How do you think it is not a substantive limitation?
ZFS now only runs on servers. Yeah, they wanted to see it on digital cameras, but in the current market that's not real. Nobody who's currently using ZFS would blanch at the x86_64 requirement.
Sure, there are opportunities that will open up when it's ported further, but they're doing the right thing by getting it out where it'll get the most use.
No, really. I had a bunch of questions going in, and they were all answered. This is rare enough to warrant a shout out to Michael Larabel.
I disagree with some of his subjective claims like x86_64 being a substantive limitation or ZFS on Linux remaining niche (I guess that depends on how you define the niche...) but he got the national lab project, the zpool version, the Oracle (nee Sun) patent problem. Kudos.
FreeBSD 9 is probably where ZFS will wind up finding a proper home, I'm guessing.
Religion is politics, a means of controlling the distribution of wealth and authority within a population.
Allow me to propose that you're almost right here. I used to think this.
I now think the better explanation is that Religion, Government, and Markets are all approaches that can accomplish these goals. We see the Barbaric, the Platonic, and the Stoic approaches there.
because politics and 'saying we got it wrong' are 100% opposing concepts.
Generally, yes. Anything that threatens the viability of the State cannot be allowed. It's really only happened a handful of times, including:
alcohol is far worse for you and for society, but its tolerated. why? because it always HAS been.
No - Prohibition. This was also the most notable time that the Government admitted it was wrong.
Still nobody in power questions why Alcohol Prohibition was required as a Constitutional Amendment but Marijuana Prohibition is not. The Supreme Court won't touch this the same way they won't reverse Slaughterhouse - so much of the Government apparatus is built upon these premises that righting the wrong is more dangerous to the continuance of the State than leaving it be wrong. They know and admit this.
We Americans are entirely too focused on nudity being "bad", which I chalk up to too many people who can't separate their religion and their politics.
Look, we need these religious ideas in order to keep the population down. We're a nomadic desert tribe - if people are just fucking all the time they're going to have too many kids, and food and water are scarce. What we need are a relatively few number of bloodthirsty warriors to take land and expand our territory.
Oh, wait, no, that was 6000 years ago and now we have birth control and live in a resources-rich part of the world. So, maybe we ought to update our thinking and do a bit more fucking and a little less killing.
Oh, boy, now I'm goin' to hell! Until then, somebody should lock me in a cage for that kind of crazy talk. And if anybody tries this crap on TV, a financial stoning is in order.
And plugging in is easier, as the plug will "find" its way in.
Definitely. I got a pair of these video players for the kids and was relieved to see they came with Mini-USB. I have Micro- on my cell phone, and it's a total pain in the ass to plug in to charge. My wife's too, it's not just my phone.
They're so hard to put in I regularly found myself thinking I had it in backwards, and trying the other way (but 50/50 that was a wrong assumption). I just put silver marker on one side of the USB cable so I'd know to keep trying until it goes in right.
I heard something about the EU dictating Micro-USB as a standard, so we're probably screwed on this one.
Other than for communication with Chinese. what if anything in efficiency does Chinese offer over English?
Their newspapers ought to be shorter on average, I think. I suppose that depends on how many Chinese characters are required to express a concept. There are fewer characters than words in English, but I don't know what level of precision they achieve. English tends to be one of the more precise languages, so it's not a comparison against average latin script languages, though.
If there's source code behind that blob, then how could they follow their principles and say it's ok?
There's source code behind every piece of hardware that uses an IC. An IC is just software reduced to silicon for speedy execution. Even memory has logic on it these days. Nobody hand-designs logic gates these days outside an EE101 class.
Does FSF buy hardware from companies who distribute hardware without source? How can they do that if they're following their principles?
I suspect the answer is they take the highest-minded approach possible that doesn't prevent them from fulfilling their mission and they mean to work towards their ultimate goal. Which is the same thing Fedora does. The difference is Fedora doesn't give FSF hell for buying proprietary hardware.
If PC's adopted an OpenFirmware-like model the distros could push the job of firmware updates off to the end-user/manufacturer relationship with an appropriate toolkit. FSF would be a natural entity to lobby for such change.
You could give the fire dept of Rochester the entire NY state budget for equipment and you wouldn't get half of what they'd need for every conceivable emergency.
And that would be a silly thing to do. But in this case, the City government built a hydrogen filling station. It would not be silly for the fire department to be involved with that project and procure the necessary equipment to deal with a fire there.
