attack for a couple AMD based Linux boxes that could easily handle wirespeed DDoS attacks with ease. Not to mention they were a fraction of the cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, to be completely clear - I feel overselling bandwidth is wrong. I feel the proper response to issues like this on the larger network is guaranteed access to the full amount of bandwidth sold at all times. On the local scale, these men should have brought in another source of internet. On the larger scale, the telco should do the same.
You're completely delusional if you actually believe this.
Lets take a tiny data center with 1000 servers for example, each server gets a 100mbit ethernet connection, if the hosting provider wasn't overselling their bandwidth they would need 100GBit of upstream bandwidth. Sorry but that just isn't going to EVER happen.
If Google has over 500,000 servers, each with 100mbit ethernet connection, do you think they have a nice fancy 50terrabit connection to the internet?
Overselling bandwidth is business as usual, and always will be. The internet by design is just one big bottle neck at some point or another, you may as well just get used to it now.
I watched the video and the BMW was driven BEHIND the Prius at "speeds as fast as possible".
I think that favors the BMW significantly considering the how close the BMW was driven behind the Prius, the Prius was doing most of the work pushing the air out of the way for it.
What a horrible test on so many levels, its completely useless to base anything on it.
How well does it actually support MythTV though?
I imagine its just a "dumb" video stream player that can't skip commercials or modify any of the programming that a regular Myth frontend can do?
Yes, its completely fair.
If "Rich" guy somehow knows that your entire networth is $500,000 (most of it equity in your home) and he offers $505,000 for the company, he is either a complete idiot or the company isn't worth that much to begin with.
If "poor" guy can't come up with $505,000 by mortgaging his house and getting a $5000 loan from his family/bank, then the project obviously isn't worth that amount, let alone $5000 to someone on the "outside". Selling a 1% stake in your company to retain 99% is a small price to pay. If the company has any worth whatsoever, a bank isn't going to have a problem loaning you the money for a lowball shot-gun clause offer.
As I mentioned in my other post, I would rather walk away from a bad business relationship with $505,000 in my pocket, then what the alternative would be without a shot-gun clause.
If your business partner is that much of a jerk and "rich" it would be guaranteed a few years in court, guaranteed several hundred thousand dollars in lawyer bills, all for what? The CHANCE (no guarantee) of getting only PART (assuming 50/50 partnership) of the company if there is anything left of it in the end.
Shot-gun clauses are the last resort, they are not ideal by any means, but when you are dealing with someone who is completely unreasonable, its the best case scenario and you should be thankful to get anything out of it. Thats the price you pay for having a bad business partner.
If you would rather spend years in court and help your lawyer pay for his fancy car/house, be my guest, don't use a shot-gun clause.
Okay and not having a shot-gun clause results in this:
Rich telling Poor to go screw himself, taking whatever he can and continuing to build the project and sell it... Poor doesn't have the 10s of thousands of dollars to take Rich to court where there is still a 50/50 chance at best that he may or may not walk away with anything other than a fat lawyer bill. At this point the court has to decide who is in the "wrong" when there may or may not be clear cut terms.
I've personally been involved with the sale of a business which exceeded 6 figures, the sale contract was done up by experienced lawyers in which the buyer would make two payments, one up front and another X days after. The buyer also provided personal promissory notes from himself, his wife, and signed over collateral in the form of real-estate.
Well, the buyer never made the 2nd payment, and even with the promissory notes and collateral it still cost 40K in lawyer fees and took almost two years to get a judgment against them before the seller could legally have access to any assets, which turns out by the time this all panned out they were all mortgaged to the hilt and the economy went into the dumps making the collateral (real estate) is worth a fraction of what it originally was. Since the banks get first priority on mortgages, its all worthless to the seller. The best course of action is to wait it out and hopefully the buyer gets into a position to actually make the payment, or have something worth taking.
