I still see them in use for certain IT folks in the defense industry. The key is that they will permit them into secure facilities, as the old one-way versions cannot transmit.
A court wouldn't normally force the other GPL terms in a situation where the violator did not willfully violate the license. Most Fortune 500 company GPL violations, I am certain, are programmers grabbing GPL code who don't even know what they are doing. In this case, where the company hired a subcontractor (where some programmers, not knowing what they were doing, probably grabbed the code) and the subcontractor was responsible for the violation, you can be sure that the only thing the court would require is that the cease infringement.
As for what the GPL requires, one must understand that in these cases of accidental violation, one cannot assert that the violator ever agreed to the GPL. If they didn't agree, there is no agreement to act, and without that the case devolves back to a copyright violation. For that, the prayer for relief is generally "stop violating," and possibly "pay damages".
What I'm trying to say is that a perfectly fine option for Microsoft in this case would have been to remove the offending portion of the program and replace it with proprietary code. The original owner of the violated GPL code may have had a case for damages, of course.
That's pretty big of you, oh great Slashdot community, since they've basically done what any presumably expensive legal team would tell them, no?
Mmmmm. No. Presumably their expensive legal team told them to "release source code or cease infringement." The latter involves replacing the offending code, and potentially paying a fine. For whatever reason, they chose the former. At a guess, they looked at the relative value of the program itself, as well as community value to their label for their choice of license compliance, and made an informed decision.
If Microsoft later says they were "forced" to release their source code, it will be a bald faced lie, because you can be sure that their corporate counsel isn't incompetent.
If there is GPL code in Windows, the FSF would probably start a case that would be revolutionary in the computer world since it could mean opensourcing Windows.
Mmmmm. No.
At best the plaintiff can demand that Microsoft "cease their infringement or comply". Microsoft would cease their infringement in such a case. They might also be forced to pay damages, but there is no way in hell they release Windows under the GPL. No judge would order to them to do that, either.
Those hormones get released when you do any weight lifting at all.
No, it requires "big lifts". The scientific literature is pretty firm about it. There were a number of studies, beginning with a seminal one that revealed that if one did squats one promoted overall body growth, but later followed by studies that showed that squats and deadlifts caused significant hormone releases promoting overall body growth. One cannot achieves this by doing curls, dude. If you want to be big, lift big.
This is a nice theory, but not firmly based in reality. For example, strength training with squats and deadlifts causes a release of hormones that lead to overall total body muscle mass and strength increase. Spending a lot of time on small body parts is relatively wasteful in comparison to taken a holistic approach of training your whole body for strength. This applies whether you have a genetic advantage this way or not.
You can't be "ripped and obese"--obese means very fat--but I know what you meant.
It's not true that the only way to lose fat is to combine weight lifting and exercise with a low calorie diet. Plenty of people lose fat without weight lifting. Although including strength training (it doesn't have to be with weights) is probably the best way. There are a variety of magic tricks in the creation of lean body mass. Here is what they are, and why they work:
1. Weight lifting, particularly big lifts like squats and deadlifts. Why it works: 1) because these lifts increase body hormones associated with muscle mass creation, and 2) it requires a great many calories to build and sustain muscle.
2. Cardiovascular training in the early morning, before eating. Why it works: because in the early AM your body is high in lipases, which promote the burning of fat.
3. Eating of low glycemic index foods, and/or the eating of frequent small meals (as opposed to less frequent large meals). Why it works: prolonged periods of the day with low blood sugar cause the release of neurotransmitters, hormones, and peptides associated with starvation, causing your metabolism to drop. Basic dietary changes can prevent.
4. Lower, but only slightly lower, calories consumed than expended. Why it works: same reason as above; prevents the starvation response described above.
5. Avoidance of compensation behaviors. After exercising intensely, the body has two natural inclinations: 1) eating of reward foods, and 2) a tendency towards compensating rest. Solution is to avoid the reward foods and make certain to stay active regularly. I.e., did you lift weights in the morning? Consider a walk before bed.
6. Are you crash dieting? If so, know that your body will compensate with a starvation hormone response, lowering your metabolism (and increasing your hunger!) in response. If your diet is very low in calories, you must exercise to keep your metabolism high. Stimulants work, too, but are only secondary.
7. On a diet, hunger tends to increase. If you exercise enough, you will need to eat more. It is better to acknowledge this and plan for the eating of healthy foods than attempt to fight it, fail, and eat crap. Plan ahead. Eat more lean protein sources when you can, and keep low glycemic foods around for snack attacks.
No, we need a criminal conviction, not a "debtor's prison". In some states you cannot discharge by bankruptcy a civil outcome that proceeds from a criminal conviction. I.e., we need to go after folks like this criminally. His actions are clearly criminal. What Facebook should have done was sued the DA.
