Yes I believe US soil is different, but not because it is the US. I think the difference is that US soil is not hostile. While it may be impractical to arrest al queda members in Yemen, it seems more prudent to be arresting in the US rather than bombing. I would expect arrests of al queda members to occur for even non-US citizens if they were found in Florida (with possible deadly force if a danger is present). I would also expect this kind of response if an al queda member with US citizenship were found in England.
I have no idea if this makes sense in legal terms, but it seems like arresting people makes more sense in civilized countries, and bombing people makes more sense in warzones, regardless of citizenship or national borders (e.g. if the USA were to ever become a warzone). I am not claiming Yemen is a warzone. I don't know what Yemen is like, but presumably it isn't like Orlando, FL.
I agree that it doesn't seem like there is a good system in place for providing oversight into how people are declared enemy combatants, but surely this system should still exist and ideally be improved. If some American citizen joins al queda, they should be treated like every other al queda member right?
It appears problematic that if we don't have a good way to ascertain whether this person has really joined al queda (e.g. a trial), but this is true for every suspected al queda person we kill, not to mention innocent bystanders. Is there a compelling reason that US citizens suspected of joining al queda should be given better treatment than other suspected al queda members?
I am not saying we should kill people like Awlaki, but if we give Awlaki a trial because we can;t be sure he has really joined al queda without a trial, then shouldn't we give every person we are about to kill a trial? They aren;t US citizens, but how can we know for sure unless they are allowed to present evidence (e.g. like a birth certificate) in court?
Can you cite where Obama says targeted killings count as due process? It was my understanding that the stance of the White House considers drone strikes as military actions that don't require due process.
I am by far not a Microsoft fan boy. I am probably closer to a linux fan boy (especially now that I can play FTL on my linux machine). Unless the EU is giving all this money to the people of Europe, the people of Europe should be pissed. There is no this doesn't translate into higher costs or lower product quality for users. Almost everybody knows how to get their own web browser, or their hacker grandson has done it for them. This idea that having the default web browser bestows some special power to monopolize the internet is retarded.
In normal RAID-5 operation, the system will be able to correct for that error. However, what happens when you've dropped a drive and are attempting to restripe the array onto a spare/replacement?
Yes I realize this risk. When I said I didn't think RAID exacerbated the issue, I mean that a RAID 5 solution is not going to be worse off than a JBOD setup in the event of disk failures and bit rot.
I realize there are better solutions than RAID5, but I only had 5 sata ports in my old computer. My OS drive is running off an IDE port. I suppose an ideal equivalent setup given my situation would have been 10 2TB drives in a RAID6 or Z2, but I wasn't willing to put in the extra money for the extra mobo/cpu/ram/case/psu, etc.
This raid is already an upgrade from my last container for this data which was just separate HDs. In fact the main draw for me to do a disk array was that all the data could be on one logical drive.
what do you use for raid-z, raid-z2? (i.e. mdadm equivalent)?
I guess I don't see how these are new risks. I realize the risk of UREs increases with larger drives, but as far as I know this isn't exacerbated with RAID. I considered going with RAID6 but dedicating 2/5ths of my drives to parity seemed a bit paranoid. I should also note that the data is not super important, it's just data that I'd prefer not to lose.
I do have a UPS with network-ups-tools monitoring a UPS to mitigate the write hole risk.
Hopefully this 20TB RAID will last like 5 years, and I'll move the data to a new storage system using some better technology that's cheaper, faster, and safer.
Comics are art to be consumed by those who find them compelling. I doubt many comic book creators will say that the goal of their art is to make every person who might read it feel good about themselves.
There is a problem that many gay kids feel ostracized, which may leave them vulnerable to anti-gay messages in culture. The solution is not censorship.The solution is that we need to create a society where gays kids don't need to feel ostracized. You can't pre-emptively nullify every bad experience a gay youth might have. What you *can* do is give them the confidence to withstand it. This goes for every kid, not just gay kids.
I think spreading that ideas presented in culture are just individual opinions is much healthier than trying to eliminate all unwanted opinions and fostering the impression that culture is infallible and accepted by all.
