This article just proves that an argument can be made, continuously, given enough money backs it.
Their hypothesis, as noted elsewhere, is that it's not economically feasible to switch away from the 'carbon economy'. The hypothesis ends there, but it should be read "it's not economically feasible, at the moment." The way our economy currently works, the full cost associated with energy generation is not paid by energy supplier nor demander. At some point, those external costs *are* paid, but usually later and by someone other than the people who used/supplied the energy. As long as that continues, there will always be someone making arguments against reality, such as this. This may change with regulation.
If there's life out there and life's possible to detect from a distance, then I'd bet we've already been spotted.
Granted, I don't mean humans, but the existence of life on our planet. Depending on how prevalent life is, that may or may not be interesting at all, in and of itself.
You may not like his ideas, but he doesn't flip flop on them.
I prefer policies backed by some kind of mainstream research/views to consistent ignorance. Paul does little more than sit in his office and dream up how he thinks the world should work. He either never exposes his opinions to criticism or never listens to criticism.
Granted, you can listen to criticism and remain unconvinced, but at some point he obviously stopped listening. How else do you explain his clinging onto patently false views of the world?
I don't remember anyone caring all that much about the hostage crew, all the way up to President Bush. If I remember, the Chinese forced Bush to give some kind of apology before they released the crew.
Fixed it for you. Clinton was out of the white house by the time this incident occurred.
From your own link:
The incident took place ten weeks after the inauguration of George W. Bush as president and was his first foreign policy crisis
Actually, I recently drove through New Mexico and was surprised by the green fields, grazing animals and tons of nice-looking farms/ranches along a long stretch of road. It was not what Looney Tunes said it would be (that was Arizona).
Actually, there's a good amount of agriculture in NM, at least as far south as San Antonio, NM. Since I've moved away, that's one of the top things I miss. Az and Nv both have places they live up to the baren stereotype better.
Preferably, a wireless set of USB ports (just some black box with two ports). They could sell a $50 "lapdesk" for the kb/mouse to sit on and feel proud of themselves, too...
Don't advertise features that you may later remove completely
That's a crucial point! It'd be like telling a girl "I was considering buying you a 5 kt diamond but I decided to buy you a 3 kt diamond instead and buy myself a computer w/the leftovers." Sometimes the backstory can ruin the deal.
I know I've seen recommendations to use ZFS raid over hardware, but that doesn't mean you must or even should. I could swear "use hardware before software" is an old sysadmin maxim from ages ago...but I could be wrong.
ZFS blows NTFS and ext4 out of the water. It's like comparing an 18-wheeler to a 1/2 ton truck. Every ReFS feature I've heard mentioned here is already implemented and used in production ZFS systems. Granted, you have to run FreeBSD or Solaris to access a ZFS pool locally. (I don't think there are any windows drivers or worthy Mac OS X drivers for ZFS, but it does work great for fileservers.)
-deduplication -on-volume compression -dynamic volume management -hot swap -prefetch -integrated volume/file system management -live 'growing' of volumes -per-file system settings (ability to turn on/off compression, network sharing, dedup, etc)
Re:A nice KDE implementation, but...
on
PC-BSD 9.0 Release
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Yeah, I'm glad you pointed all of those out.
In my experience, the pc-bsd installer is miles above the freebsd installer. (This is pre-bsdinstaller.) You can install root onto a zfs tank easily with the pc-bsd installer, and you can't as easily under the last freebsd installer I last used.
In any event, I appreciate PC-BSD. It's not a distribution in the mildly awkward Linux sense. It's more of a logical extension of FreeBSD than a drastic redesign. For a unix workstation, it's probably a good choice.
I took all the math for a B.S. in Computer Science. I don't consider myself a mathematician.
It takes years for someone to develop the essential skills to work on software development.
I'm glad you admitted that. I've met too many majors in college who didn't *get* that a minor is miles from a major in math.