Personally, what I think we are going to see is a collapse of the tier 1 high speed segment. Since the profits for the drive companies are very much locked up in that segment, they'll respond with something. That something will likely be an enterprise class drive, spinning at low speed, but with high mtbf (better quality parts), and something to give it performance, such as flash, ram buffer, or both. Pure flash SSD's will take over the entire IOPS segment of tier 1 within 2 years or so. The replacement "enterprise class" drive will not be so much IOPS oriented, as going down market a tad, to places that SSD's can't go (for capacity reasons), but where SATA isn't fully adequate.
It would scare any lawyer with half a brain. Virtually any argument that one could anticipate from an infringer has a swirl of next steps in which defendant explains to the judge their reasoning behind their willful copyright infringement. Once they get to understanding that, they do 180's so fast their almost 360's.
You deserved that +5. It's impossible to say the words "open source" within shouting distance of him and not learn this about him. It's actually kinda annoying.
In the US, if you send in a 12 page CV, there's a fair chance that you'll just piss off the reviewers. They'll certainly think you're strange, and perhaps a bit narcissistic, for not following standard business practices. "It should NOT be there".
Having a memory â" RAM or disk â" above 2^64, however, is not achievable in even in theory... 2^64 is only 100 times less, for example, than the estimated number of sand-grains on Earth [wolframalpha.com].
Fallacy of hasty assumptions. Your hasty assumption is confining addressing to MEMORY.
While I agree with the sentiment of your message as a matter of pragmatics, some folks might want to address all the bytes in the storage system directly, instead of through pages and offsets. If someone wants to design something like that, so be it.
You can't fault an academic effort or corporate research lab for at least looking at this sort of thing, even though I can't foresee Intel moving to 128 bit addressing on their mainstream chips any time in the next decade,....
It is illegal to create derivative works of someone else's derivative work without their consent. Such unauthorized derivative works are not the sole property of the derivative work creator...
"The United States' total fertility rate is 2.1, which means that, on average, each woman gives birth to 2.1 children throughout her life. The total fertility rate of 2.1. means a stable no-growth population overall."
With that fact, that the US population is "stable" by birth rate, I believe you can infer that my claim that whence immigrants or recent generation immigrants are excluded, the growth rate is negative, is correct.
Turn it around: what numbers is NetApp advertising, and will you upgrade our filers to a higher model if we don't get those numbers? And why the hell are you AC'ing this. It just annoys.
Even NetApp's software based RAID, with classic aggregates, is starting to get long in the tooth when it comes to RAID rebuild times on SATA disks. So while you are right that SW based parity recovery of lost data elements is far from dead, you're not so right about NetApp's current approach to it. Have you looked at your rebuild times for larger aggregates of SATA systems, and considered the implications for 2TB and (coming) 4TB SATA drives? The situation does not look good.
As for the rebuild times, fine, go buy FASTER drives.
Hard drives are getting bigger faster than they are getting faster.
Hard drives are getting bigger faster than they are getting more reliable.
In an enterprise setting, SATA based storage is a reality, for cost reasons, in tiers 2 and 3.
Your suggestion that this problem is solved simply by buying faster drives is a poor one.
And in a few generations of high speed drives, the problem with manifest regardless.
Henry's article is not as clear as it could be, however. He's really talking about the pending failure for traditional raid sets as we know them, such as aggregates of N drives in a set, or drives hung off a RAID controller. RAID as an algorithm for error correction is nowhere near failure. Look at the manner in which Isilon does it. All the data in an isilon system is part of a clustered RAID approach, but this is distributed in data packets far different than standard block. All nodes in an Isilon cluster participate in a "RAID rebuild" when it's needed; the system is capable of multigigabyte per second RAID rebuild, and it only rebuilds what is needed, not the "disk". This can all be done with economical SATA drives.
Note, however, that Isilon's RAID is not really RAID at all. I.e., it's not about arrays of disk, but rather partity based correction of lost file redundancy data. I.e., it's more object based, such as Henry was alluding to.
As for the classic RAID set, Henry is quite right when he says that it is trying to die. RAID rebuild times are already in excess of 24 hours, and are going to be that much worse with 2TB and 4TB drives. With longer RAID rebuilt times, pDATALOSS increases notably, particularly if you are aware the Google and Carnegie findings that drives actually tend to fail at the same time. I.e., pFAIL of a HD is not independent of pFAIL of other HD's in a RAID set. They tend to fail together.
Slashdot Mirror
I still see them in use for certain IT folks in the defense industry. The key is that they will permit them into secure facilities, as the old one-way versions cannot transmit.
A court wouldn't normally force the other GPL terms in a situation where the violator did not willfully violate the license. Most Fortune 500 company GPL violations, I am certain, are programmers grabbing GPL code who don't even know what they are doing. In this case, where the company hired a subcontractor (where some programmers, not knowing what they were doing, probably grabbed the code) and the subcontractor was responsible for the violation, you can be sure that the only thing the court would require is that the cease infringement.
