You can't make a license retroactive. I believe the legal principle here is estoppel. IANAL. Basically, you cannot declare Version 1.0 of your code is distributed under GNU GPL2, then later you say Version 1.0 is now distributed under GNU GPL3. You have to release a Version 1.1 to do that.
If you don't look carefully, that seems to get turned on its head with most applications of the GNU GPL. I'm a big fan of free / open source software, and I release much of my code under the GNU GPL, but I've never been happy with the "or any later version" bit. It's stupid. The default example given in "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" says to include this text:
[...]
I know it's a no-no to post a reply to your own comment, but I thought I'd clarify a little bit, before people pounce on me.
Note the difference between these two cases:
1. You can't make a license retroactive. I believe the legal principle here is estoppel. IANAL. Basically, you cannot declare Version 1.0 of your code is distributed under GNU GPL2, then later you say Version 1.0 is now distributed under GNU GPL3. You have to release a Version 1.1 to do that.
2. If you copy/paste the "or any later version" bit into your program (as many developers do) the effect is that you could release Version 1.0 of your program under GNU GPL2. And someone else may redistribute Version 1.0 of your program to others with the GNU GPL3 license.
I guess I'm one of those ends don't justify the means people. M$ shouldn't be suing FOSS, but you can't create a new version of a license and retroactively apply it to M$.
You can't make a license retroactive. I believe the legal principle here is estoppel. IANAL. Basically, you cannot declare Version 1.0 of your code is distributed under GNU GPL2, then later you say Version 1.0 is now distributed under GNU GPL3. You have to release a Version 1.1 to do that.
If you don't look carefully, that seems to get turned on its head with most applications of the GNU GPL. I'm a big fan of free / open source software, and I release much of my code under the GNU GPL, but I've never been happy with the "or any later version" bit. It's stupid. The default example given in "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" says to include this text:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2
of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
(Lifted from GNU GPL2, but the same text is there in GNU GPL3.) If you copy/paste that into your program (as many developers do) it creates confusion, and I think this is where some of the conflict over the GNU GPL and "viral" accusations comes from. The effect is that I could release Version 1.0 of my program under GNU GPL2. With that text there, someone else may redistribute Version 1.0 of my program to others with the GNU GPL3 license.
Better would have been to leave out the "or any later version" bit. I really wish the FSF hadn't put that in the default example.
Fortunately, this gets some attention in the GNU GPL, and I hope most developers read and understand the whole of the GNU GPL before they apply it. Here's the text from GNU GPL3:
14. Revised Versions of this License.
The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
(You'll find the same text in section 9 of GNU GPL2, btw.) That is the only place "or any later version" shows up, except for the example at the end. So I now encourage developers to not use the "or any later version" text (and specify the version of the GNU GPL) if they want to ensure a particular version of the GNU GPL. Then you don't fall into the trap of worrying about how the FSF will modify later versions of the GNU GPL to do something you're not comfortable with.
That's what I was going to suggest. Also check with the attending; if the hospital has an ER and/or trauma center, they will likely have many of these communication boards available. Ask the attending or nurse for one.
Stay low-tech, for the sake of your grandmother. The last thing she probably wants right now is to be forced to use a computer to communicate.
About the only time I'd recommend using any kind of tech would be if she can use her hands, but can't use them to point. That is, if she can press a button. I saw somewhere once where you could get two buttons, one placed near (under?) each hand. One was clearly labelled YES and the other NO, and a light lit up for each press. It enables simple yes/no communication, but that's better than nothing if the patient can use her hands but is unable to point.
It's not really mainframes. Yes, the IBM / Sun agreement will eventually put Solaris on the IBM mainframe, but more importantly was this bit at the beginning of the article:
The collaboration announced Thursday will enable Sun's Solaris operating system to run on IBM servers. That means customers that run Sun servers will be able to switch to Big Blue's hardware without having to rewrite any programs.
/
At first this will be possible on IBM's "x" series of servers, which also run Microsoft Corp.'s Windows or the open-source Linux system. But eventually IBM hopes to bring Solaris to the mainframe, the big multitasking machines that have been one of the company's core profit centers for decades.
