Sure, but that is another reason to be skeptical about the proposed message: it respects the spacing in the original message. A message with equal blocks of text suggests that the original spacing was removed, so anything that has the same spacing would be suspect.
What is the number of jobs PER CAPITA? The population has risen considerably, so the fact that the absolute number of jobs is higher doesn't really mean that much.
Sure - I'm not suggesting that this will happen. However, productivity has been continuously rising for decades, and automation has been taking over more and more jobs. It only seems logical to extend that to the point where automation takes over all jobs.
And I think the possibility of a robot revolution would be a real one. I'm not sure that a robot overlord would be any worse than a human overlord. In fact, our ability to create a sustainable world in which only a few people are able to own anything probably will have a direct bearing on our ability to create a similar world governed by robots. A robot would have no more incentive to slaughter every human alive than a CEO would.
You're failing to mention that the workers have a fundamental responsibility in all of this.
If a worker is going to be replaced with a machine, freeing him up to embark on more valuable productive pursuits, he has to make himself CAPABLE of such pursuits. That is HIS responsibility - it is not the responsibility of the wealthy to simply GIVE him additional wealth when he has made himself obsolete by failing to learn new skills or trades.
And what if the worker is simply incapable of doing that. Do you really think that the average Walmart employee is going to start writing linux kernel drivers?
My favorite analogy is this - come up with a work program for a mentally retarded man with no arms or legs. The only difference between such a man and yourself is a matter of degree. Somewhere on the continuum of creativity, intelligence, and athleticism every human on earth falls. Below some point in each area there isn't much point in employing somebody. Progress tends to continually raise the bar in all three.
Arguing that those with wealth have no duty to those without it is like arguing that those without wealth have no duty to keep mobs from lynching those with wealth. Such a society simply degenerates to might makes right.
Just one of those issues with running an open-source OS published by the vendor of a proprietary OS. OpenSUSE and Fedora tend to be treated like guinea pigs.
And this isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you're a RHEL shop then you probably want to have some Fedora test systems to get a sense for how your applications will operate in future versions.
If you want something free and stable, you run something like Debian or CentOS, or whatever.
Lots of people have been doing testing on btrfs. Filesystems aren't so much declared as stable as they become used as stable. Unless the fix changes the on-disk format in some non-backwards-compatible way, it doesn't really matter when the fix gets deployed. Most likely the fixes will be in git in a week or two.
Oh, and anybody who really wants to run btrfs should probably be running the git version anyway. They're doing so many bugfixes per month that this is one of those rare times where the mainline kernel sources are likely to be in much worse shape. Once things settle down that will obviously change.
btrfs is a step in the right direction, but even now, Linux does not have production-level deduplication (which even Windows has, for crying out loud), encryption, snapshots, or something even close to supplanting LVM2.
Well, that might be why they're working on btrfs, then.:) I'm not sure about encryption, but everything else on your list is something likely to be in the feature list at some point. It obviously isn't stable yet, but that is a matter of time, and if somebody wanted to make a push to get something stable they'd get there a lot faster with btrfs than reinventing something else.
btrfs already supports reflink copies (think of a copy that behaves like a hard link on initial copy, but each file tracks its own separate changes, sharing file regions that have not changed). That isn't quite deduplication, but I imagine that somebody will get around to implementing that once things settle down (more important issues like not losing your data to work on right now). If you wanted to do a scan and de-duplicate pass that would be pretty easy, even implemented in userspace (just find files with common regions, delete one, reflink it from the other, and replay the modifications). Obviously directly manipulating the filesystem would be more efficient, and you'd want to build in some kind of index to avoid scans in the filesystem as well.
Snapshots are already fully supported on btrfs - and can be done at the level of the root or any folder within the filesystem. A file-level snapshot is just a reflink. Snapshots are first-class citizens and can be mounted, resnapshotted, etc.
Btrfs can also have quotas at any level of the filesystem, so that basically covers your lvm2 need. It can expand across multiple storage devices, with a few raid-like options supported now, and with more likely to come. You can also tag individual files and tell the system to store just that file with increased redundancy.
Btrfs is basically the future of linux filesystems - I don't really hear anybody disputing that. It just isn't quite the present, hence ongoing efforts around ext4.