As for what the GPL requires, one must understand that in these cases of accidental violation, one cannot assert that the violator ever agreed to the GPL. If they didn't agree, there is no agreement to act, and without that the case devolves back to a copyright violation. For that, the prayer for relief is generally "stop violating," and possibly "pay damages".
What I'm trying to say is that a perfectly fine option for Microsoft in this case would have been to remove the offending portion of the program and replace it with proprietary code. The original owner of the violated GPL code may have had a case for damages, of course.
C//
That's pretty big of you, oh great Slashdot community, since they've basically done what any presumably expensive legal team would tell them, no?
Mmmmm. No. Presumably their expensive legal team told them to "release source code or cease infringement." The latter involves replacing the offending code, and potentially paying a fine. For whatever reason, they chose the former. At a guess, they looked at the relative value of the program itself, as well as community value to their label for their choice of license compliance, and made an informed decision.
If Microsoft later says they were "forced" to release their source code, it will be a bald faced lie, because you can be sure that their corporate counsel isn't incompetent.
C//
If there is GPL code in Windows, the FSF would probably start a case that would be revolutionary in the computer world since it could mean opensourcing Windows.
Mmmmm. No.
At best the plaintiff can demand that Microsoft "cease their infringement or comply". Microsoft would cease their infringement in such a case. They might also be forced to pay damages, but there is no way in hell they release Windows under the GPL. No judge would order to them to do that, either.
C//
Those hormones get released when you do any weight lifting at all.
No, it requires "big lifts". The scientific literature is pretty firm about it. There were a number of studies, beginning with a seminal one that revealed that if one did squats one promoted overall body growth, but later followed by studies that showed that squats and deadlifts caused significant hormone releases promoting overall body growth. One cannot achieves this by doing curls, dude. If you want to be big, lift big.
C//
What you say has the ring of truth to me.
Depends on the country. In some countries, attorneys can proxy standing for a violated party without the violated party's consent.
Well okay. But I asked the dictionary.
This is a nice theory, but not firmly based in reality. For example, strength training with squats and deadlifts causes a release of hormones that lead to overall total body muscle mass and strength increase. Spending a lot of time on small body parts is relatively wasteful in comparison to taken a holistic approach of training your whole body for strength. This applies whether you have a genetic advantage this way or not.
C//
You can't be "ripped and obese"--obese means very fat--but I know what you meant.
It's not true that the only way to lose fat is to combine weight lifting and exercise with a low calorie diet. Plenty of people lose fat without weight lifting. Although including strength training (it doesn't have to be with weights) is probably the best way. There are a variety of magic tricks in the creation of lean body mass. Here is what they are, and why they work:
1. Weight lifting, particularly big lifts like squats and deadlifts. Why it works: 1) because these lifts increase body hormones associated with muscle mass creation, and 2) it requires a great many calories to build and sustain muscle.
2. Cardiovascular training in the early morning, before eating. Why it works: because in the early AM your body is high in lipases, which promote the burning of fat.
3. Eating of low glycemic index foods, and/or the eating of frequent small meals (as opposed to less frequent large meals). Why it works: prolonged periods of the day with low blood sugar cause the release of neurotransmitters, hormones, and peptides associated with starvation, causing your metabolism to drop. Basic dietary changes can prevent.
4. Lower, but only slightly lower, calories consumed than expended. Why it works: same reason as above; prevents the starvation response described above.
5. Avoidance of compensation behaviors. After exercising intensely, the body has two natural inclinations: 1) eating of reward foods, and 2) a tendency towards compensating rest. Solution is to avoid the reward foods and make certain to stay active regularly. I.e., did you lift weights in the morning? Consider a walk before bed.
6. Are you crash dieting? If so, know that your body will compensate with a starvation hormone response, lowering your metabolism (and increasing your hunger!) in response. If your diet is very low in calories, you must exercise to keep your metabolism high. Stimulants work, too, but are only secondary.
7. On a diet, hunger tends to increase. If you exercise enough, you will need to eat more. It is better to acknowledge this and plan for the eating of healthy foods than attempt to fight it, fail, and eat crap. Plan ahead. Eat more lean protein sources when you can, and keep low glycemic foods around for snack attacks.
C//
No, we need a criminal conviction, not a "debtor's prison". In some states you cannot discharge by bankruptcy a civil outcome that proceeds from a criminal conviction. I.e., we need to go after folks like this criminally. His actions are clearly criminal. What Facebook should have done was sued the DA.
Played a lot of pocket tanks with my friends
Usually it is considered wise to only admit these things as AC.