Now a shot-gun clause wouldn't have helped in this situation, but the point is, going to court is pretty much guaranteed lose situation for "regular folk". At LEAST a shot-gun clause has a "out" with clear and simple terms. If one party tries to get nasty at that point there really isn't any decision for a court to make other than uphold the exchange of money/property/intellectual property. It would still probably cost thousands upon thousands of dollars to actually enforce, but that is a fraction of the alternative.
Its not ideal by any means, but its the lesser of two evils and its always a way out that is as fair as possible.
So? The "rich" guy needs to make the "poor" guy a reasonable offer, because as per the shot-gun clause any offer that is made first can be countered by the other party at the exact same price. So if the "rich" guy tries to lowball the "poor" guy, it could easily come back to bite him.
It basically comes down to this, if the "poor" guy can't get his hands on enough capital to meet the original shot-gun clause offer, likely the project isn't worth it to begin with, but at least he gets to walk away with some cash, likely more money then he or any outside investors think the project is worth.
Given the alternative, the "poor" guy couldn't afford any court costs anyways and would be likely to lose everything PLUS lawyer costs if it ever went to court, so with a shot-gun clause in tact he at least has the option to raise more capital, or he gets bought out for a reasonable amount.
You can't get a more fair system then the shot-gun clause, and one party being "rich" and the other being "poor" makes virtually no difference either.
ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS have a shot-gun clause with a hard time limit in any significant partnership agreement. This "co-owned" 50/50 split stuff is BS and is way too likely to go sour.
If they had a shot-gun clause in their agreement, this would be a simple matter of one party or the other buying full rights and continuing on with the project, no legal system and multi-year drawn out court battles designed to put all the money in lawyers pockets. The issue would be resolved in a matter of days and both parties would essentially be happy.
Its a common myth used to sell work-out DVDs, Pilates and other similar stuff that you can "tone" muscles. Muscles do one of three things, they maintain themselves, they shrink, or they grow. When you get on a treadmill and do "cardio", your muscle doesn't go into "toning" mode and magically start to "look" better.
What makes muscles "look" better is reducing the fat around them (muscle definition), or increasing their size so they are more visible. So when doing "cardio" you are really just attempting to reduce your overall fat which subsequently makes muscle look more defined.
However for most average (not obese) men and women they will need to spend hours on the treadmill and watch their caloric intake with military precision to see much benefit. Instead if you spent that time actually building muscle they would spend less time in the gym overall, see results faster, and not have to watch what they eat as much. The more muscle you have, the more calories you burn even when your sleeping, that beats any time spent on a treadmill.
Of course virtually every women you mention this too will say: "I don't want to be muscle bound or look like a body builder, thats gross.". Its not going to happen unless you approach it like a Olympic athlete or a full time job. So you don't need to worry about this and even if you do, simply stop going to the gym and eat a few more twinkies, problem solved.
How do you build muscle while spending the least amount of time in the gym as possible? Easy, lift weights so heavy you can only do AT MOST 8 reps before your muscles give out in fatigue, then add 10% more weight to that, and don't worry about "form", thats all crap too, just make sure you don't injure yourself, which doesn't exactly set the bar very high. You want to focus on your strongest range of motion, which usually means you may only move the weight a few inches (yes, 1-2 inches is enough) just before you fully extend any joint. Heck, you could just hold the weight in one place and it'll work just as well.
Most people laugh at me when I tell them this, because since they were kids in school they were always taught "form" and full range of motion is the most important, well it only is if you want to spend hours in the gym every day for little or no results. What is most important is building muscle, and with this "idea", you should be able to increase the weight you lift for any one exercise between 5-10% EACH WORKOUT. I only go to the gym once a week now and spend less than 30 minutes. After each work-out I'm sore enough that it takes a few days minimum to recover fully so I can lift more the next time... If you can't lift more the next work out, its likely you are doing it wrong, or not waiting long enough between workouts to fully recover.