FSF's non-blob criteria is incompatible with being able to boot modern PC's on modern CPU's. Good job, guys. Fedora, on the other hand, remains as free as possible a distro for modern PC's. I'll be interested to see how hurd deals with this problem.
If this was really a concern they'd work hard on advancing the PC architecture to the point that it didn't need such reliance on firmware uploaders. I've never seen FSF do anything like that. Perhaps I missed it, but it seems like it's just ego-inflating to always have something bad to say about everybody.
Since everybody is asking, yeah, there are daylight IR ('night vision') goggles and they can detect very small temperature differences. Here's one from a quick Google search. Here's an image of daylight and minor temperature differences (compared to a hydrogen fire).
You can get an energy auditor to come out to your house and image it to look for heating or cooling leaks with this kind of gear. Their less-fancy gear is in the $3500-ish range, the fancy binoculars are probably more, but, again, not out of line with fire-fighting equipment. There's a company that makes helmet-mounted versions for finding children in housefires.
Don't let me spoil the fear-mongering about hydrogen though.
Everybody who's not a tetrachromat is "color-vision deficient".
I have a color vision I haven't found a name for yet - most colors are discernible with enough of it, but many aren't in small samples. I can also see pretty well in almost-total darkness (my job in the car at night is to point out all the animals standing by the side of the road). I suspect I have 'too many' rods and 'not enough' cones, but generally there may be more variation in color vision that a few small categories describe. So lots of the population may have 'deficiencies', depending on how that's measured/defined. The dot-card tests call out a few specifics, but what else isn't measured?
No news yet if the hard to see flames of hydrogen combustion contributed to this delay.
So, you'd think if they went to the trouble of building this that the local fire department would have been involved and procured the necessary equipment, say a pair of night vision goggles so that a man on the truck could see the flames.
Outfitting each firefighter with the right training and equipment won't be cheap, but neither are ladder trucks.
I'm an American, so I don't live under a tyrannical gov't I live under a representative gov't.
Consider the situation where you want to buy a piece of land. You hire an agent to represent you in this transaction. This is common, and accepted as a good practice.
Now, along comes another man who also wants to buy that same piece of land. He approaches the same agent.
In every rule of society, that agent needs to turn down the second man. There's a conflict of interest - he can't possibly represent the best interests of both men to the best of his abilities. If he took the second job, he would be working against the interest of one of the men while claiming to represent him. This is unfair, dishonest, unjust, or illegal, depending on the situation.
The same situation occurs in a representative Republic. The best one can hope for is for a representative to minimize broad-based damage, but at any given time, he will necessarily be representing some of his constituents with his votes, and betraying others. It's simply not possible for him to represent his constituents consistently. At worst, he completely ignores them altogether. Calling that man 'my representative' would be occasionally to constantly inaccurate for any given voter.
I think they should go "Out of my way, plebes!" in a condescending voice.
No, it should say, "I've given up hot showers," because domestic hot water accounts for 40% of home energy use and home energy emissions dwarf automotive emissions.
Oh, wait, no they haven't. But, uhm, because.. oh, hell I'm bad at this.
Relatively current events counterexample A: Terry Childs
He may have bucked the chain of command, but if his employer had sat him down, said, "look, Terry, we think you'd be better off somewhere else - we're going to keep you on until you find a better opportunity, and we're going to help you do that," he would have probably said, "yeah, but you have nobody else here who can handle this thing. You're going to need to hire a firm to manage this or get some better talent on staff," which seemed to be his motivating concern. And so they probably would have done that, and nobody would have gone to jail.
Instead it seemed like a "give us the passwords and um, no you don't need to clean out your desk, why?" kind of scenario. I'm not meaning to absolve Childs of incorrect behavior, but a little Golden Rule would have gone a long way there. I think this is what the GP meant by not disgruntling the employees.
Ok, then tell me why before blurting out an unaccredited statement from the blue.
Often a thesis statement precedes the evidence. It's very standard English construction.
Bacteria aren't people.
Neither are pluripotent stem cells or blastocysts.
I think you're deliberately missing the point. Human blastocysts are human, the DNA settles this. Bacteria are quite clearly not human. Whether the blastocysts are alive is the question at hand.
Sperm can't grow into a human.
If they're coupled with an ovum they can. Ever heard of sperm banks?
You were talking about the destruction of un-coupled sperm. Again, they can't grow into a human.
then it's a human being, at one stage of development.
And you think my arguments are weak. Go look up "non sequitur" again. This statement has no logical connection to your previous one.