So you'll be able to run Solaris on IBM x-series hardware. This is a big deal. While you're unlikely to see big customers migrating their workload off the big systems (E25k, etc) to x-series, certainly you'll have customers moving smaller Solaris workloads to x-series. When you can run Solaris on IBM z-series (the mainframe) then customers can look again to move the big systems to IBM/Solaris.
Wow, it's just so weird to write "IBM/Solaris".:-)
Actually, there's no real difference between charging unhealthy people more vs giving a discount to healthy people (i.e. charging healthy people less). It all comes down to where you set your baseline.
As an example, say you set the baseline rate for insurance at $100, but want to charge unhealthy people $10 more. That's $110 for unhealthy people, $100 for healthy people.
If people complain, you can say "fine, we'll just give a discount to healthy people". Raise the baseline rate to $110, and give healthy people $10 discount. That's $110 for unhealthy people, $100 for healthy people.
See the difference? Didn't think so. The only difference shows up in the back end after you take increases (or discounts) into account, multiplied by the number of customers.
Question for you: Did you ever evaluate 3rd parties that supported the RHEL stack? Why did[n't?] you choose to go with them as opposed to RHEL?
When we first deployed Linux in our enterprise, there was no RHEL - only the Red Hat boxed set. IBM provided a support contract for us, which also included support IBM WebSphere and Apache, which we used to roll out web applications. This was great, as we mostly ran on IBM x-series gear, so we were used to talking with IBM anyway (we later moved to Dell.) It was only much later, when RHEL became available, that we started using RHEL to run our enterprise web apps. By that time, we'd also moved away from WebSphere, so didn't need IBM support anyway.
As of last August, we did an executive briefing with Dell, and learned (among other things) that Dell also provides a support contract for RHEL, as long as you have Gold level hardware support (which we already do.) They specifically said Dell doesn't care if you run RHEL-Academic or the full RHEL, they will provide support to you. Of course, what Dell is doing behind the scenes is providing their own "level 1" support for Linux, and if they run into a problem they can't solve, they call Red Hat and parrot the resolution back to you (and you don't get to ask questions during the resolution, because the support tech doesn't really know). Not a big concern for our RHEL-Academic stuff running locally-developed apps, so we are going that route (for running third-party apps, we're still buying full RHEL, and will re-evaluate RHEL-Academic + Dell after we've had some calls to Dell).
An additional benefit is that Dell then provides a "single source" for support for a lot of our stack, so you don't end up with finger pointing. I hate it when vendors do that ("this problem is caused by your OS vendor, talk to them." "no, really this bug is being triggered in the storage system, talk to your SAN vendor.") Have a problem with your Dell talking to our EMC SAN? Call Dell. Have a problem getting RHEL to do ____? Call Dell. Hardware problems on the server? Call Dell.
The answer I always give for that is "WE can fix it, we have the source"
Then I ask if there is a bug in any closed-source software they use (usually Microsoft) and they ALWAYS answer "Oh yeah! There is a bug in Outlook|IE|Word etc..."
So I ask "Is provider X (usually Microsoft) aware of the bug?" "Yes - but it's been open for about three years now and they still haven't fixed it"
So I end by saying "We have programmers here that could fix it, if only we had the source..."
That usually brings them around.
That won't work in any environment I've worked in, and I work in higher-ed. In my experience, upper management doesn't care so much about bugs - unless it's a customer-critical bug (system down, or business impacted) in which case the vendor provides some kind of fix. Provided you're on a support contract of some kind, of course. Other bugs, and my management has usually responded "all software has bugs". (And certainly, management doesn't want to get into the business of providing fixes for someone else's bugs - you're committing developer resources that are probably needed elsewhere.)