What most people don't understand is that in order for muscle to grow, you need to literally tear your muscle fibers so your body notices and starts to grow new ones. This increases the size of the muscle and subsequently the strength. Do not confuse this with PULLING your muscle, that is obviously different. But your muscles should HURT one or two days after a "proper" workout, if they don't, then you just wasted your time.
If you want to read more, google "static contraction training".
Is AT&T seriously that dumb with their contract changes? Up here in Canada, I have an iPhone on Rogers, and they just recently changed their terms in the contract, but they have this wonderful clause at the bottom that roughly states:
If you do not agree with these changes, the original contract is still enforced.
Hence putting an end to people getting "free phones" or out of 2-3yr long contracts.
Uhh, last I checked Canonical hasn't actually turned a profit yet. Its just being funded by someone who has very deep pockets. It could be years before he recovers his investment, if it ever happens.
If you have full access to the computer remotely, follow the lead of the phishers... Setup a fake web-site that is sure to get their contact information and make it the home page of their web browser:
You just won a brand new big screen TV. Enter your mailing address here and we'll ship it to you immediately!
Pass the address on to the police.
It sounds like you are getting confused between Reiser3 and Reiser4, making assumptions that they are similar. This is a common mistake, Reiser4 is pretty much a completely new file system written from scratch, you wouldn't know that from the name though.
Reiser3 is an excellent file system, it works EXTREMELY well for what it was designed to do, and is pretty much the only file system you can use for certain systems, mainly large mail servers using maildir, or large caching servers like squid. In my job it has been a life saver, because without it we would be severely limited in a lot of ways.
Has it had its share of issues over the years? Of course it has, it is much younger then EXT2/3 is, so things like properly handling rare failure cases takes time and experience to address properly. Go back 7 years and read some of the mailing lists regarding file recovery on EXT2/3, its far from perfect as well.
The bottom line is if you don't have good backups, your are going to lose data on ANY file system. Some file systems you may lose more data, some less. That is the nature of the beast, keep good backups! If you don't need the features Reiser3 offers, why are you using it in the first place? Reiser3 is much more complex then EXT3 is, it was designed to address a severe gap in functionality which existed at that time, and continues to exist to a large extent, and it fills that gap very well to this day.
Reiser4 is a complete re-write that is designed to address the original short comings of Reiser3, and further add functionality to reach the vision that Hans has had for over a decade. It is designed in a way to make it easy to add "extensions" or the infamous "plugins" that can have A LOT of power within the file system.
This is key to file system improvement in my opinion... How many programs out there have taken off and now have a huge repository of plugins? Firefox and Thunderbird are some of the popular ones, and it could well be argued that without extensions they would not have caught on like they have. Now think of this in the file system context, how nice would it be to download an extension that allows you to enable greater consistency checks in a certain directory where you keep your databases or other important data? Then download another extension to enable compression on your massive mail directory, and yet another extension to enable encryption on the directory where you keep your taxes and other financial statements?
Right now you can kinda do those things, but its a nightmare of loopback mount points and having to use a whole whack of different file systems, few people even bother, because its not as simple as just enabling an extension and flipping a switch. Don't even get me started on the mess that is FUSE file systems.
Personally I would be much more likely to trust my data to a robust underlying file system with extension capability to handle specialized functionality then to a completely new file system that does just one thing well, like encryption or compression.
There were many reasons not to include Reiser4, yes, coding style and code re-factoring issues were some of them. Those I'm not arguing about, and those are also being addressed, if they haven't been already.
Reiser4 doesn't add a "second way" of doing file systems, it simply adds another METHOD of working WITH files, among other things. Should kernel developers understand how that works, of course they should, but that is no different then asking to include a driver for some obscure hardware device that 99% of the kernel developers don't have access to.
You quoted Linus as saying:
"the filesystem shouldn't make its own internal plug-in architecture that bypasses the VFS layer and exposes functionality that isn't necessarily sane."