This is the very crux of the matter for those who are concerned. Of course it has a logical connection - some people believe that it is a living human deserving of full protections. You can't wish that away or pretend to be too obtuse to recognize it.
Defining 'life' is tricky.
And it's also irrelevant to this conversation, unless you're talking about "Human Life."
Of course we are, that's the subject of the whole debate.
Should we treat the suffering of an orangutan or dolphin any different than the suffering of the non-sentient brain impaired of our species, or even the non-brain-impaired, just because the latter looks like us?
Of course, this is a fundamental premise of our society and system of justice, no matter what your take on embryo research is. Killing a bull, even painfully, is not a crime (in fact, it's bragged about on product labeling). Killing a handicapped child will get you life to death, depending on jurisdiction.
For me, life is anything that can suffer.
Oh, you have a working definition of suffering? That's escaped philosophers for centuries.
Positing that Humans are a higher form of life, other than the fact that we're sapient, is just cruel anthropocentrism and has led to the full scale destruction of the ecosystems that made us and sustains us.
Full-scale? Strange the world doesn't seem dead... yep, just checked, my forest is quite healthy. You're a radical vegan localvore, I presume?
Consider a book, a piece of paper, a pen and some ink. You copy that book. But that's an abstraction - what are you really doing? You're arranging your property in some fashion. You own the ink, you own the paper. You're putting your ink in certain places on your paper.
So, Copyright, when deconstructed, is a promise to exact retributive violence again people who arrange their property in certain ways. The beneficiary is approximately one person, the threatened are, in this case, about 300,000,000 people.
There may be a narrow utilitarian benefit in certain cases, but it's not clear at all that there's a net benefit, and the method of achieving that possible benefit is reprehensible. Unfortunately some business models depend on the system. Oh, well.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be intentionally dense. The majority of the market that can help these guys refine their code is fine with x86_64.
Now, why he waited 5 years to sue is beyond me
He's working on something and needs a patent cross-licensing deal to do it?
None have been filed since it was production-ready last year.
It's not. Yet. There are many reports of lock-ups with uptimes on the order of a week. Soon, I hope, but don't set people up to hate on it.
Besides, what would they sue over? The FreeBSD team using code that Sun deliberately and explicitly licensed for such things?
It's not Sun you need to worry about, it's NetApp.
How do you think it is not a substantive limitation?
ZFS now only runs on servers. Yeah, they wanted to see it on digital cameras, but in the current market that's not real. Nobody who's currently using ZFS would blanch at the x86_64 requirement.
Sure, there are opportunities that will open up when it's ported further, but they're doing the right thing by getting it out where it'll get the most use.
No, really. I had a bunch of questions going in, and they were all answered. This is rare enough to warrant a shout out to Michael Larabel.
I disagree with some of his subjective claims like x86_64 being a substantive limitation or ZFS on Linux remaining niche (I guess that depends on how you define the niche...) but he got the national lab project, the zpool version, the Oracle (nee Sun) patent problem. Kudos.
FreeBSD 9 is probably where ZFS will wind up finding a proper home, I'm guessing.
For all the reasons you state these should be lighter too. Real usable 3D goggles now seem feasible.
Religion is politics, a means of controlling the distribution of wealth and authority within a population.
Allow me to propose that you're almost right here. I used to think this.
I now think the better explanation is that Religion, Government, and Markets are all approaches that can accomplish these goals. We see the Barbaric, the Platonic, and the Stoic approaches there.
Really, nothing has changed since Xeno.
because politics and 'saying we got it wrong' are 100% opposing concepts.
Generally, yes. Anything that threatens the viability of the State cannot be allowed. It's really only happened a handful of times, including:
alcohol is far worse for you and for society, but its tolerated. why? because it always HAS been.
No - Prohibition. This was also the most notable time that the Government admitted it was wrong.
Still nobody in power questions why Alcohol Prohibition was required as a Constitutional Amendment but Marijuana Prohibition is not. The Supreme Court won't touch this the same way they won't reverse Slaughterhouse - so much of the Government apparatus is built upon these premises that righting the wrong is more dangerous to the continuance of the State than leaving it be wrong. They know and admit this.
We Americans are entirely too focused on nudity being "bad", which I chalk up to too many people who can't separate their religion and their politics.
Look, we need these religious ideas in order to keep the population down. We're a nomadic desert tribe - if people are just fucking all the time they're going to have too many kids, and food and water are scarce. What we need are a relatively few number of bloodthirsty warriors to take land and expand our territory.