Here's an example: It was a challenge to deploy Linux and other OSS at the enterprise level at the Big-Ten university where I work. What did I do to get "open source" supported by upper management? Support. We purchased RHEL entitlements, and the director and CIO were reassured that we'd get patches, etc. Since we're in higher-ed, we purchased RHEL-Academic entitlements for about half the systems we run (anything where we have pretty much own the core application stack - we run a lot of web applications, for example.) Academic doesn't give us the ability to call in for help - but again, we own the core application stack, so bugs tend to shake out during testing, or else are identified as a bug in application and fixed by our own developers. But we do get patches, updates, etc. In the case where we run full RHEL (not Academic), we're running applications delivered by third-party vendors (PeopleSoft, IBM, etc.) We never wanted to run into a situation where the third-party vendor says "this bug isn't caused by our app, it's in our OS - call your OS vendor", then we have no one to turn to. With full RHEL, at least we can call Red Hat to open an incident.
What mattered to upper management was support. The fact that, we've only ever opened like 3 support calls doesn't matter to upper management. They still wanted (and want) to see a support contract somewhere. And they don't mind paying a reasonable fee for it. And it's good to support vendors like Red Hat and IBM, who support OSS.
Another example: we once tried to set up a fax gateway service that would support something like 20 faxes a day. Not a high-volume thing, so we had looked at some very nice fax software that we found as open source / free software, but didn't come from Red Hat (i.e. not supported there) and didn't have a support contract offered anywhere else that we could find. Response from upper management: no. Not because it was "open source" but because it didn't have a vendor supporting it.
Automatix in itself is no more illegal than Firefox or Internet Explorer, they are also just tools that "could" be used for illegal purposes
Except that in the case of Automatix, it has been pre-programmed to fetch file X from a specific site, if you want a particular function. It knows what country you are in, or at least the system does, so it can be easily argued that Ubuntu (the distributor of Automatix) is providing a tool that helps the user violate laws. Exactly how is this tool not legally questionable to you? It's sole purpose is to download specific illegal software for you.
Not that I'm saying that software patents are a good idea - they're stupid, in fact. I'm just saying that this tool is too legally questionable to me. {Like how when people argued that Napster's sole purpose wasn't to help users download copyrighted music. Sure, a lot of people may have used Napster to get MP3's of CD's they already owned - but a lot more used Napster to grab MP3's to songs they had never purchased.}
Let me preface this by saying I'm a huge 'Lost' fan. But it's too bad they decided to set the game in the "current" season 1-3 arc. It would have been far more interesting (for me, anyway) to set the game at some time before season 1, so that everything we encounter on the Island is new. I'd love to play a 'Lost' game as someone who came to the Island before season 1, maybe even a DHARMA guy who escaped the Purge, and see events that shaped the Island by the time we reach season 1 of the show.
Lindelof & Cuse say that they have the whole pre-history of the Island already mapped out. I'm sure they won't have enough time in the remaining seasons to cover everything; let us discover some of those mysteries through a game set in the "before season 1" time. Setting it in the "current" time kind of makes it seem flat.
[...] robots that would be able to clean your floor, carry your groceries, navigate in a burning building, walk your dog, tend your lawn.
This is an important distinction for a house robot to make. I, for one, would not want my robot trying to take my azalea for a walk, or trying to prune my terrier.:-)
Horrible idea, would never be put into practice. MS already spent years merging the 9x consumer brand into the NT-based line. There's no reason they would then spit it again and have to deal with two not fully compatible platforms, requiring a separate support base for each one.
While I agree that Microsoft would probably not do this, the fact is that they need to do something along these lines. I would even argue that they should have done it in Vista... since they had 7 versions already. Provide a "next gen only" version of Windows built along the new security model (no built-in backwards compatibility) and provide a separate upgrade that has all the backwards compatibility (and security problems.) Clearly announce to the public and the software vendors that this will exist only for that release of Windows, after which it will only be available as "next gen only". Since Microsoft puts out releases every few years that might be enough fair warning for everyone, so vendors, enterprise customers, and consumers can prepare for "next gen only."
Whether or not the Vista release was successful or not is generally troll bait but from my personal perspective it had none of the things I wanted and featured many things I didn't. I certainly won't be touching it until well after SP1 and even then only if there are several great games for me to play. It was a release "failure" to people like me who expected some goodies and a new Windows iteration but Microsoft delivered a more restrictive operating system. No thanks!