On the whole, I agree with Linus. The problem arises when the argument then shifts, Okay, lets take the Reiser4 API for pseudo files and merge it into the VFS layer so any file system can use it... As soon as this topic comes up the question is then asked, why? No application uses pseudo files, we don't even know if its a good idea, or if anyone WILL use them in the future. So why would they burden the ENTIRE VFS layer with all this code that is potentially useless?
Its a chicken and egg problem essentially...
This is why I suggest allowing Reiser4 into the kernel with its own implementation of pseudo files as an EXPERIMENT, and marking it as such. Its something that can be enabled/disabled easily, and it won't affect anyone NOT using Reiser4 (this seems key to me), so in that regard it is low risk. Doing it this way gives people the opportunity to use pseudo files, see if they are of any actual use in the real world and make a decision from there.
If they catch on, then by all means they should work on taking the Reiser4 specific API and create a generic VFS layer API to do the same thing so any file system can take part. If they don't catch on, no harm no foul, they didn't modify the entire VFS layer and place every single kernel user at risk of bugs in the process.
I agree with you wholeheartedly... However the Kernel developers seem very opposed to even experimenting in new design. Reiser4 and its pseudo files is a perfect example, the kernel developers seem to want nothing to do with it because it violates layers, no other file systems support it, and no user space applications support it.
Huh? Of course they don't! It isn't in the kernel yet, and no one in their right mind would waste 5minutes of their time supporting it until it gets in! But they don't even want to add it to the kernel when it can be enabled/disabled on the fly and when it is clearly marked EXPERIMENTAL.
Instead they just point to FUSE... Well if you want to access file meta-data like ID3 tags in MP3 with regular file tools (cat, ls, echo, rm, etc...) then use the "MP3-ID3" FUSE filesystem on your MP3 directory and use its custom API. But then if you want to access meta data on your digital photos, well install the "JPEG-EXIF" FUSE file system on your photos directory and use its custom API. Oh, you have a million photos and the FUSE file system is so slow its useless now? Sucks to be you. That doesn't make a lot of sense at all.
In my opinion they should restrict the pseudo files to JUST reiser4, enable it and clearly mark it as experimental, then wait... Do people use it? Do people like it? Let the reiser4 guys hash out the problems, and re-designs, and when/if they come up with something useful, then think about how they can write a generic API so that ANY file system can use the same pseudo file system.
If it blows up completely, well hey, its marked experimental and they can remove the pseudo file functionality (while still keeping Reiser4 intact), no harm, no foul. If it catches on, well they just had a year of beta testing and API stabilization that didn't affect a huge amount of users, now they can take their experiences and build upon them.
How? The code is all open source. Hans owned the company called "Namesys" that does all the development, apparently that company is still alive to some degree anyways, because developers continue to post patches from @namesys.com addresses. All I know is that there still seems to be a decent amount of activity surrounding it (note the date, April 25th 2007).
My understanding is that Hans was the "brains" behind the operation as far as high level ideas and direction is concerned, but he spent a good portion of his time looking for funding and trying to raise money in other capacities, while he paid other programmers to work on Reiser4 itself.
As far as your comment regarding journaling and htree's, you are obviously severely lacking in knowledge as far as what Reiser4 is capable of, it goes FAR beyond fast access to many files and journaling. Speed, encryption and compression are just a few of the other major features it offers... According to the benchmarks, with the speed of CPUs today you can almost double your disk performance by enabling compression, contrary to what most people would think.
Its not dead at all. I'm not even sure how much coding of Reiser4 Hans did himself, but Reiser4 is still actively developed by pretty much the same people it was before Hans was arrested.
There was talk just last week again about taking another crack at getting it included in the Kernel.
Reiser4 introduced us to all sorts of interesting capabilities never before seen in a file system (at the time) but I believe this same "layering violation" attitude pretty much put a stop to any of it getting into the kernel. The Reiser guys were forced to pretty much cripple their file system feature wise if they were to have any hope of getting it included in the kernel.