I think CS suffers from it's own success. General computing power has become so cheap and effective that 'everyone wants a piece'. It's the invention of the assembly line all over again. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are this generation's Henry Ford (with license). Many, early-on, wanted to work on Ford's plants and I think we're seeing the same thing with CS. The odd thing is that I could swear we went through this back in the dot com era.
(Okay, that makes it almost too erie, considering there was a smaller depression that preceded the Great Depression...but just.)
So for now, let's not use compression on write-heavy volumes, where it adds next to benefit anyway. Problem solved or at least circumvented, no?
Yeah, and ZFS is still a major new feature to FreeBSD, regardless. I know people in the FreeBSD forums talk about running ZFS on root, but if you don't have the hardware you shouldn't run ZFS. We're in Unix land here, the OS isn't going to keep you from doing anything...but that doesn't mean you should!
You lost me when you made an analogy between a government's finances and a person's finances. I know Ron Paul and many others make this analogy, but it is still incorrect.
Read this and other entries from Krugman like it: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/keynesophobia/
I doubt any sane person objects to cutting fruitless wars.
What's the difference between a fruitful and fruitless war? They're all war and wind up in our troops committing atrocities and crimes against humanity.
I'm against war. Period. And any person who claims to respect life should hate war as well. War can produce nothing but wasted resources and lives.
Having said that, maybe the world needs a police force. Some international organization to say "no" to war, crimes against humanity, tyranny, and genocide. I liken how the US took out OBL to an example of what such "police force" ought to look like. No war, just a one-off act of justice.
The best solution is to go into a depression, raise taxes high, cut spending, sell off Alaska and most of the US assets, cut military pay, for a decade or so.
Wait...what? Think about what you just said for a while. How is that going to make our nation more wealthy over the long term? Sell off our assets? Sell our land? Tax everyone so that no international trade even exists?
That sounds like a recipe some other nation would suggest for the US. Of course your neighbor's going to tell you to sell him your front lawn! He'll charge you rent to park you car!
What? A new FreeBSD release and no body talks about the ZFS features in the release? I don't memorize version numbers, but I know the ZFS system has updated significantly between 8.2 and 9.0. Deduplication is in there, now, for instance.
Granted, the new installer is one of the bigger changes. sysinstall...I'm happy to see you go!
The problem is the 1 person, 1 vote system. If people could rank all the candidates then we wouldn't have a 2 party system. But because an individual voter can only vote once, there's only one way their vote can be cast. Ergo...the decision on who to vote for becomes binary. If not A then B. If B then not A.
If Candidate B is for X and X is an issue large enough for me to vote solely for...then B gets my vote. Unless, of course, another candidate comes along and agrees with X. Then both candidates have to find something they disagree on...and slowly this sort of process leads to only 2 parties putting forth only 2 candidates.
It's only a market failure if you believe that a handful of politicians and bureaucrats should be making choices for millions of individuals and families
Incorrect. Market failure refers to a market that either: a.) Could exist but doesn't because there are potential suppliers and demanders, but the nature of the market makes their agreeing on a transaction difficult/impossible. B.) Does exist but doesn't achieve an efficient outcome. The 'real estate bubble' is one example of a market failure. Market participants' expectations began to exceed rational expectations for future values on real estate, and therefore more resources were devoted to real estate than otherwise should have been.
There's more to it than what I'm describing and you're welcome to read up on market failure here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure ). Your belief that "a handful of politicians and bureaucrats should be making choices..." could potentially fall into my point a.) That would require market participants being able to resolve the specifics of the oil market efficiently. But, there's plenty of evidence contrary to that supposition. (I explained this point in an earlier post, so I wont repeat here.)
Slashdot Mirror
Those who do not read Karl Jaspers are fated to rewrite Karl Jaspers, poorly.
This article just proves that an argument can be made, continuously, given enough money backs it.
