The article claims that both AT&T and Verizon will be moving to LTE in the future. If this ever comes to pass, and Apple releases an LTE-compatible iPhone, the technology roadblock should vanish.
It's amazing how fast a filesystem can be if it makes no guarantees that your data will actually be on disk when the application writes it.
Anyone who assumes modern filesystems are synchronous by default is deluded. If you need to guarantee your data is actually on disk, open the file with O_SYNC semantics. Otherwise, you take your chances.
Moreover, there's no assertion that the filesystem was corrupt as a result of the crash. That would be a far more serious concern.
I'm not a Linux kernel expert, but I remember reading there's something about the VFS layer that would make ZFS pretty hard to adapt.
It's not a technical hurdle; it's a legal one. The license under which Sun published ZFS is not GPL-compatible. Thus, merging the code into the Linux kernel is not possible without incurring Sun's wrath.
No, the reason that people pay for spectrum is because the FCC makes it artificially scarce through its enforcement of regulation and spectrum management. As I'm sure you know, no device is permitted to transmit a radio signal without a license from the FCC. In addition, as it is currently deployed, for any given "application" (as defined by the FCC), permission to use the spectrum is confined to very small bands of the spectrum.
The reason for this is that nearly 100 years ago, radios were primitive and could not hop all over the spectrum. Instead, they had (and continue to have) fixed tuning. Modern radios don't need to do that; instead, they can broadcast all over the spectrum, tuned to a particular frequency for a very very short amount of time (such that interference on another channel would hardly be noticeable).
The FCC has not changed with technology, and so it continues to reserve spectrum on a band-allocated basis, where no one but the licensee(s) for that particular band are permitted to use it. So, it is the FCC, not technology, that makes bandwidth scarce. Thus, would-be licensees are forced to compete (formerly on service, now on price) to obtain a license. And, contrary to your assertions, licensees (don't call them owners, since it's a public resource and the licenses are revocable) can and do deploy whatever technology is available to make more efficient use of their allocation. How else could the phone companies have rolled out 3G mobile networks?
Spectrum scarcity is a fallacy whose roots based on ancient technology. Scientists and engineers who understand radio technologies invented but a few years after the FCC was established by Congress in 1934 (i.e. UWB and spread spectrum frequency hopping) know this. See, e.g, How wireless networks scale: the illusion of spectrum scarcity. The fact is, everyone who wanted to could use the airwaves free of interference if such technologies were properly implemented.
The problem is that Congress, now guaranteed a new source of revenue to spend on things like foolish wars and bridges to nowhere without direct taxes through the auction process, will scream bloody murder if the FCC tries to undo what it has done.
It's true that an agreement to do something illegal excuses a contract for impossibility, but this is pie in the sky - what illegal act is in the contract?
What you're referring to is unconscionability, which is the doctrine that courts are free to strike particular terms that it finds were oppressive or unfairly surprising to the party against whom the terms are charged. Although courts occasionally do hold that such terms are invalid, they tend to do so on a case-by-case basis, and infrequently as a matter of law. To my knowledge, no court has ever held that particular terms in a click-wrap agreement are per se unenforceable as a matter of law.
Your assertion that courts are generally free to ignore terms in form contracts that reduce a party's rights is a vast oversimplification; in fact, form contracts are routinely upheld. Only in particularly oppressive cases will a court hold terms in a contract unenforceable -- e.g. the occasional cases you refer to in which arbitration clauses were struck, citing public policy to protect the poor.
All contracts reduce the contracting parties' rights - if they didn't, there would be no possibility of recovery for breach (i.e. you don't have a right not to perform under a valid contract)! However, clear notice of a contract's terms is required to bind the parties, and if you'd read ProCD you'd have seen that the 7th Circuit determined that a clickwrap agreement provided the required notice. Whether the other party actually read and understood the terms is a subjective test, and contract theory is objective, not subjective.
Have you actually *used* ZFS? It is not CPU intensive in the least. I've run it on a 700MHz PIII with no problems. From the developer's mouth: "Assume 1 2GHz Opteron for every 200 MB/s, including ZFS *and* the NFS stack". 200 MB/s is an order of magnitude (10x) faster than any hard disk installed in a desktop or laptop. And, that's for a continuous I/O load, which most users never see.
If you're having CPU issues with ZFS, you're in the HD video business, in which case you'll have a dual CPU machine anyway.
So it sounds like the scheme is like master-slave replication a la MySQL.
What happens if the target filesystem is disconnected, and then reconnected? Do you lose all the intermediate changes that occurred in the meantime?
Moreover, what's the recovery mechanism using the secondary filesystem once the OS has been reinstalled on the primary disk? This is clearly not a mirrored filesystem that can simply be booted from.
I stand corrected. However, if this is the way it works, the implementation is seriously lame. Real snapshot capability has been a viable filesystem feature for over 10 years, and apparently Apple still can't get it right.