Not sure about that - Google Calendar Sync is their application for syncing an Outlook calendar with Google Calendar.
Of course, the fact that it almost never works correctly for me does not help. It seems to only work right for one-time appointments that do not include invitations. In the business world that is just about none of them.
I've yet to find a program that really works properly for this and it drives me nuts. Yes, I know that Outlook is lousy, and I'd drop it if I could, but to do so I'd have to drop my employer. Given that, it would be nice to have some way to sync my calendar...
Airliners generally use inertial guidance, supplemented by a variety of navigational sources. These include GPS and beacons.
Sure, navigating by beacon manually is a bit of a pain as you have to constantly dial new ones as you pass out of range of old ones, and failures of beacons and their non-replacement makes coverage more spotty. However, an airliner's RNAV system knows where it is at all times and what beacons should be in range. It will tune two beacons at all times and anytime it can triangulate a position (which is almost all the time) it updates its position accordingly. It also uses GPS in the same manner.
RNAV predates GPS - airliners maintained inertial position and updated automatically by triangulating beacons before GPS became standard on aircraft.
As far as ATC goes - they use radar RIGHT NOW, but the plans are to move to ADS-B, which uses the position reported by the aircraft. That is generally more accurate than radar anyway, but obviously it is vulnerable to GPS spoofing, assuming the plane doesn't check the GPS position against other navigation sources.
I just love the thought of getting linux to boot with an nfs root filesystem using kerberos for authentication... If you don't implement kerberos, then it is insecure, which was half my complaint with nfs in the first place.
The GPL does allow you to recover your distribution costs for the source. So, you email the developer, he digs up the source and emails it back to you. Let's say this entire transaction takes ten minutes of his time. If the developer makes $50/hr (which isn't much), then you just used about $10 worth of his time. So, $3.99 to cover distribution really isn't that much.
The first person to get a copy of the source can of course legally post it on their own website for the entire world to download for free, if they wish. The source is still licensed under the GPL.
I too wish there were more 4:3 options in the market. I don't have any technical issues with 16:9. However, on my desk there is nothing but empty space above my monitor, but there is a ton of junk on either side. So, wider just ends up meaning shorter.
I guess my next monitor will have to be one of those stand-up-sideways ones.
If they link to existing GPL code then any binaries they build have to be GPL licensed - agreed. If the entire project is new code or code they hold copyright to (which might be all the existing code for all I know) then they don't. Do they require copyright assignments?
If they just distribute source (which obviously is useless for the Windows Store) then they can mix all the GPL and non-GPL they want to as long as each goes in its own files. Of course, nobody can distribute any binaries derived from this source. I guess I'm spoiled by Gentoo - where there is no need to distribute anything but upstream unmodified tarballs since all the magic happens after all the distribution is done.:)
You're assuming that you're smarter than my robot builder. What if my robot builder has an IQ of 600, and it designs one with an IQ of 600k and so on?
I have a feeling that AI on the level of humans isn't that far off, and once somebody can figure out how to achieve human-level AI it is just a mater of time before superhuman AI comes along. Pretty quickly the AI machines will be building smarter machines whose intelligence only an AI could comprehend. So, assuming the AIs are still subjugated we need to figure out how to get them to work for all of us, unless we just want whoever invents the AI to just treat the rest of us as pets...
Obviously what I was getting at, though I'm not sure money is the problem - just how you get it. Money is just a convenience for barter. I want a phone and I have the ability to program. Rather than finding somebody who has a phone who wants me to write software for them, I can instead work for anybody and get money, and then use that money to buy a phone.
There will always be some need to allocate resources, so even if everybody lives off of welfare checks there will be some kind of money.
The problem is that under capitalism you make money either by owning a productive investment, or by labor. The latter is going to go away, so unless you're born into wealth in a capitalist society there will be no way to obtain money (you need money in the first place to invest). Basic income would probably solve the whole problem, probably combined with some form of population control unless those robots can build arcologies for us..
Why would you hire a person to design a robot when a robot could design a new robot much more effectively?
And who would pay for music written by a human, when music written by a machine sounds better? The performance of a robot would be better in every way than one by a human. Robots will give better backrubs, and they'll come up with better logos.