See Reiser4 Pseudo Files as one example.
I can understand that in certain cases "layering violations" are bad, but Linux kernel developers don't even seem to be willing to experiment or think outside the box at all.
Both sides have valid arguments... I don't think there is any easy solution, but it would be nice to see more forward thinking in the community.
I don't think that had anything to do with breaks, I'm not a pilot, but my father is and usually you don't apply the breaks until ALL wheels are on the ground to help prevent just this sort of problem, and to prevent the front wheels from coming down too hard. This clearly happened well before the front wheels touched down. Having one set of tires touching down before the other set can cause enough drag to twist the plane some too, so that is a possibility. Not only that but on large planes the breaks are next to useless at high speeds, they use reverse thrust instead, which takes some time to engage.
While this is no where close to a "smooth landing", it was FAR from being out of the ordinary. Take a look at this video to see what the planes are really capable of. Search google for: "boeing crosswinds flight test" to find more of the same, those pilots are insane.
This is partly why in Canada commercials for pharmaceuticals are restricted to one of the following:
1. Explain what the drug does, WITHOUT saying its name.
2. Say the drugs name, but don't explain what it does.
Hence the reason why our Viagra ads have some guy bouncing (jumping) in a very stiff standing position down a street with a huge smile on his face, then it says: "VIAGRA" at the end.
This isn't your usual warning label on a pair of jeans.
I figured it was all BS too... Until my uncle started actually doing it.
Keep in mind I get this information 2nd/3rd hand usually... Take a look at this site explaining how it is done with regards to income tax in both US and Canada:
http://www.detaxcanada.org/
I just heard another story of my uncle latest adventures... The last three times he has been in court (he defends a bunch of other people as well) he just takes a color laminated photocopy (intended as a copy) of his (or the defendants) birth certificate, walks into court, when called upon goes up and hands it to the judge and walks out of the court room. Thats the last he hears from them.
The reason for this that I understand is that the vast majority of laws only apply to "fictional entities", essentially a birth certificate. By handing over your birth certificate to the judge, they can prosecute the fictional entity all they want, it has no consequence on a "person in the truth".
Again, call BS all you like, thousands of people do this sort of thing every day, and it just keeps growing. It works in both Canada and the US. But you NEED to know exactly what you are doing. Any Joe Blow can't just do this, they need to study law for several years usually first.
I actually have an uncle who copyrighted his name and also became his own "sovereign nation" (or something along those lines) which actually enabled him to skirt many laws in Canada at least. I can't remember the exact name of the "program" he got the information from, something like "In The Truth", but its pretty interesting stuff. The stories he tells are hilarious.
Stories like fining judges large amounts of money for using his name without permission (it was copyrighted after all) and they ACTUALLY PAID, not to mention the charges were dropped.
Laws are apparently designed to screw over anyone who isn't in the "know". Ever wonder what a birth certificate is REALLY for? Look on the back of a Canadian birth certificate and you'll notice that it is actually a BANK NOTE. When you are born and your parents obtain a birth certificate for you, you are essentially agreeing to pay back your portion of the Canadian debt. No birth certificate? No debt obligations, no obligation to pay taxes, etc... etc...
Drivers licenses is apparently similar. By obtaining a drivers license you are agreeing to abide by the motor vehicle laws. If you don't have a drivers license and you know what you are doing, they can't touch you for breaking any of the laws. My uncle didn't renew his license, and was hauled off to court one day after being pulled over by the police. After a short trial where he basically told the judge (in the proper words) to go to hell, the charges were dropped and he was released. The police in his town know him pretty well and seem to stay clear.
Its crazy what people are doing with this sort of thing.
I like to relate open source software to the car industry. If a new car company was established that sold its car for a few thousand dollars less then everyone else, but the catch was the hood was locked shut and the only people with the key to it was the dealership themselves. Thus forcing ALL maintenance and repairs to be carried out by the original dealer at a premium. Do you think this company would survive? Would YOU buy a car from them?