I didn't mean the adjective "likeable" to refer to wholesomeness or family friendliness. I just meant it in the sense that likeability is different for each person. I would say that you find Ender's Game likeable because you referred to it as "good", "well-crafted", and "well-done", and I can only assume you like "good", "well-crafted", and "well-done" things.
While I would assume most people wouldn't like a war for species survival, I can't see any reason why many of those people wouldn't like a good, well-crafted, well-done story about a war for species survival.
In the same way unlikeable people can make likeable art, likeable art can be made in reference to unlikeable subjects.
Both the pro-gay rights stance (i.e. gays should have equal rights like marriage regardless of what the majority supports) and anti-gay rights stance (i.e. gays should not have equal rights like marriage regardless of what the majority supports) positions are in opposition to the purely democratic stance (i.e. gays should have equal rights like marriage if and only if the majority supports it).
Treating gays and lesbians as second-class citizens does them actual harm for literally no rational, empirical reason.
I agree.
This is a very straightforward issue, lacking even the economic arguments associated with slavery, women's lib, etc. It's been obvious for many years how the gay rights struggle is going to go and how it's going to look to future generations.
I agree.
Can you really blame DC et al for not wanting to funnel money to someone on the wrong side?
No, and in fact I said I don't.
I am pro-democracy in general, but when it comes to human rights, I take an anti-democratic stance, that all humans should be granted the same rights regardless of what the majority supports. My post is not a criticism of the gay rights movement because it is anti-democratic. My post was meant as a reminder of the limitations of democracy and the possibility for it to be on the wrong side of the gay rights issue.
We simply need to acknowledge that it is indeed possible for unlikable people to make likeable art. I never read Ender's Game, but I've heard it's good. Every person is free to decide for themselves if they are comfortable with consuming art, food, inventions, etc from people who's views you oppose. As long as there is no coercion, I don't see a problem, with Card expressing anti-gay views in a comic book (not that he is currently doing that). I don't see a problem with consumers boycotting his art. I don't see a problem with pro gay rights consumers buying his art. The only thing I have a problem with is anything that actually limits the rights of any people unjustly (straight or gay). Freedom to express arguments against gay rights is protected under free speech, and in my view actually helps society move forward through public discourse. If there is ever a compelling reason to oppose gay rights, I might even be convinced to oppose them, but the fact that no good reason has been presented in the free market of ideas says something about the possibility that a good actually argument exists.
Also, Card is right about gay rights being in opposition to democracy, but this is a good thing. The USA is not *just* a democracy. The democracy of Americans is limited by the constitution. We are not able to vote to re-establish slavery if 51% of the population supports it. The constitution is a check on democracy. Democracy is only one of the ingredients of a free society. And an excess of democracy can be a bad thing. Democracy alone is just mob rule.
Well it's not just fileserving. I have a software RAID5, so everytime I write a file, it has to calculate parity information in addition to writing to 5 SATA drives simultaneously, and the bottleneck is still the Gigabit network. This isn't a huge amount of computation by today's standards (a CPU from 7 years ago can handle it), but it wasn't long ago (12 years ago) that you had to buy separate CPUs that would be inserted into your hardware RAID card to perform the parity computation in real time. Now everything can happen in software (i.e. in the main CPU) on an old CPU no less.
Granted some of the reason for this is because HD and network speeds are lagging behind a bit, but I still think it is pretty amazing. I suppose when we have 100Gbit networks and SSDs become larger, we will be doing RAID5 with them, and sustaining like 10GB/s while calculating parity info might be too hard for a core 2 duo.
I don't think things will ever reach a point of "fast enough" in an absolute sense either, but I can see where CastrTroy is coming from.
I got my first computer was in 1992, and it was the most expensive computer I've (my parents) have ever purchased. Since then I have built computers from parts every year (each time becoming cheaper) until about 2001. The computer I built in 2001 lasted 2 years. The computer I built in 2003 lasted 3 years. The computer I built in 2006 lasted 6 years until 2012.
Yes new applications are constantly coming out that demand faster computers for personal use, but it seems to be slowing down to me. It's not that technology is slowing down, but that the new technology seems more able to run on 6 year old technology than it used to.