There isn't anything on your list that won't one day be done by machines far more effectively than they'll ever be done by a person.
The trap you're falling into is that you consider mental or creative labor somehow immune to automation. The problem with this is that not everybody can do mental or creative labor, just as 100 years ago not everybody could do physical labor, and one day machines will do everything done by people. Your brain is nothing more than a complicated network - one that is perfectly capable of being replicated by a machine and improved upon - likely by a machine.
I know somebody who has at various points in time owned two businesses. One was a daycare, and the other was a service that cared for pets while their owners were away.
Her observation was that people care WAY more about their pets than their kids. Granted, some of it might be that the one service was more of a commodity in our society, and the other was more of a luxury. A better comparison might be between a pet care system and a nanny service. However, I suspect that the results wouldn't be much different.
Pets are less demanding all-around, and if you don't want one you can just turn it in. Pets have evolved accordingly - those who are less cute/cuddly don't get as much opportunity to eat/breed. Humans rarely base mating decisions on how well their selected mate treated their parents.
How is a newborn supposed to buy shares in corporation? Do you propose to give everybody some seed money and then let Darwin have at them? Or do you propose anybody not born to well-off and generous parents simply starve?
Socialism really seems to be the only reasonable solution.
or we give up on the idea that the only way to pay for things is to work for them.
That's exactly what a market economy gives you: as robots produce more and more stuff, the stuff gets cheaper and you need to work less and less for it.
Agreed, 100%. However, my point was that you still need to have money to buy any of it. Maybe you'll be able to buy a home for 15 cents, but where are you going to get the 15 cents to buy it with? For that you either need to own capital, or have a job. Either you own capital or you don't, if you don't already have it, then you're back where you started. Having a job means being able to do something better than a machine. Right now most humans are more cost-effective than machines for getting things done, however over time that will change.
Imagine somebody born with no arms or legs, and mentally retarded besides. They'll never have 15 cents unless somebody just donates it to them. They'll never be employed. Now, what is the difference between them and you, other than a matter of degree? Some are stronger than others, and some are smarter than others. If your abilities are below some threshold, you'll never get a job. As automation improves, that threshold simply will get moved higher and higher, unless no human meets the threshold. Your body does nothing that can't be done with a sufficient amount of servos and wiring once you know how to put it all together, and sooner or later some combination of somebody and something will figure it out.
At that point there will be no income from human labor. That leaves only the ownership of capital - either you're born into a family of means or you aren't. Or, we change the model to something else.
Uh, walk around in a US city sometime and see how "ok" it is turning out. It is easy to say all is well when the only people you talk to are those who were accepted into a college (let alone being able to afford it), and working for $50k+/yr.
The average American isn't really capable of getting a job paying that well - the median individual income in the US is only $24k/yr.
Right now robots can do a subset of a human's physical, intellectual, and creative capabilities. Eventually they'll be able to perform a superset of a human's physical, intellectual, and creative capabilities. When that happens there will be no reason for anybody to hire a human to do anything. There won't be ANYTHING you can do that a robot won't be able to do better. A robot will even be better at imagining a new job that robots can't already do and designing a robot to do it. Robots will become better authors, painters, philosophers, judges, politicians, and even friends.
Sure, that is probably 50 years out at least, but right now we're just on a continuous slope to the point where no human has a job. Sooner or later we might want to re-organize the economy in recognition of this.
I will tend to agree that from what I've heard at the executive levels in big corporations things can get a bit out of hand as well. Perhaps the fact that law firms are much smaller and half the employees report to an "executive" is the reason for the issues being more widespread. Perhaps it is money as you suggest. I think another common feature is that at that level those making hiring decisions tend to be fairly networked so if you sue one of them chances are you'll never get another job at a similar level again.
I've yet to see it written down in full. Nevertheless, those around you will use force upon you to ensure your compliance with it. In the end that's all government is, but I've yet to see a better way to live. To try to get rid of government is to simply accept the government of the local warlord.
Re:Support for trim on software raid?
on
Linux 3.7 Released
·
· Score: 1
Yup. Just in time for us all to avoid using md in favor of btrfs it seems.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but that is another reason to be skeptical about the proposed message: it respects the spacing in the original message. A message with equal blocks of text suggests that the original spacing was removed, so anything that has the same spacing would be suspect.