My organization has decided to wait until SP1 before we do any rollout of Vista to our desktops. There just wasn't anything in it that we needed, and the poor application compatibility was a nightmare. I can't count the number of apps that we need that didn't have a version for Vista.
The nytfeed provides us with an article about the current state of internet connectivity on the African continent. Only 4 percent of Africa's population has regular access to the internet, with most of those people living in North African countries, or the country of South Africa. This might seem like a market ripe for development, but the article explains that there are numerous difficulties involved getting an infrastructure project off the ground.
But, didn't we just send a bunch of internet-enabled laptops there?
I was about to post, mentioning the Motorola phone I have (it's just a phone, no frills, decent speaker.) It was one of the free phones you could pick when you got a plan. But T-Mobile's web site no longer lists my phone.
But I also found several "just phones" on T-Mobile's web site: Samsung t219 or Samsung t209 or Nokia 6030 all look good (and are free when you sign up.) The Motorola V195s is pretty close to the model I have, and is just a phone ($20).
After that, I figured the guy can do his own research.
I don't understand the people who waited in line for so long to get the iPhone. On Saturday, the day after the launch, I went to my local Apple Store to buy something for my Mac. The store was busy, but not more than usual. While I was getting rung up, I noticed the huuuuuuuuge stack of iPhones on the desk behind the counter. I asked if those were iPhones that people had reserved, or could you just buy one.
He said these were iPhones that you could buy, and did I want to buy an iPhone today?
So why did you wait in line for 36 hours, when you could have gone to an Apple Store (mine is in Roseville, MN) and picked one up the following day? I just don't get the people who waited in line for this.
My wife and I have always agreed to the "neutral" position on the toilet: when you're done using it, put down both the seat and the lid. We never argue about the toilet seat.:-)
No, ZFS doesn't replace a SAN, but ZFS does checksums on every block in-kernel, so you're sure that what you wrote is indeed what you've read.
The performance will be slightly degraded (as opposed to other filesystems), but why wouldn't you want this feature on a SAN to guard against silent firmware defects or media errors?
Yours is a different question. I was answering the original topic of "why not use ZFS on a server to do all the duties an expensive SAN/NAS normally provides?" In my answer, you can use ZFS (with locally-attached disk) to do normal SAN/NAS stuff, but you would only want to do that to replace an inexpensive SAN/NAS. The expensive SAN/NAS systems will do it better than a server sharing its storage, where its storage is on ZFS.
But you asked a different question: "why not use ZFS on a SAN?" I think you would want to use ZFS using SAN-provided storage. In fact, in our work environment, we are planning to use our SAN to provide the storage that we will put under ZFS. Over time, we can predict our filesystems will grow to be very large. While the SAN provides good protection at the disk layer, we want to protect ourself for easy expansion (ZFS is good at this) and to protect against bit rot (again, ZFS has a good implementation for this.)
You mention that ZFS access may be slightly slower than under, say, UFS. But the stability improvement on very large filesystems is worth the slight impact on performance. At least, that's how I see it.
Slashdot Mirror
I know it's a no-no to post a reply to your own comment, but I thought I'd clarify a little bit, before people pounce on me.
Note the difference between these two cases:
1. You can't make a license retroactive. I believe the legal principle here is estoppel. IANAL. Basically, you cannot declare Version 1.0 of your code is distributed under GNU GPL2, then later you say Version 1.0 is now distributed under GNU GPL3. You have to release a Version 1.1 to do that.
2. If you copy/paste the "or any later version" bit into your program (as many developers do) the effect is that you could release Version 1.0 of your program under GNU GPL2. And someone else may redistribute Version 1.0 of your program to others with the GNU GPL3 license.
See the difference? It's about who distributes.
You can't make a license retroactive. I believe the legal principle here is estoppel. IANAL. Basically, you cannot declare Version 1.0 of your code is distributed under GNU GPL2, then later you say Version 1.0 is now distributed under GNU GPL3. You have to release a Version 1.1 to do that.