Oh, wait, no, that was 6000 years ago and now we have birth control and live in a resources-rich part of the world. So, maybe we ought to update our thinking and do a bit more fucking and a little less killing.
Oh, boy, now I'm goin' to hell! Until then, somebody should lock me in a cage for that kind of crazy talk. And if anybody tries this crap on TV, a financial stoning is in order.
YHWH, I can't wait until Free-to-Air TV dies.
And plugging in is easier, as the plug will "find" its way in.
Definitely. I got a pair of these video players for the kids and was relieved to see they came with Mini-USB. I have Micro- on my cell phone, and it's a total pain in the ass to plug in to charge. My wife's too, it's not just my phone.
They're so hard to put in I regularly found myself thinking I had it in backwards, and trying the other way (but 50/50 that was a wrong assumption). I just put silver marker on one side of the USB cable so I'd know to keep trying until it goes in right.
I heard something about the EU dictating Micro-USB as a standard, so we're probably screwed on this one.
So, in reality the US has not been invaded since 1941-44.
You're talking about incursions, not invasions. There was a rather significant incursion in 2001 as well.
Specifically Milla Jovovich bike seat cover.
Senno ecto gammat.
Other than for communication with Chinese. what if anything in efficiency does Chinese offer over English?
Their newspapers ought to be shorter on average, I think. I suppose that depends on how many Chinese characters are required to express a concept. There are fewer characters than words in English, but I don't know what level of precision they achieve. English tends to be one of the more precise languages, so it's not a comparison against average latin script languages, though.
If there's source code behind that blob, then how could they follow their principles and say it's ok?
There's source code behind every piece of hardware that uses an IC. An IC is just software reduced to silicon for speedy execution. Even memory has logic on it these days. Nobody hand-designs logic gates these days outside an EE101 class.
Does FSF buy hardware from companies who distribute hardware without source? How can they do that if they're following their principles?
I suspect the answer is they take the highest-minded approach possible that doesn't prevent them from fulfilling their mission and they mean to work towards their ultimate goal. Which is the same thing Fedora does. The difference is Fedora doesn't give FSF hell for buying proprietary hardware.
If PC's adopted an OpenFirmware-like model the distros could push the job of firmware updates off to the end-user/manufacturer relationship with an appropriate toolkit. FSF would be a natural entity to lobby for such change.
You could give the fire dept of Rochester the entire NY state budget for equipment and you wouldn't get half of what they'd need for every conceivable emergency.
And that would be a silly thing to do. But in this case, the City government built a hydrogen filling station. It would not be silly for the fire department to be involved with that project and procure the necessary equipment to deal with a fire there.
FSF's non-blob criteria is incompatible with being able to boot modern PC's on modern CPU's. Good job, guys. Fedora, on the other hand, remains as free as possible a distro for modern PC's. I'll be interested to see how hurd deals with this problem.
If this was really a concern they'd work hard on advancing the PC architecture to the point that it didn't need such reliance on firmware uploaders. I've never seen FSF do anything like that. Perhaps I missed it, but it seems like it's just ego-inflating to always have something bad to say about everybody.
Clever. Good in a pinch, I'd reckon, but touchy SOP for a fire crew.
Since everybody is asking, yeah, there are daylight IR ('night vision') goggles and they can detect very small temperature differences. Here's one from a quick Google search. Here's an image of daylight and minor temperature differences (compared to a hydrogen fire).
You can get an energy auditor to come out to your house and image it to look for heating or cooling leaks with this kind of gear. Their less-fancy gear is in the $3500-ish range, the fancy binoculars are probably more, but, again, not out of line with fire-fighting equipment. There's a company that makes helmet-mounted versions for finding children in housefires.
Don't let me spoil the fear-mongering about hydrogen though.
"Color vision deficiency"
Everybody who's not a tetrachromat is "color-vision deficient".
I have a color vision I haven't found a name for yet - most colors are discernible with enough of it, but many aren't in small samples. I can also see pretty well in almost-total darkness (my job in the car at night is to point out all the animals standing by the side of the road). I suspect I have 'too many' rods and 'not enough' cones, but generally there may be more variation in color vision that a few small categories describe. So lots of the population may have 'deficiencies', depending on how that's measured/defined. The dot-card tests call out a few specifics, but what else isn't measured?
No news yet if the hard to see flames of hydrogen combustion contributed to this delay.
So, you'd think if they went to the trouble of building this that the local fire department would have been involved and procured the necessary equipment, say a pair of night vision goggles so that a man on the truck could see the flames.
Outfitting each firefighter with the right training and equipment won't be cheap, but neither are ladder trucks.