My core 2 Duo from 2006 is now the processor for my 20 TB RAID5 NAS, and it's doing great. I didn;t even really need an upgrade back in 2012, I just wanted to have a NAS and build a new computer for fun (I hadn't built one in 6 years). My new computer is definately faster, but all I do on it is play FTL, which I can also do on my crappy laptop from 2006.
Yes but dying early from obesity related illness, which really doesn't have an expensive medical treatment option (e.g. unlike, cancer , HIV treatment) causes you to consume less because you don't live as long. Not only that, but people who die early take less money from social security, while putting the same amount in.
It is a myth that people who lead unhealthy lifestyles have much higher medical expenses over their lifetime than people who lead healthy lifestyles. Everyone eventually becomes ill enough to make the continuation of living untenable. On average a quarter of the medical expenses one has in his/her entire life are spent in the last year of life. That last year is simply earlier for people who lead unhealthy lifestyles. And while unhealthy people probably have bigger medical expenses than healthy people per year, they live less years.
Not only that, but people who die earlier also don;t get to take full advantage of social security. People who live a really long time benefit the most.
You can have the java virtual machine installed without using the java applet plugin for your browser. The recent security problems are only for the java applet browser plugin, which is now disabled by default by firefox and probably other browsers as well.
Obama does not have to worry about re-election. He no longer has to worry about raising money from lobbyists. I don't know if term limits are a good thing or a bad thing overall (e.g. they force removal of good representatives), but it seems like winning elections tend to be the primary focus of most politicians, and removing this incentive drastically changes things (for good or bad).
It shouldn't be controversial, but I also don;t see the point. Shareholder already have authority over executive salaries. The shareholders are the real bosses (in aggregate). They are the ones paying the salaries (i.e. it is essentially deducted from their profits). If shareholders can't be bothered to ensure that they are paying their employees reasonable salaries, then it means this company is mismanaged by it's owners (the shareholders) who deserve to lose their shirts. If you are a small time investor, whose vote doesn't matter, then you can still vote by doing research and dumping stock in companies that is mismanaged.
To me this is like making a legal mechanism for girlfriends to dump their boyfriends if they've been cheated on. This mechanism already exists and should work better without government intervention. The fact that a legal alternative may help girls is not relevant. It is a waste of tax payer resources to fund something that should be taken care of by the private sector.
I am not even one of these anarchist type people that wants to abolish the government. I am totally in favor of the government being in charge of programs that make sense (like single payer healthcare). This just seems like an overreach. There are plenty of more worthy things that governments could be spending it's limited resources on.
Just because you form a cooperative doesn't mean everyone pays the same amount. It just means that everyone is cooperating.
Here is an example from my life right now. I am getting a cell phone family plan with a bunch of my friends to save money. However one person uses so many minutes that it forces us to go up to a more expensive plan. This person has offered to pay this extra cost. We are still a voluntary cooperative and we are still all saving money even if one person is paying more.
I got an even better idea. DON'T give any telecoms a monopoly over anything. Have the government hire contractors who know how to create telecom infrastructure to install it everywhere populated and whatever unpopulated places we want. Use tax money to fund it. Now the infrastructure is owned by the people, not some for-profit corporation that can exploit it's monopoly.
Why do politicians rarely propose this solution? Because then they can say they didn't raise taxes. All they did was cause your utilities to be more expensive, but the uneducated will just blame the utilities rather than connecting the dots that it was their politicians that sold them out.
In an open market, rural internet service can be profitable. You simply allow the market to decide the price in every region. rural areas are more expensive and populated areas are cheaper. If this is the actual cost, why not allow this cost to be reflected in the price offered to consumers?
There are costs to living in the wilderness, just like there are costs to living in the city. Paying the true costs of your lifestyle (except maybe those on welfare) leads to a more efficient economy.
If Groupon was Battletoads, it would be like I made it all the way to the Terra Tubes without dying on my first ever play through.
It is just like that especially if the consequences for dying in battletoads was losing $81 million each quarter. Usually when stakes are high, you don't get someone who's playing the game for the first time to be in charge.
Slashdot Mirror
OK i see, you have to switch antennas manually whenever you change channels.
how do you mux all the signals together? Do you just use a backward coax splitter?