Their hypothesis, as noted elsewhere, is that it's not economically feasible to switch away from the 'carbon economy'. The hypothesis ends there, but it should be read "it's not economically feasible, at the moment." The way our economy currently works, the full cost associated with energy generation is not paid by energy supplier nor demander. At some point, those external costs *are* paid, but usually later and by someone other than the people who used/supplied the energy. As long as that continues, there will always be someone making arguments against reality, such as this. This may change with regulation.
If there's life out there and life's possible to detect from a distance, then I'd bet we've already been spotted.
Granted, I don't mean humans, but the existence of life on our planet. Depending on how prevalent life is, that may or may not be interesting at all, in and of itself.
You may not like his ideas, but he doesn't flip flop on them.
I prefer policies backed by some kind of mainstream research/views to consistent ignorance. Paul does little more than sit in his office and dream up how he thinks the world should work. He either never exposes his opinions to criticism or never listens to criticism.
Granted, you can listen to criticism and remain unconvinced, but at some point he obviously stopped listening. How else do you explain his clinging onto patently false views of the world?
I don't remember anyone caring all that much about the hostage crew, all the way up to President Bush. If I remember, the Chinese forced Bush to give some kind of apology before they released the crew.
Fixed it for you. Clinton was out of the white house by the time this incident occurred.
From your own link:
The incident took place ten weeks after the inauguration of George W. Bush as president and was his first foreign policy crisis
FPS is the only genre. /sarcasm
Actually, I recently drove through New Mexico and was surprised by the green fields, grazing animals and tons of nice-looking farms/ranches along a long stretch of road. It was not what Looney Tunes said it would be (that was Arizona).
Actually, there's a good amount of agriculture in NM, at least as far south as San Antonio, NM. Since I've moved away, that's one of the top things I miss. Az and Nv both have places they live up to the baren stereotype better.
Preferably, a wireless set of USB ports (just some black box with two ports). They could sell a $50 "lapdesk" for the kb/mouse to sit on and feel proud of themselves, too...
Don't advertise features that you may later remove completely
That's a crucial point! It'd be like telling a girl "I was considering buying you a 5 kt diamond but I decided to buy you a 3 kt diamond instead and buy myself a computer w/the leftovers." Sometimes the backstory can ruin the deal.
Include a way to hook up a keyboard and mouse, out of the box.
Why use software if you have hardware?
I know I've seen recommendations to use ZFS raid over hardware, but that doesn't mean you must or even should. I could swear "use hardware before software" is an old sysadmin maxim from ages ago...but I could be wrong.
ZFS blows NTFS and ext4 out of the water. It's like comparing an 18-wheeler to a 1/2 ton truck. Every ReFS feature I've heard mentioned here is already implemented and used in production ZFS systems. Granted, you have to run FreeBSD or Solaris to access a ZFS pool locally. (I don't think there are any windows drivers or worthy Mac OS X drivers for ZFS, but it does work great for fileservers.)
-deduplication
-on-volume compression
-dynamic volume management
-hot swap
-prefetch
-integrated volume/file system management
-live 'growing' of volumes
-per-file system settings (ability to turn on/off compression, network sharing, dedup, etc)
Yeah, I'm glad you pointed all of those out.
In my experience, the pc-bsd installer is miles above the freebsd installer. (This is pre-bsdinstaller.) You can install root onto a zfs tank easily with the pc-bsd installer, and you can't as easily under the last freebsd installer I last used.
In any event, I appreciate PC-BSD. It's not a distribution in the mildly awkward Linux sense. It's more of a logical extension of FreeBSD than a drastic redesign. For a unix workstation, it's probably a good choice.
DOS? c:\> ?
He is incorrect.
Who's the National Bureau of Economic Research going to agree with?
I took all the math for a B.S. in Computer Science. I don't consider myself a mathematician.
It takes years for someone to develop the essential skills to work on software development.
I'm glad you admitted that. I've met too many majors in college who didn't *get* that a minor is miles from a major in math.