On the contrary, Time Machine is not a backup mechanism. Because it uses copy on write (i.e. only stores changed blocks), you will not be able to restore your entire disk from the secondary volume (unless, of course, it requires the target volume be larger than the source volume and does a quiescent backup of the entire source volume before it kicks in).
For this reason, the secondary volume requirement does not seem particularly useful.
If ZFS is the default file system, it will mean that Time Machine (i.e. the snapshot feature) of 10.5 will be able to take snapshots without requiring a secondary file system to keep the copied (recoverable) blocks, as it does now with HFS+. To me, the secondary filesystem requirement makes Time Machine essentially useless on a laptop.
Microsoft, in its Windows Mobile platform, also gives carriers the ability to prevent users from installing applications that have not been approved by the carrier - just like Apple presumably will. See Windows Mobile 5.0 Application Security. This is why many T-Mobile users can't install third-party applications on their MDA/SDA devices without unlocking them, which is no trivial task.
The real solution here is to urge Congress and the FCC to force mobile phone carriers to allow users to purchase and connect any compatible equipment of their choice to the network - just like they did in the 1960s to Ma Bell.
You misunderstand the concept of hearsay in evidence law. Hearsay is cause for exclusion of a statement introduced for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. (i.e., it would be excluded if the issue was whether the pills really did provide "male enhancement"). However, to introduce the email for the purpose of showing that it violated a law relating to UCE would not violate any evidence rule.
USB has had an isochronous mode since version 1.0. Remember USB speakers? Although they were not a big market hit, they used it. So do USB webcams and headsets.
[I am a law student, and not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.]
It's probably not a crime, but D-Link might be civilly liable to Mr. Henning-Kamp for damages on a state-law trespass to chattels theory. D-Link has offices in California, so they would be subject to suit there, even by a foreign citizen (since the harm arises, at least in part, out of D-Link's activities in the U.S.).
The elements of a trespass to chattels claim are:
(1) defendant intentionally and without authorization interfered with plaintiff's possessory interest in the computer system; and
(2) defendant's unauthorized use proximately resulted in damage to plaintiff.
See eBay, Inc. v. Bidder's Edge, Inc., 100 F.Supp.2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000).
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder whether pouring coffee on them would be just as effective.
The article claims that both AT&T and Verizon will be moving to LTE in the future. If this ever comes to pass, and Apple releases an LTE-compatible iPhone, the technology roadblock should vanish.
It doesn't if you're merely using it to unwrap the SSL from the connection and proxy it to another TCP port.
The other 20%, and your time, is what makes it worth $25k.
These days I'm writing exclusively in Ruby and it is "fast enough" (even with 1.8.X).
I suspect that's because your website doesn't receive thousands of dynamic requests per second.
It's amazing how fast a filesystem can be if it makes no guarantees that your data will actually be on disk when the application writes it.
Anyone who assumes modern filesystems are synchronous by default is deluded. If you need to guarantee your data is actually on disk, open the file with O_SYNC semantics. Otherwise, you take your chances.
Moreover, there's no assertion that the filesystem was corrupt as a result of the crash. That would be a far more serious concern.
I'm not a Linux kernel expert, but I remember reading there's something about the VFS layer that would make ZFS pretty hard to adapt.
It's not a technical hurdle; it's a legal one. The license under which Sun published ZFS is not GPL-compatible. Thus, merging the code into the Linux kernel is not possible without incurring Sun's wrath.
Citation?
No, the reason that people pay for spectrum is because the FCC makes it artificially scarce through its enforcement of regulation and spectrum management. As I'm sure you know, no device is permitted to transmit a radio signal without a license from the FCC. In addition, as it is currently deployed, for any given "application" (as defined by the FCC), permission to use the spectrum is confined to very small bands of the spectrum.
The reason for this is that nearly 100 years ago, radios were primitive and could not hop all over the spectrum. Instead, they had (and continue to have) fixed tuning. Modern radios don't need to do that; instead, they can broadcast all over the spectrum, tuned to a particular frequency for a very very short amount of time (such that interference on another channel would hardly be noticeable).
The FCC has not changed with technology, and so it continues to reserve spectrum on a band-allocated basis, where no one but the licensee(s) for that particular band are permitted to use it. So, it is the FCC, not technology, that makes bandwidth scarce. Thus, would-be licensees are forced to compete (formerly on service, now on price) to obtain a license. And, contrary to your assertions, licensees (don't call them owners, since it's a public resource and the licenses are revocable) can and do deploy whatever technology is available to make more efficient use of their allocation. How else could the phone companies have rolled out 3G mobile networks?
Spectrum scarcity is a fallacy whose roots based on ancient technology. Scientists and engineers who understand radio technologies invented but a few years after the FCC was established by Congress in 1934 (i.e. UWB and spread spectrum frequency hopping) know this. See, e.g, How wireless networks scale: the illusion of spectrum scarcity. The fact is, everyone who wanted to could use the airwaves free of interference if such technologies were properly implemented.