I'm an American, so I don't live under a tyrannical gov't I live under a representative gov't.
Consider the situation where you want to buy a piece of land. You hire an agent to represent you in this transaction. This is common, and accepted as a good practice.
Now, along comes another man who also wants to buy that same piece of land. He approaches the same agent.
In every rule of society, that agent needs to turn down the second man. There's a conflict of interest - he can't possibly represent the best interests of both men to the best of his abilities. If he took the second job, he would be working against the interest of one of the men while claiming to represent him. This is unfair, dishonest, unjust, or illegal, depending on the situation.
The same situation occurs in a representative Republic. The best one can hope for is for a representative to minimize broad-based damage, but at any given time, he will necessarily be representing some of his constituents with his votes, and betraying others. It's simply not possible for him to represent his constituents consistently. At worst, he completely ignores them altogether. Calling that man 'my representative' would be occasionally to constantly inaccurate for any given voter.
I think they should go "Out of my way, plebes!" in a condescending voice.
No, it should say, "I've given up hot showers," because domestic hot water accounts for 40% of home energy use and home energy emissions dwarf automotive emissions.
Oh, wait, no they haven't. But, uhm, because.. oh, hell I'm bad at this.
Relatively current events counterexample A: Terry Childs
He may have bucked the chain of command, but if his employer had sat him down, said, "look, Terry, we think you'd be better off somewhere else - we're going to keep you on until you find a better opportunity, and we're going to help you do that," he would have probably said, "yeah, but you have nobody else here who can handle this thing. You're going to need to hire a firm to manage this or get some better talent on staff," which seemed to be his motivating concern. And so they probably would have done that, and nobody would have gone to jail.
Instead it seemed like a "give us the passwords and um, no you don't need to clean out your desk, why?" kind of scenario. I'm not meaning to absolve Childs of incorrect behavior, but a little Golden Rule would have gone a long way there. I think this is what the GP meant by not disgruntling the employees.
Ok, then tell me why before blurting out an unaccredited statement from the blue.
Often a thesis statement precedes the evidence. It's very standard English construction.
Neither are pluripotent stem cells or blastocysts.
I think you're deliberately missing the point. Human blastocysts are human, the DNA settles this. Bacteria are quite clearly not human. Whether the blastocysts are alive is the question at hand.
If they're coupled with an ovum they can. Ever heard of sperm banks?
You were talking about the destruction of un-coupled sperm. Again, they can't grow into a human.
And you think my arguments are weak. Go look up "non sequitur" again. This statement has no logical connection to your previous one.
This is the very crux of the matter for those who are concerned. Of course it has a logical connection - some people believe that it is a living human deserving of full protections. You can't wish that away or pretend to be too obtuse to recognize it.
And it's also irrelevant to this conversation, unless you're talking about "Human Life."
Of course we are, that's the subject of the whole debate.
Should we treat the suffering of an orangutan or dolphin any different than the suffering of the non-sentient brain impaired of our species, or even the non-brain-impaired, just because the latter looks like us?
Of course, this is a fundamental premise of our society and system of justice, no matter what your take on embryo research is. Killing a bull, even painfully, is not a crime (in fact, it's bragged about on product labeling). Killing a handicapped child will get you life to death, depending on jurisdiction.
For me, life is anything that can suffer.
Oh, you have a working definition of suffering? That's escaped philosophers for centuries.
Positing that Humans are a higher form of life, other than the fact that we're sapient, is just cruel anthropocentrism and has led to the full scale destruction of the ecosystems that made us and sustains us.
Full-scale? Strange the world doesn't seem dead ... yep, just checked, my forest is quite healthy. You're a radical vegan localvore, I presume?
I'd advise you yo do the same.
I'm not funding any 'public' research.
Replace with "To enrich the sciences, arts, and culture of the People, by securing for fourteen years
That turns out not to work to that end either.
See here or here.
Consider a book, a piece of paper, a pen and some ink. You copy that book. But that's an abstraction - what are you really doing? You're arranging your property in some fashion. You own the ink, you own the paper. You're putting your ink in certain places on your paper.
So, Copyright, when deconstructed, is a promise to exact retributive violence again people who arrange their property in certain ways. The beneficiary is approximately one person, the threatened are, in this case, about 300,000,000 people.
There may be a narrow utilitarian benefit in certain cases, but it's not clear at all that there's a net benefit, and the method of achieving that possible benefit is reprehensible. Unfortunately some business models depend on the system. Oh, well.