That doesn't rule it out.
What is the number of jobs PER CAPITA? The population has risen considerably, so the fact that the absolute number of jobs is higher doesn't really mean that much.
Sure - I'm not suggesting that this will happen. However, productivity has been continuously rising for decades, and automation has been taking over more and more jobs. It only seems logical to extend that to the point where automation takes over all jobs.
And I think the possibility of a robot revolution would be a real one. I'm not sure that a robot overlord would be any worse than a human overlord. In fact, our ability to create a sustainable world in which only a few people are able to own anything probably will have a direct bearing on our ability to create a similar world governed by robots. A robot would have no more incentive to slaughter every human alive than a CEO would.
You're failing to mention that the workers have a fundamental responsibility in all of this.
If a worker is going to be replaced with a machine, freeing him up to embark on more valuable productive pursuits, he has to make himself CAPABLE of such pursuits. That is HIS responsibility - it is not the responsibility of the wealthy to simply GIVE him additional wealth when he has made himself obsolete by failing to learn new skills or trades.
And what if the worker is simply incapable of doing that. Do you really think that the average Walmart employee is going to start writing linux kernel drivers?
My favorite analogy is this - come up with a work program for a mentally retarded man with no arms or legs. The only difference between such a man and yourself is a matter of degree. Somewhere on the continuum of creativity, intelligence, and athleticism every human on earth falls. Below some point in each area there isn't much point in employing somebody. Progress tends to continually raise the bar in all three.
Arguing that those with wealth have no duty to those without it is like arguing that those without wealth have no duty to keep mobs from lynching those with wealth. Such a society simply degenerates to might makes right.
Just one of those issues with running an open-source OS published by the vendor of a proprietary OS. OpenSUSE and Fedora tend to be treated like guinea pigs.
And this isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you're a RHEL shop then you probably want to have some Fedora test systems to get a sense for how your applications will operate in future versions.
If you want something free and stable, you run something like Debian or CentOS, or whatever.
Lots of people have been doing testing on btrfs. Filesystems aren't so much declared as stable as they become used as stable. Unless the fix changes the on-disk format in some non-backwards-compatible way, it doesn't really matter when the fix gets deployed. Most likely the fixes will be in git in a week or two.
Oh, and anybody who really wants to run btrfs should probably be running the git version anyway. They're doing so many bugfixes per month that this is one of those rare times where the mainline kernel sources are likely to be in much worse shape. Once things settle down that will obviously change.
btrfs is a step in the right direction, but even now, Linux does not have production-level deduplication (which even Windows has, for crying out loud), encryption, snapshots, or something even close to supplanting LVM2.
Well, that might be why they're working on btrfs, then. :) I'm not sure about encryption, but everything else on your list is something likely to be in the feature list at some point. It obviously isn't stable yet, but that is a matter of time, and if somebody wanted to make a push to get something stable they'd get there a lot faster with btrfs than reinventing something else.
btrfs already supports reflink copies (think of a copy that behaves like a hard link on initial copy, but each file tracks its own separate changes, sharing file regions that have not changed). That isn't quite deduplication, but I imagine that somebody will get around to implementing that once things settle down (more important issues like not losing your data to work on right now). If you wanted to do a scan and de-duplicate pass that would be pretty easy, even implemented in userspace (just find files with common regions, delete one, reflink it from the other, and replay the modifications). Obviously directly manipulating the filesystem would be more efficient, and you'd want to build in some kind of index to avoid scans in the filesystem as well.
Snapshots are already fully supported on btrfs - and can be done at the level of the root or any folder within the filesystem. A file-level snapshot is just a reflink. Snapshots are first-class citizens and can be mounted, resnapshotted, etc.
Btrfs can also have quotas at any level of the filesystem, so that basically covers your lvm2 need. It can expand across multiple storage devices, with a few raid-like options supported now, and with more likely to come. You can also tag individual files and tell the system to store just that file with increased redundancy.
Btrfs is basically the future of linux filesystems - I don't really hear anybody disputing that. It just isn't quite the present, hence ongoing efforts around ext4.
Not sure about that - Google Calendar Sync is their application for syncing an Outlook calendar with Google Calendar.