If you don't look carefully, that seems to get turned on its head with most applications of the GNU GPL. I'm a big fan of free / open source software, and I release much of my code under the GNU GPL, but I've never been happy with the "or any later version" bit. It's stupid. The default example given in "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" says to include this text:
(Lifted from GNU GPL2, but the same text is there in GNU GPL3.) If you copy/paste that into your program (as many developers do) it creates confusion, and I think this is where some of the conflict over the GNU GPL and "viral" accusations comes from. The effect is that I could release Version 1.0 of my program under GNU GPL2. With that text there, someone else may redistribute Version 1.0 of my program to others with the GNU GPL3 license.
Better would have been to leave out the "or any later version" bit. I really wish the FSF hadn't put that in the default example.
Fortunately, this gets some attention in the GNU GPL, and I hope most developers read and understand the whole of the GNU GPL before they apply it. Here's the text from GNU GPL3:
(You'll find the same text in section 9 of GNU GPL2, btw.) That is the only place "or any later version" shows up, except for the example at the end. So I now encourage developers to not use the "or any later version" text (and specify the version of the GNU GPL) if they want to ensure a particular version of the GNU GPL. Then you don't fall into the trap of worrying about how the FSF will modify later versions of the GNU GPL to do something you're not comfortable with.
My $0.02.
-jh
Here is the photo caption from the article, for those looking for it:
stone age "chewing cum"(about 2/3 down the page)
"My internet connection really stinks."
Thank you, I'm here all night. Try the fish.
That's what I was going to suggest. Also check with the attending; if the hospital has an ER and/or trauma center, they will likely have many of these communication boards available. Ask the attending or nurse for one.
Stay low-tech, for the sake of your grandmother. The last thing she probably wants right now is to be forced to use a computer to communicate.
About the only time I'd recommend using any kind of tech would be if she can use her hands, but can't use them to point. That is, if she can press a button. I saw somewhere once where you could get two buttons, one placed near (under?) each hand. One was clearly labelled YES and the other NO, and a light lit up for each press. It enables simple yes/no communication, but that's better than nothing if the patient can use her hands but is unable to point.
It's not really mainframes. Yes, the IBM / Sun agreement will eventually put Solaris on the IBM mainframe, but more importantly was this bit at the beginning of the article:
The collaboration announced Thursday will enable Sun's Solaris operating system to run on IBM servers. That means customers that run Sun servers will be able to switch to Big Blue's hardware without having to rewrite any programs. / At first this will be possible on IBM's "x" series of servers, which also run Microsoft Corp.'s Windows or the open-source Linux system. But eventually IBM hopes to bring Solaris to the mainframe, the big multitasking machines that have been one of the company's core profit centers for decades.So you'll be able to run Solaris on IBM x-series hardware. This is a big deal. While you're unlikely to see big customers migrating their workload off the big systems (E25k, etc) to x-series, certainly you'll have customers moving smaller Solaris workloads to x-series. When you can run Solaris on IBM z-series (the mainframe) then customers can look again to move the big systems to IBM/Solaris.
Wow, it's just so weird to write "IBM/Solaris". :-)
Actually, it was probably more along the lines of: some share holders actually believed Novell or IBM was going to just buy SCO out.
12?
Yeah, I thought the same thing.:-)
Actually, there's no real difference between charging unhealthy people more vs giving a discount to healthy people (i.e. charging healthy people less). It all comes down to where you set your baseline.
As an example, say you set the baseline rate for insurance at $100, but want to charge unhealthy people $10 more. That's $110 for unhealthy people, $100 for healthy people.
If people complain, you can say "fine, we'll just give a discount to healthy people". Raise the baseline rate to $110, and give healthy people $10 discount. That's $110 for unhealthy people, $100 for healthy people.
See the difference? Didn't think so. The only difference shows up in the back end after you take increases (or discounts) into account, multiplied by the number of customers.
When we first deployed Linux in our enterprise, there was no RHEL - only the Red Hat boxed set. IBM provided a support contract for us, which also included support IBM WebSphere and Apache, which we used to roll out web applications. This was great, as we mostly ran on IBM x-series gear, so we were used to talking with IBM anyway (we later moved to Dell.) It was only much later, when RHEL became available, that we started using RHEL to run our enterprise web apps. By that time, we'd also moved away from WebSphere, so didn't need IBM support anyway.