C//
Personally, what I think we are going to see is a collapse of the tier 1 high speed segment. Since the profits for the drive companies are very much locked up in that segment, they'll respond with something. That something will likely be an enterprise class drive, spinning at low speed, but with high mtbf (better quality parts), and something to give it performance, such as flash, ram buffer, or both. Pure flash SSD's will take over the entire IOPS segment of tier 1 within 2 years or so. The replacement "enterprise class" drive will not be so much IOPS oriented, as going down market a tad, to places that SSD's can't go (for capacity reasons), but where SATA isn't fully adequate.
C//
What?!?! You mean RAID isn't backup?!!?
*blink blink*
C//
GPLv2 even scares Microsoft's lawyers.
It would scare any lawyer with half a brain. Virtually any argument that one could anticipate from an infringer has a swirl of next steps in which defendant explains to the judge their reasoning behind their willful copyright infringement. Once they get to understanding that, they do 180's so fast their almost 360's.
C//
Yah, but you have to be very careful about accepting patches.
You deserved that +5. It's impossible to say the words "open source" within shouting distance of him and not learn this about him. It's actually kinda annoying.
C//
In the US, if you send in a 12 page CV, there's a fair chance that you'll just piss off the reviewers. They'll certainly think you're strange, and perhaps a bit narcissistic, for not following standard business practices. "It should NOT be there".
C//
Having a memory â" RAM or disk â" above 2^64, however, is not achievable in even in theory... 2^64 is only 100 times less, for example, than the estimated number of sand-grains on Earth [wolframalpha.com].
Fallacy of hasty assumptions. Your hasty assumption is confining addressing to MEMORY.
While I agree with the sentiment of your message as a matter of pragmatics, some folks might want to address all the bytes in the storage system directly, instead of through pages and offsets. If someone wants to design something like that, so be it.
You can't fault an academic effort or corporate research lab for at least looking at this sort of thing, even though I can't foresee Intel moving to 128 bit addressing on their mainstream chips any time in the next decade, ....
C//
It is their site, they are free to publish what they feel on it
Hmm. I don't think so. A pattern of this sort of behavior is fraudulent.
C//
It is illegal to create derivative works of someone else's derivative work without their consent. Such unauthorized derivative works are not the sole property of the derivative work creator...
C//
From a source:
"The United States' total fertility rate is 2.1, which means that, on average, each woman gives birth to 2.1 children throughout her life. The total fertility rate of 2.1. means a stable no-growth population overall."
With that fact, that the US population is "stable" by birth rate, I believe you can infer that my claim that whence immigrants or recent generation immigrants are excluded, the growth rate is negative, is correct.
C//
Turn it around: what numbers is NetApp advertising, and will you upgrade our filers to a higher model if we don't get those numbers? And why the hell are you AC'ing this. It just annoys.
C//
Even NetApp's software based RAID, with classic aggregates, is starting to get long in the tooth when it comes to RAID rebuild times on SATA disks. So while you are right that SW based parity recovery of lost data elements is far from dead, you're not so right about NetApp's current approach to it. Have you looked at your rebuild times for larger aggregates of SATA systems, and considered the implications for 2TB and (coming) 4TB SATA drives? The situation does not look good.
C//
As for the rebuild times, fine, go buy FASTER drives.
Hard drives are getting bigger faster than they are getting faster.
Hard drives are getting bigger faster than they are getting more reliable.
In an enterprise setting, SATA based storage is a reality, for cost reasons, in tiers 2 and 3.
Your suggestion that this problem is solved simply by buying faster drives is a poor one.
And in a few generations of high speed drives, the problem with manifest regardless.
Henry's article is not as clear as it could be, however. He's really talking about the pending failure for traditional raid sets as we know them, such as aggregates of N drives in a set, or drives hung off a RAID controller. RAID as an algorithm for error correction is nowhere near failure. Look at the manner in which Isilon does it. All the data in an isilon system is part of a clustered RAID approach, but this is distributed in data packets far different than standard block. All nodes in an Isilon cluster participate in a "RAID rebuild" when it's needed; the system is capable of multigigabyte per second RAID rebuild, and it only rebuilds what is needed, not the "disk". This can all be done with economical SATA drives.
Note, however, that Isilon's RAID is not really RAID at all. I.e., it's not about arrays of disk, but rather partity based correction of lost file redundancy data. I.e., it's more object based, such as Henry was alluding to.
As for the classic RAID set, Henry is quite right when he says that it is trying to die. RAID rebuild times are already in excess of 24 hours, and are going to be that much worse with 2TB and 4TB drives. With longer RAID rebuilt times, pDATALOSS increases notably, particularly if you are aware the Google and Carnegie findings that drives actually tend to fail at the same time. I.e., pFAIL of a HD is not independent of pFAIL of other HD's in a RAID set. They tend to fail together.
C//