Of course, the fact that it almost never works correctly for me does not help. It seems to only work right for one-time appointments that do not include invitations. In the business world that is just about none of them.
I've yet to find a program that really works properly for this and it drives me nuts. Yes, I know that Outlook is lousy, and I'd drop it if I could, but to do so I'd have to drop my employer. Given that, it would be nice to have some way to sync my calendar...
Airliners generally use inertial guidance, supplemented by a variety of navigational sources. These include GPS and beacons.
Sure, navigating by beacon manually is a bit of a pain as you have to constantly dial new ones as you pass out of range of old ones, and failures of beacons and their non-replacement makes coverage more spotty. However, an airliner's RNAV system knows where it is at all times and what beacons should be in range. It will tune two beacons at all times and anytime it can triangulate a position (which is almost all the time) it updates its position accordingly. It also uses GPS in the same manner.
RNAV predates GPS - airliners maintained inertial position and updated automatically by triangulating beacons before GPS became standard on aircraft.
As far as ATC goes - they use radar RIGHT NOW, but the plans are to move to ADS-B, which uses the position reported by the aircraft. That is generally more accurate than radar anyway, but obviously it is vulnerable to GPS spoofing, assuming the plane doesn't check the GPS position against other navigation sources.
Lovely - kerberos...
I just love the thought of getting linux to boot with an nfs root filesystem using kerberos for authentication... If you don't implement kerberos, then it is insecure, which was half my complaint with nfs in the first place.
The GPL does allow you to recover your distribution costs for the source. So, you email the developer, he digs up the source and emails it back to you. Let's say this entire transaction takes ten minutes of his time. If the developer makes $50/hr (which isn't much), then you just used about $10 worth of his time. So, $3.99 to cover distribution really isn't that much.
The first person to get a copy of the source can of course legally post it on their own website for the entire world to download for free, if they wish. The source is still licensed under the GPL.
I too wish there were more 4:3 options in the market. I don't have any technical issues with 16:9. However, on my desk there is nothing but empty space above my monitor, but there is a ton of junk on either side. So, wider just ends up meaning shorter.
I guess my next monitor will have to be one of those stand-up-sideways ones.
If they link to existing GPL code then any binaries they build have to be GPL licensed - agreed. If the entire project is new code or code they hold copyright to (which might be all the existing code for all I know) then they don't. Do they require copyright assignments?
If they just distribute source (which obviously is useless for the Windows Store) then they can mix all the GPL and non-GPL they want to as long as each goes in its own files. Of course, nobody can distribute any binaries derived from this source. I guess I'm spoiled by Gentoo - where there is no need to distribute anything but upstream unmodified tarballs since all the magic happens after all the distribution is done. :)
There is no reason that people can't do work or create things. The only issue will be with getting others to pay for it.
Kids make art all the time. Nobody would pay for it but their parents, but they can still exercise their creativity.
There just will be no such thing as "productive" human labor, insofar as productive means doing something in the most efficient manner possible.
You're assuming that you're smarter than my robot builder. What if my robot builder has an IQ of 600, and it designs one with an IQ of 600k and so on?
I have a feeling that AI on the level of humans isn't that far off, and once somebody can figure out how to achieve human-level AI it is just a mater of time before superhuman AI comes along. Pretty quickly the AI machines will be building smarter machines whose intelligence only an AI could comprehend. So, assuming the AIs are still subjugated we need to figure out how to get them to work for all of us, unless we just want whoever invents the AI to just treat the rest of us as pets...
Obviously what I was getting at, though I'm not sure money is the problem - just how you get it. Money is just a convenience for barter. I want a phone and I have the ability to program. Rather than finding somebody who has a phone who wants me to write software for them, I can instead work for anybody and get money, and then use that money to buy a phone.
There will always be some need to allocate resources, so even if everybody lives off of welfare checks there will be some kind of money.
The problem is that under capitalism you make money either by owning a productive investment, or by labor. The latter is going to go away, so unless you're born into wealth in a capitalist society there will be no way to obtain money (you need money in the first place to invest). Basic income would probably solve the whole problem, probably combined with some form of population control unless those robots can build arcologies for us..
Why would you hire a person to design a robot when a robot could design a new robot much more effectively?