Show me where in the constitution it says the government can kill foreigners without due process.
Yes I believe US soil is different, but not because it is the US. I think the difference is that US soil is not hostile. While it may be impractical to arrest al queda members in Yemen, it seems more prudent to be arresting in the US rather than bombing. I would expect arrests of al queda members to occur for even non-US citizens if they were found in Florida (with possible deadly force if a danger is present). I would also expect this kind of response if an al queda member with US citizenship were found in England.
I have no idea if this makes sense in legal terms, but it seems like arresting people makes more sense in civilized countries, and bombing people makes more sense in warzones, regardless of citizenship or national borders (e.g. if the USA were to ever become a warzone). I am not claiming Yemen is a warzone. I don't know what Yemen is like, but presumably it isn't like Orlando, FL.
I agree that it doesn't seem like there is a good system in place for providing oversight into how people are declared enemy combatants, but surely this system should still exist and ideally be improved. If some American citizen joins al queda, they should be treated like every other al queda member right?
It appears problematic that if we don't have a good way to ascertain whether this person has really joined al queda (e.g. a trial), but this is true for every suspected al queda person we kill, not to mention innocent bystanders. Is there a compelling reason that US citizens suspected of joining al queda should be given better treatment than other suspected al queda members?
I am not saying we should kill people like Awlaki, but if we give Awlaki a trial because we can;t be sure he has really joined al queda without a trial, then shouldn't we give every person we are about to kill a trial? They aren;t US citizens, but how can we know for sure unless they are allowed to present evidence (e.g. like a birth certificate) in court?
Can you cite where Obama says targeted killings count as due process? It was my understanding that the stance of the White House considers drone strikes as military actions that don't require due process.
Sadly, you'll have to wait until there's a Republican in the White House before Reid or Pelosi speak against the drone strikes.
Really? I remember Pelosi going along with just about everything Bush2 wanted.
I am by far not a Microsoft fan boy. I am probably closer to a linux fan boy (especially now that I can play FTL on my linux machine). Unless the EU is giving all this money to the people of Europe, the people of Europe should be pissed. There is no this doesn't translate into higher costs or lower product quality for users. Almost everybody knows how to get their own web browser, or their hacker grandson has done it for them. This idea that having the default web browser bestows some special power to monopolize the internet is retarded.
So MS _deliberately_ made sure that other browser run worse than IE on a Windows system.
and still failed.
In normal RAID-5 operation, the system will be able to correct for that error. However, what happens when you've dropped a drive and are attempting to restripe the array onto a spare/replacement?
Yes I realize this risk. When I said I didn't think RAID exacerbated the issue, I mean that a RAID 5 solution is not going to be worse off than a JBOD setup in the event of disk failures and bit rot.
I realize there are better solutions than RAID5, but I only had 5 sata ports in my old computer. My OS drive is running off an IDE port. I suppose an ideal equivalent setup given my situation would have been 10 2TB drives in a RAID6 or Z2, but I wasn't willing to put in the extra money for the extra mobo/cpu/ram/case/psu, etc.
This raid is already an upgrade from my last container for this data which was just separate HDs. In fact the main draw for me to do a disk array was that all the data could be on one logical drive.
what do you use for raid-z, raid-z2? (i.e. mdadm equivalent)?
I guess I don't see how these are new risks. I realize the risk of UREs increases with larger drives, but as far as I know this isn't exacerbated with RAID. I considered going with RAID6 but dedicating 2/5ths of my drives to parity seemed a bit paranoid. I should also note that the data is not super important, it's just data that I'd prefer not to lose.
I do have a UPS with network-ups-tools monitoring a UPS to mitigate the write hole risk.
Hopefully this 20TB RAID will last like 5 years, and I'll move the data to a new storage system using some better technology that's cheaper, faster, and safer.
Comics are art to be consumed by those who find them compelling. I doubt many comic book creators will say that the goal of their art is to make every person who might read it feel good about themselves.
There is a problem that many gay kids feel ostracized, which may leave them vulnerable to anti-gay messages in culture. The solution is not censorship.The solution is that we need to create a society where gays kids don't need to feel ostracized. You can't pre-emptively nullify every bad experience a gay youth might have. What you *can* do is give them the confidence to withstand it. This goes for every kid, not just gay kids.