I think CS suffers from it's own success. General computing power has become so cheap and effective that 'everyone wants a piece'. It's the invention of the assembly line all over again. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are this generation's Henry Ford (with license). Many, early-on, wanted to work on Ford's plants and I think we're seeing the same thing with CS. The odd thing is that I could swear we went through this back in the dot com era.
(Okay, that makes it almost too erie, considering there was a smaller depression that preceded the Great Depression...but just.)
So for now, let's not use compression on write-heavy volumes, where it adds next to benefit anyway. Problem solved or at least circumvented, no?
Yeah, and ZFS is still a major new feature to FreeBSD, regardless. I know people in the FreeBSD forums talk about running ZFS on root, but if you don't have the hardware you shouldn't run ZFS. We're in Unix land here, the OS isn't going to keep you from doing anything...but that doesn't mean you should!
You lost me when you made an analogy between a government's finances and a person's finances. I know Ron Paul and many others make this analogy, but it is still incorrect.
Read this and other entries from Krugman like it:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/19/keynesophobia/
I doubt any sane person objects to cutting fruitless wars.
What's the difference between a fruitful and fruitless war? They're all war and wind up in our troops committing atrocities and crimes against humanity.
I'm against war. Period. And any person who claims to respect life should hate war as well. War can produce nothing but wasted resources and lives.
Having said that, maybe the world needs a police force. Some international organization to say "no" to war, crimes against humanity, tyranny, and genocide. I liken how the US took out OBL to an example of what such "police force" ought to look like. No war, just a one-off act of justice.
The best solution is to go into a depression, raise taxes high, cut spending, sell off Alaska and most of the US assets, cut military pay, for a decade or so.
Wait...what? Think about what you just said for a while. How is that going to make our nation more wealthy over the long term? Sell off our assets? Sell our land? Tax everyone so that no international trade even exists?
That sounds like a recipe some other nation would suggest for the US. Of course your neighbor's going to tell you to sell him your front lawn! He'll charge you rent to park you car!
What? A new FreeBSD release and no body talks about the ZFS features in the release? I don't memorize version numbers, but I know the ZFS system has updated significantly between 8.2 and 9.0. Deduplication is in there, now, for instance.
Granted, the new installer is one of the bigger changes. sysinstall...I'm happy to see you go!
I could be wrong here, but I believe the Oxygen was an SGI box.
Anyone correct me? ...oh, wait.
The problem is the 1 person, 1 vote system. If people could rank all the candidates then we wouldn't have a 2 party system. But because an individual voter can only vote once, there's only one way their vote can be cast. Ergo...the decision on who to vote for becomes binary. If not A then B. If B then not A.
If Candidate B is for X and X is an issue large enough for me to vote solely for...then B gets my vote. Unless, of course, another candidate comes along and agrees with X. Then both candidates have to find something they disagree on...and slowly this sort of process leads to only 2 parties putting forth only 2 candidates.
There's math behind this reasoning.
New Mexico Tech has a set of summer camps. nmt.edu
They're all engineering/science/computer related. I'd chuck my kids off there, if I had them, without any reservations.
It's only a market failure if you believe that a handful of politicians and bureaucrats should be making choices for millions of individuals and families
Incorrect. Market failure refers to a market that either:
a.) Could exist but doesn't because there are potential suppliers and demanders, but the nature of the market makes their agreeing on a transaction difficult/impossible.
B.) Does exist but doesn't achieve an efficient outcome. The 'real estate bubble' is one example of a market failure. Market participants' expectations began to exceed rational expectations for future values on real estate, and therefore more resources were devoted to real estate than otherwise should have been.
There's more to it than what I'm describing and you're welcome to read up on market failure here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure ). Your belief that "a handful of politicians and bureaucrats should be making choices..." could potentially fall into my point a.) That would require market participants being able to resolve the specifics of the oil market efficiently. But, there's plenty of evidence contrary to that supposition. (I explained this point in an earlier post, so I wont repeat here.)