As of last August, we did an executive briefing with Dell, and learned (among other things) that Dell also provides a support contract for RHEL, as long as you have Gold level hardware support (which we already do.) They specifically said Dell doesn't care if you run RHEL-Academic or the full RHEL, they will provide support to you. Of course, what Dell is doing behind the scenes is providing their own "level 1" support for Linux, and if they run into a problem they can't solve, they call Red Hat and parrot the resolution back to you (and you don't get to ask questions during the resolution, because the support tech doesn't really know). Not a big concern for our RHEL-Academic stuff running locally-developed apps, so we are going that route (for running third-party apps, we're still buying full RHEL, and will re-evaluate RHEL-Academic + Dell after we've had some calls to Dell).
An additional benefit is that Dell then provides a "single source" for support for a lot of our stack, so you don't end up with finger pointing. I hate it when vendors do that ("this problem is caused by your OS vendor, talk to them." "no, really this bug is being triggered in the storage system, talk to your SAN vendor.") Have a problem with your Dell talking to our EMC SAN? Call Dell. Have a problem getting RHEL to do ____? Call Dell. Hardware problems on the server? Call Dell.
That won't work in any environment I've worked in, and I work in higher-ed. In my experience, upper management doesn't care so much about bugs - unless it's a customer-critical bug (system down, or business impacted) in which case the vendor provides some kind of fix. Provided you're on a support contract of some kind, of course. Other bugs, and my management has usually responded "all software has bugs". (And certainly, management doesn't want to get into the business of providing fixes for someone else's bugs - you're committing developer resources that are probably needed elsewhere.)
Here's an example: It was a challenge to deploy Linux and other OSS at the enterprise level at the Big-Ten university where I work. What did I do to get "open source" supported by upper management? Support. We purchased RHEL entitlements, and the director and CIO were reassured that we'd get patches, etc. Since we're in higher-ed, we purchased RHEL-Academic entitlements for about half the systems we run (anything where we have pretty much own the core application stack - we run a lot of web applications, for example.) Academic doesn't give us the ability to call in for help - but again, we own the core application stack, so bugs tend to shake out during testing, or else are identified as a bug in application and fixed by our own developers. But we do get patches, updates, etc. In the case where we run full RHEL (not Academic), we're running applications delivered by third-party vendors (PeopleSoft, IBM, etc.) We never wanted to run into a situation where the third-party vendor says "this bug isn't caused by our app, it's in our OS - call your OS vendor", then we have no one to turn to. With full RHEL, at least we can call Red Hat to open an incident.
What mattered to upper management was support. The fact that, we've only ever opened like 3 support calls doesn't matter to upper management. They still wanted (and want) to see a support contract somewhere. And they don't mind paying a reasonable fee for it. And it's good to support vendors like Red Hat and IBM, who support OSS.
Another example: we once tried to set up a fax gateway service that would support something like 20 faxes a day. Not a high-volume thing, so we had looked at some very nice fax software that we found as open source / free software, but didn't come from Red Hat (i.e. not supported there) and didn't have a support contract offered anywhere else that we could find. Response from upper management: no. Not because it was "open source" but because it didn't have a vendor supporting it.
Except that in the case of Automatix, it has been pre-programmed to fetch file X from a specific site, if you want a particular function. It knows what country you are in, or at least the system does, so it can be easily argued that Ubuntu (the distributor of Automatix) is providing a tool that helps the user violate laws. Exactly how is this tool not legally questionable to you? It's sole purpose is to download specific illegal software for you.
Not that I'm saying that software patents are a good idea - they're stupid, in fact. I'm just saying that this tool is too legally questionable to me. {Like how when people argued that Napster's sole purpose wasn't to help users download copyrighted music. Sure, a lot of people may have used Napster to get MP3's of CD's they already owned - but a lot more used Napster to grab MP3's to songs they had never purchased.}
-jh
I find it's ok to "love" your weapons, but not to love your weapons. Maintain some distance, you know.