And who would pay for music written by a human, when music written by a machine sounds better? The performance of a robot would be better in every way than one by a human. Robots will give better backrubs, and they'll come up with better logos.
There isn't anything on your list that won't one day be done by machines far more effectively than they'll ever be done by a person.
The trap you're falling into is that you consider mental or creative labor somehow immune to automation. The problem with this is that not everybody can do mental or creative labor, just as 100 years ago not everybody could do physical labor, and one day machines will do everything done by people. Your brain is nothing more than a complicated network - one that is perfectly capable of being replicated by a machine and improved upon - likely by a machine.
I know somebody who has at various points in time owned two businesses. One was a daycare, and the other was a service that cared for pets while their owners were away.
Her observation was that people care WAY more about their pets than their kids. Granted, some of it might be that the one service was more of a commodity in our society, and the other was more of a luxury. A better comparison might be between a pet care system and a nanny service. However, I suspect that the results wouldn't be much different.
Pets are less demanding all-around, and if you don't want one you can just turn it in. Pets have evolved accordingly - those who are less cute/cuddly don't get as much opportunity to eat/breed. Humans rarely base mating decisions on how well their selected mate treated their parents.
How is a newborn supposed to buy shares in corporation? Do you propose to give everybody some seed money and then let Darwin have at them? Or do you propose anybody not born to well-off and generous parents simply starve?
Socialism really seems to be the only reasonable solution.
That's exactly what a market economy gives you: as robots produce more and more stuff, the stuff gets cheaper and you need to work less and less for it.
Agreed, 100%. However, my point was that you still need to have money to buy any of it. Maybe you'll be able to buy a home for 15 cents, but where are you going to get the 15 cents to buy it with? For that you either need to own capital, or have a job. Either you own capital or you don't, if you don't already have it, then you're back where you started. Having a job means being able to do something better than a machine. Right now most humans are more cost-effective than machines for getting things done, however over time that will change.
Imagine somebody born with no arms or legs, and mentally retarded besides. They'll never have 15 cents unless somebody just donates it to them. They'll never be employed. Now, what is the difference between them and you, other than a matter of degree? Some are stronger than others, and some are smarter than others. If your abilities are below some threshold, you'll never get a job. As automation improves, that threshold simply will get moved higher and higher, unless no human meets the threshold. Your body does nothing that can't be done with a sufficient amount of servos and wiring once you know how to put it all together, and sooner or later some combination of somebody and something will figure it out.
At that point there will be no income from human labor. That leaves only the ownership of capital - either you're born into a family of means or you aren't. Or, we change the model to something else.
Uh, walk around in a US city sometime and see how "ok" it is turning out. It is easy to say all is well when the only people you talk to are those who were accepted into a college (let alone being able to afford it), and working for $50k+/yr.
The average American isn't really capable of getting a job paying that well - the median individual income in the US is only $24k/yr.
Right now robots can do a subset of a human's physical, intellectual, and creative capabilities. Eventually they'll be able to perform a superset of a human's physical, intellectual, and creative capabilities. When that happens there will be no reason for anybody to hire a human to do anything. There won't be ANYTHING you can do that a robot won't be able to do better. A robot will even be better at imagining a new job that robots can't already do and designing a robot to do it. Robots will become better authors, painters, philosophers, judges, politicians, and even friends.
Sure, that is probably 50 years out at least, but right now we're just on a continuous slope to the point where no human has a job. Sooner or later we might want to re-organize the economy in recognition of this.
I will tend to agree that from what I've heard at the executive levels in big corporations things can get a bit out of hand as well. Perhaps the fact that law firms are much smaller and half the employees report to an "executive" is the reason for the issues being more widespread. Perhaps it is money as you suggest. I think another common feature is that at that level those making hiring decisions tend to be fairly networked so if you sue one of them chances are you'll never get another job at a similar level again.
Yes, but the burden of proof remains on the plaintiff to show they were harmed, and a false statement is only harmful if it actually is false.
I've yet to see it written down in full. Nevertheless, those around you will use force upon you to ensure your compliance with it. In the end that's all government is, but I've yet to see a better way to live. To try to get rid of government is to simply accept the government of the local warlord.
Yup. Just in time for us all to avoid using md in favor of btrfs it seems. :)