Most people would say, HELL NO! Even though MOST people don't have a clue about car maintenance. Most people will never even change their own oil, but still they have the common sense not to purchase a car knowing they are going to get bent over the barrel for repair costs.
I believe open source is similar. Sure, most people aren't programmers, most have no clue what it takes to develop a piece of software. But MOST people have used a piece of software in the past that had a bug, or that lacked a certain feature they really need. If they had access to the source code at least they could ATTEMPT to get the bug fixed, or feature added. Just like they attempt to take their car to the local garage to get the oil changed and the weird engine sound fixed. It doesn't always work out that way, but at least they have the option. Not every garage you take your car to is going to do quality work, just like not every programmer you hire is going to get the job you request done. The bottom line though is you at least have OPTIONS.
Regarding your statement about open source programmers being more "nimble" and the community being able to implement bug fixes/features faster then commercial companies. You need to keep in mind that open source programmers and the community itself aren't paid. Just because some John Doe requests a feature that might suit him doesn't mean the programmer is going to call in sick to his day job to implement it for you. Try donating to the project FIRST, then requesting something back second and you might get better results. Your donation doesn't have to be money either, donate documentation, donate testing and feedback, donate any service you may have to offer and after that I bet any requests you have will be less likely to fall on deaf ears. The community is what drives open source, so become part of that community and everyone wins.
In my opinion Mandriva still takes the cake as far as distro ease of use is concerned. The installer is dead simple (yet has an advanced mode) but the most important part is once you get it installed, it has the most complete set of utilities to configure and maintain your system which are accessible from a single "control panel". Everything from one click network printer discovery, to setting up TV cards/scanners, to firewall configuration.
d rakconf,drakhelp,localedrake,drakoo,draklocale,man drakegalaxy,packdrake,userdrake,lspcidrake,diskdra ke,mousedrake,drakkeyboard,drakhelp_inst,drakconne ct,drakconsole,drakupdate_fstab,drakTermServ,drakn et_monitor,drakscanner,drakedm,drakids,draklog,dra knfs,drakx11,draksec,drakups,drakxtv,drakfirstboot ,drakconf.real,drakbackup,drakauth,drakboot,drakcl ub,drakconf,drakdisk,drakfont,drakperm,drakroam,dr akuser,drakautoinst,drakgw,keyboarddrake,drakonlin e,drakfirewall,draksplash,drakhardware,draksambash are,scannerdrake,drakxservices,logdrake,adduserdra ke,drakclock,drakhosts,harddrake2,drakmouse,drakpr oxy,draksound,drakxconf,userdrake,XFdrake,printerd rake,drakbug_report,drakprinter
Sure some of the other distros are just starting to catch up now, they usually have a hodge-podge of utilties that work similar to the Mandriva ones, but few have a consistent interface and you usually need to know what they are called before you know what to click on, they aren't all located in one easy to find place. If you want a distro your mom can install and use, this is about as close as it comes currently.
Here is the list of just some of the custom utilties Mandriva (Mandrake) offers for configuring your system:
lsnetdrake,menudrake,drakbug,mandrakegalaxy.real,
"The feature set was comparable to your standard Cisco router," Knox said. "They were offering translating, gateway capability, Samba file sharing, VLAN trunking to 11q ... it really looked like a corporate-level router," he said.
Since when do "corporate-level routers" offer samba file sharing? This seems like the LAST thing I would ever want to put on a router. The only thing I could possibly see Samba being useful for is downloading log/config files. But on a router that is kinda scary, SCP seems much more secure and just as useful.
Open source routing is definitely an option now though. Over 3 years ago the web hosting company I worked for swithced out their Cisco routers that couldn't handle the slighest DDoS attack for a couple AMD based Linux boxes that could easily handle wirespeed DDoS attacks with ease. Not to mention they were a fraction of the cost.