The problem is that Congress, now guaranteed a new source of revenue to spend on things like foolish wars and bridges to nowhere without direct taxes through the auction process, will scream bloody murder if the FCC tries to undo what it has done.
It's true that an agreement to do something illegal excuses a contract for impossibility, but this is pie in the sky - what illegal act is in the contract?
What you're referring to is unconscionability, which is the doctrine that courts are free to strike particular terms that it finds were oppressive or unfairly surprising to the party against whom the terms are charged. Although courts occasionally do hold that such terms are invalid, they tend to do so on a case-by-case basis, and infrequently as a matter of law. To my knowledge, no court has ever held that particular terms in a click-wrap agreement are per se unenforceable as a matter of law.
Your assertion that courts are generally free to ignore terms in form contracts that reduce a party's rights is a vast oversimplification; in fact, form contracts are routinely upheld. Only in particularly oppressive cases will a court hold terms in a contract unenforceable -- e.g. the occasional cases you refer to in which arbitration clauses were struck, citing public policy to protect the poor.
All contracts reduce the contracting parties' rights - if they didn't, there would be no possibility of recovery for breach (i.e. you don't have a right not to perform under a valid contract)! However, clear notice of a contract's terms is required to bind the parties, and if you'd read ProCD you'd have seen that the 7th Circuit determined that a clickwrap agreement provided the required notice. Whether the other party actually read and understood the terms is a subjective test, and contract theory is objective, not subjective.
Wrong; at least a growing minority courts have held that a EULA, if agreed to by the party installing the software, is a contract enforceable by law. See, e.g., ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996).
Have you actually *used* ZFS? It is not CPU intensive in the least. I've run it on a 700MHz PIII with no problems. From the developer's mouth: "Assume 1 2GHz Opteron for every 200 MB/s, including ZFS *and* the NFS stack". 200 MB/s is an order of magnitude (10x) faster than any hard disk installed in a desktop or laptop. And, that's for a continuous I/O load, which most users never see.
If you're having CPU issues with ZFS, you're in the HD video business, in which case you'll have a dual CPU machine anyway.
So it sounds like the scheme is like master-slave replication a la MySQL.
What happens if the target filesystem is disconnected, and then reconnected? Do you lose all the intermediate changes that occurred in the meantime?
Moreover, what's the recovery mechanism using the secondary filesystem once the OS has been reinstalled on the primary disk? This is clearly not a mirrored filesystem that can simply be booted from.
I stand corrected. However, if this is the way it works, the implementation is seriously lame. Real snapshot capability has been a viable filesystem feature for over 10 years, and apparently Apple still can't get it right.
On the contrary, Time Machine is not a backup mechanism. Because it uses copy on write (i.e. only stores changed blocks), you will not be able to restore your entire disk from the secondary volume (unless, of course, it requires the target volume be larger than the source volume and does a quiescent backup of the entire source volume before it kicks in).
For this reason, the secondary volume requirement does not seem particularly useful.
If ZFS is the default file system, it will mean that Time Machine (i.e. the snapshot feature) of 10.5 will be able to take snapshots without requiring a secondary file system to keep the copied (recoverable) blocks, as it does now with HFS+. To me, the secondary filesystem requirement makes Time Machine essentially useless on a laptop.
ZFS cannot become a part of Linux unless/until Sun releases it under a GPL-friendly license.
Microsoft, in its Windows Mobile platform, also gives carriers the ability to prevent users from installing applications that have not been approved by the carrier - just like Apple presumably will. See Windows Mobile 5.0 Application Security. This is why many T-Mobile users can't install third-party applications on their MDA/SDA devices without unlocking them, which is no trivial task.
The real solution here is to urge Congress and the FCC to force mobile phone carriers to allow users to purchase and connect any compatible equipment of their choice to the network - just like they did in the 1960s to Ma Bell.
You misunderstand the concept of hearsay in evidence law. Hearsay is cause for exclusion of a statement introduced for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted in the statement. (i.e., it would be excluded if the issue was whether the pills really did provide "male enhancement"). However, to introduce the email for the purpose of showing that it violated a law relating to UCE would not violate any evidence rule.
Just remember, Stephen Colbert said it first.
USB has had an isochronous mode since version 1.0. Remember USB speakers? Although they were not a big market hit, they used it. So do USB webcams and headsets.
Cox doesn't block you from sending out email over port 465, which is intended for submission of outgoing mail via SMTP.
[I am a law student, and not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.]
It's probably not a crime, but D-Link might be civilly liable to Mr. Henning-Kamp for damages on a state-law trespass to chattels theory. D-Link has offices in California, so they would be subject to suit there, even by a foreign citizen (since the harm arises, at least in part, out of D-Link's activities in the U.S.).
The elements of a trespass to chattels claim are:
(1) defendant intentionally and without authorization interfered with plaintiff's possessory interest in the computer system; and
(2) defendant's unauthorized use proximately resulted in damage to plaintiff.
See eBay, Inc. v. Bidder's Edge, Inc., 100 F.Supp.2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000).