Let me preface this by saying I'm a huge 'Lost' fan. But it's too bad they decided to set the game in the "current" season 1-3 arc. It would have been far more interesting (for me, anyway) to set the game at some time before season 1, so that everything we encounter on the Island is new. I'd love to play a 'Lost' game as someone who came to the Island before season 1, maybe even a DHARMA guy who escaped the Purge, and see events that shaped the Island by the time we reach season 1 of the show.
Lindelof & Cuse say that they have the whole pre-history of the Island already mapped out. I'm sure they won't have enough time in the remaining seasons to cover everything; let us discover some of those mysteries through a game set in the "before season 1" time. Setting it in the "current" time kind of makes it seem flat.
This is an important distinction for a house robot to make. I, for one, would not want my robot trying to take my azalea for a walk, or trying to prune my terrier. :-)
While I agree that Microsoft would probably not do this, the fact is that they need to do something along these lines. I would even argue that they should have done it in Vista ... since they had 7 versions already. Provide a "next gen only" version of Windows built along the new security model (no built-in backwards compatibility) and provide a separate upgrade that has all the backwards compatibility (and security problems.) Clearly announce to the public and the software vendors that this will exist only for that release of Windows, after which it will only be available as "next gen only". Since Microsoft puts out releases every few years that might be enough fair warning for everyone, so vendors, enterprise customers, and consumers can prepare for "next gen only."
My organization has decided to wait until SP1 before we do any rollout of Vista to our desktops. There just wasn't anything in it that we needed, and the poor application compatibility was a nightmare. I can't count the number of apps that we need that didn't have a version for Vista.
But, didn't we just send a bunch of internet-enabled laptops there?
They already made this movie (Serenity) .. it started as a TV series (Firefly). And it was great! :-)
Those of you who were fans will know.
I was about to post, mentioning the Motorola phone I have (it's just a phone, no frills, decent speaker.) It was one of the free phones you could pick when you got a plan. But T-Mobile's web site no longer lists my phone.
But I also found several "just phones" on T-Mobile's web site: Samsung t219 or Samsung t209 or Nokia 6030 all look good (and are free when you sign up.) The Motorola V195s is pretty close to the model I have, and is just a phone ($20).
After that, I figured the guy can do his own research.
In other news, studies (when I was a kid) show that kids like to look at Playboy ...
I don't understand the people who waited in line for so long to get the iPhone. On Saturday, the day after the launch, I went to my local Apple Store to buy something for my Mac. The store was busy, but not more than usual. While I was getting rung up, I noticed the huuuuuuuuge stack of iPhones on the desk behind the counter. I asked if those were iPhones that people had reserved, or could you just buy one.
He said these were iPhones that you could buy, and did I want to buy an iPhone today?
So why did you wait in line for 36 hours, when you could have gone to an Apple Store (mine is in Roseville, MN) and picked one up the following day? I just don't get the people who waited in line for this.
If you want an editor that supports Esperanto, then you should switch to FreeDOS EDLIN 2.10c, as Esperanto support was already added. :-)
My wife and I have always agreed to the "neutral" position on the toilet: when you're done using it, put down both the seat and the lid. We never argue about the toilet seat. :-)
Yours is a different question. I was answering the original topic of "why not use ZFS on a server to do all the duties an expensive SAN/NAS normally provides?" In my answer, you can use ZFS (with locally-attached disk) to do normal SAN/NAS stuff, but you would only want to do that to replace an inexpensive SAN/NAS. The expensive SAN/NAS systems will do it better than a server sharing its storage, where its storage is on ZFS.
But you asked a different question: "why not use ZFS on a SAN?" I think you would want to use ZFS using SAN-provided storage. In fact, in our work environment, we are planning to use our SAN to provide the storage that we will put under ZFS. Over time, we can predict our filesystems will grow to be very large. While the SAN provides good protection at the disk layer, we want to protect ourself for easy expansion (ZFS is good at this) and to protect against bit rot (again, ZFS has a good implementation for this.)
You mention that ZFS access may be slightly slower than under, say, UFS. But the stability improvement on very large filesystems is worth the slight impact on performance. At least, that's how I see it.