I think spreading that ideas presented in culture are just individual opinions is much healthier than trying to eliminate all unwanted opinions and fostering the impression that culture is infallible and accepted by all.
I didn't mean the adjective "likeable" to refer to wholesomeness or family friendliness. I just meant it in the sense that likeability is different for each person. I would say that you find Ender's Game likeable because you referred to it as "good", "well-crafted", and "well-done", and I can only assume you like "good", "well-crafted", and "well-done" things.
While I would assume most people wouldn't like a war for species survival, I can't see any reason why many of those people wouldn't like a good, well-crafted, well-done story about a war for species survival.
In the same way unlikeable people can make likeable art, likeable art can be made in reference to unlikeable subjects.
Treating gays and lesbians as second-class citizens does them actual harm for literally no rational, empirical reason.
I agree.
This is a very straightforward issue, lacking even the economic arguments associated with slavery, women's lib, etc. It's been obvious for many years how the gay rights struggle is going to go and how it's going to look to future generations.
I agree.
Can you really blame DC et al for not wanting to funnel money to someone on the wrong side?
No, and in fact I said I don't.
I am pro-democracy in general, but when it comes to human rights, I take an anti-democratic stance, that all humans should be granted the same rights regardless of what the majority supports. My post is not a criticism of the gay rights movement because it is anti-democratic. My post was meant as a reminder of the limitations of democracy and the possibility for it to be on the wrong side of the gay rights issue.
We simply need to acknowledge that it is indeed possible for unlikable people to make likeable art. I never read Ender's Game, but I've heard it's good. Every person is free to decide for themselves if they are comfortable with consuming art, food, inventions, etc from people who's views you oppose. As long as there is no coercion, I don't see a problem, with Card expressing anti-gay views in a comic book (not that he is currently doing that). I don't see a problem with consumers boycotting his art. I don't see a problem with pro gay rights consumers buying his art. The only thing I have a problem with is anything that actually limits the rights of any people unjustly (straight or gay). Freedom to express arguments against gay rights is protected under free speech, and in my view actually helps society move forward through public discourse. If there is ever a compelling reason to oppose gay rights, I might even be convinced to oppose them, but the fact that no good reason has been presented in the free market of ideas says something about the possibility that a good actually argument exists.
Also, Card is right about gay rights being in opposition to democracy, but this is a good thing. The USA is not *just* a democracy. The democracy of Americans is limited by the constitution. We are not able to vote to re-establish slavery if 51% of the population supports it. The constitution is a check on democracy. Democracy is only one of the ingredients of a free society. And an excess of democracy can be a bad thing. Democracy alone is just mob rule.
Well it's not just fileserving. I have a software RAID5, so everytime I write a file, it has to calculate parity information in addition to writing to 5 SATA drives simultaneously, and the bottleneck is still the Gigabit network. This isn't a huge amount of computation by today's standards (a CPU from 7 years ago can handle it), but it wasn't long ago (12 years ago) that you had to buy separate CPUs that would be inserted into your hardware RAID card to perform the parity computation in real time. Now everything can happen in software (i.e. in the main CPU) on an old CPU no less.
Granted some of the reason for this is because HD and network speeds are lagging behind a bit, but I still think it is pretty amazing. I suppose when we have 100Gbit networks and SSDs become larger, we will be doing RAID5 with them, and sustaining like 10GB/s while calculating parity info might be too hard for a core 2 duo.
A true computer enthusiast is always trying to fix things that aren't broken.
I don't think things will ever reach a point of "fast enough" in an absolute sense either, but I can see where CastrTroy is coming from.
I got my first computer was in 1992, and it was the most expensive computer I've (my parents) have ever purchased. Since then I have built computers from parts every year (each time becoming cheaper) until about 2001. The computer I built in 2001 lasted 2 years. The computer I built in 2003 lasted 3 years. The computer I built in 2006 lasted 6 years until 2012.
Yes new applications are constantly coming out that demand faster computers for personal use, but it seems to be slowing down to me. It's not that technology is slowing down, but that the new technology seems more able to run on 6 year old technology than it used to.
My core 2 Duo from 2006 is now the processor for my 20 TB RAID5 NAS, and it's doing great. I didn;t even really need an upgrade back in 2012, I just wanted to have a NAS and build a new computer for fun (I hadn't built one in 6 years). My new computer is definately faster, but all I do on it is play FTL, which I can also do on my crappy laptop from 2006.
Yes but dying early from obesity related illness, which really doesn't have an expensive medical treatment option (e.g. unlike, cancer , HIV treatment) causes you to consume less because you don't live as long. Not only that, but people who die early take less money from social security, while putting the same amount in.
It is a myth that people who lead unhealthy lifestyles have much higher medical expenses over their lifetime than people who lead healthy lifestyles. Everyone eventually becomes ill enough to make the continuation of living untenable. On average a quarter of the medical expenses one has in his/her entire life are spent in the last year of life. That last year is simply earlier for people who lead unhealthy lifestyles. And while unhealthy people probably have bigger medical expenses than healthy people per year, they live less years.
Not only that, but people who die earlier also don;t get to take full advantage of social security. People who live a really long time benefit the most.
You can have the java virtual machine installed without using the java applet plugin for your browser. The recent security problems are only for the java applet browser plugin, which is now disabled by default by firefox and probably other browsers as well.
Obama does not have to worry about re-election. He no longer has to worry about raising money from lobbyists. I don't know if term limits are a good thing or a bad thing overall (e.g. they force removal of good representatives), but it seems like winning elections tend to be the primary focus of most politicians, and removing this incentive drastically changes things (for good or bad).
It shouldn't be controversial, but I also don;t see the point. Shareholder already have authority over executive salaries. The shareholders are the real bosses (in aggregate). They are the ones paying the salaries (i.e. it is essentially deducted from their profits). If shareholders can't be bothered to ensure that they are paying their employees reasonable salaries, then it means this company is mismanaged by it's owners (the shareholders) who deserve to lose their shirts. If you are a small time investor, whose vote doesn't matter, then you can still vote by doing research and dumping stock in companies that is mismanaged.
To me this is like making a legal mechanism for girlfriends to dump their boyfriends if they've been cheated on. This mechanism already exists and should work better without government intervention. The fact that a legal alternative may help girls is not relevant. It is a waste of tax payer resources to fund something that should be taken care of by the private sector.
I am not even one of these anarchist type people that wants to abolish the government. I am totally in favor of the government being in charge of programs that make sense (like single payer healthcare). This just seems like an overreach. There are plenty of more worthy things that governments could be spending it's limited resources on.
Just because you form a cooperative doesn't mean everyone pays the same amount. It just means that everyone is cooperating.
Here is an example from my life right now. I am getting a cell phone family plan with a bunch of my friends to save money. However one person uses so many minutes that it forces us to go up to a more expensive plan. This person has offered to pay this extra cost. We are still a voluntary cooperative and we are still all saving money even if one person is paying more.
I got an even better idea. DON'T give any telecoms a monopoly over anything. Have the government hire contractors who know how to create telecom infrastructure to install it everywhere populated and whatever unpopulated places we want. Use tax money to fund it. Now the infrastructure is owned by the people, not some for-profit corporation that can exploit it's monopoly.
Why do politicians rarely propose this solution? Because then they can say they didn't raise taxes. All they did was cause your utilities to be more expensive, but the uneducated will just blame the utilities rather than connecting the dots that it was their politicians that sold them out.
In an open market, rural internet service can be profitable. You simply allow the market to decide the price in every region. rural areas are more expensive and populated areas are cheaper. If this is the actual cost, why not allow this cost to be reflected in the price offered to consumers?
There are costs to living in the wilderness, just like there are costs to living in the city. Paying the true costs of your lifestyle (except maybe those on welfare) leads to a more efficient economy.
If Groupon was Battletoads, it would be like I made it all the way to the Terra Tubes without dying on my first ever play through.
It is just like that especially if the consequences for dying in battletoads was losing $81 million each quarter. Usually when stakes are high, you don't get someone who's playing the game for the first time to be in charge.