How important are the fsyncs? I think a lot of software uses them due to some implementation decisions with ext4 (though Linus's decision to override the default settings set by the ext4 team alleviated many of them). However, with btrfs being copy-on-write I would think that you'd be far less vulnerable to issues if you modify a file in place without fsyncing. With btrfs you'll end up with either the original file intact or the modified file intact. With ext4 and some journal settings I think you could potentially also end up with a truncated file.
TCP also need to buffer on the receive side, since it guarantees in-order delivery. If a packet gets lost then every packet after that gets through gets buffered up until the lost packet is retransmitted/received. Also, if the odd packet gets delivered out-of-order the the a few packets need to be buffered to sort them back out again.
I don't care much about native linux support for Windows. However, the sad thing is that in many ways SMB is probably the best networked filesystem on linux just the same, even though it doesn't support half of POSIX. The closest competitor is NFS, and that is full of security issues.
Linux really needs a SIMPLE network filesystem solution that is secure and functional in all routine modes of operation. No, I don't want to set up a kerberos realm and openafs/etc.
Surprised nobody has answered this yet. Yes, it matters, and in fact the further you go towards the poles the better. That delta-v boost you get at the equator is entirely in the wrong direction. You actually have to expend energy to lose that velocity to go into a true polar orbit. If you just pointed your rocket due north and expended the energy necessary to get into orbit you'd end up in a highly inclined orbit that wasn't quite polar. If you wanted to be in a polar orbit you need to actually aim your rocket north-west to get rid of the eastward starting velocity from the earth's rotation. The closer to the equator your start out at, the more energy it will cost you.
However, for anything other than polar orbits it is highly advantageous to launch close to the equator. That is part of why the ISS is at such a highly-inclined orbit that isn't terribly useful for anything else - if it were easier to reach the Russians wouldn't have been able to reach it without wasting a lot more energy (basically you need to "fly" your rocket down to the equator and THEN go into orbit after burning off all the velocity you imparted shuttling yourself down there).
If you want to learn about orbital mechanics in a practical way, go download Orbiter. It is a free (as in beer) orbital flight simulator which is relatively accurate. You can fly something realistic, but generally you start out with "super ships" that have a lot more energy/fuel that is normally carried, so you can manually fly yourself to orbit and not worry about wasting 10% here and there. You learn a lot about how things work in the process. Dock with the ISS, and then fly to the moon and back and you'll have a pretty good idea of how things work.
'behaves like LGPL in places where GPL compatibility issues stop us from posting to the store.'... which.. can they even do?
They can do that for new code, or for code they hold the copyright to. They'd have to make up a new license. Whether LGPL is sufficient might be questionable.
They would not be able to distribute GPL code linked or embedded in their software for which they do not own copyright.
Look instead at the incompetent government that WROTE THE RULES, morons.
Your statement presupposes that it is possible for anybody to write rules that actually work in the face of those actively trying to subvert them. Computer systems follow rules more systematically than any human ever will, and yet it is almost impossible to write a non-trivial computer program that does exactly what you intend it to do.
If it is impossible to determine a priori whether a computer program halts, then it is surely impossible to tell if a law contains loopholes.
Simply getting rid of the laws does not solve the problem either, as this is even more slanted in favor of those with power.
The solution is to have courts stop pretending that society is just a computer program, and instead of ruling on whether the strict wording of some law was broken just rule on whether the principle behind the law was broken. Some complain that this would make it hard to understand what is and isn't legal and lead to inconsistent application of justice. However, it is the very ability to predict how the courts will act that leads to the kinds of exploits we see. Which security line would deter more terrorists - one where complex rules are used to waive some through and thoroughly check others, or one where everything is random and therefore unexploitable?
The problem exists with everybody. Suppose I go down to my local town hall and get a copy of the local ordinances. I discover there is no noise ordinance. So, I tell my neighbor that they'll have to pay me $30 a month to not blast my stereos at 150dB all night. A huge brouhaha ensues and the town council passes a noise ordinance.
So then I discover there is no ordinance against blight or property appearance. So not I tell them to pay me $30/month to not paint my house in a garish checkerboard pattern.
There will ALWAYS be loopholes in the law, just as there will always be bugs in computer software. There is no law that can govern an unprincipled, disciplined, and intelligent man.
Sometimes I think the solution has to be a judge that has the guts to say "we find that Google broke no laws, but rule against them anyway at 10x the disputed amount." Our legal system has a pervasive culture that substitutes consistent and systematic rulings for just ones. Looking around me I really have to question whether a true "nation governed by the rule of law" is anything more than a collective delusion.
I have no presence in the US, not having lived or worked there for 20 years. However, because I haven't (yet) handed back my US passport, the US thinks I ought to be subject to income tax. No other developed country claims the right to tax people who neither live nor work in the country.
Yes, but you still maintain the right to return to the US at any time, and if whatever country you're living in goes through a political revolution and you run to the embassy, there is a decent chance that they'll fly you out even under gunfire. Certainly the US passport will carry weight in negotiations.
If you don't want to pay taxes, just repudiate your citizenship.
What exactly do you think the word "citizen" means? Citizenship is more than a relationship of convenience. It is supposed to be about a community of people who pledge to come to the aid of one-another. If you have income, then you've pledged a part of it to assist the rest of the community. If you don't want to participate, then just register that with the nearest embassy and you (and the citizens of the USA) are free of your pledge.
I see no reason why you can't automate creative work. Your brain is nothing more than a bunch of neurons wired together - why can't it be duplicated? We simply do not yet know how, just as once we did not know how to build a machine that could add numbers.
Robots building and designing the robots is inevitable. I think the only question is whether they all work for 10 super-rich guys at the top, or if perhaps those who weren't born into the robot-owning families actually can live off of something more than scraps.
Sure, but who would hire you for a few hours a month when their money would be better-spent on robots.
I see two choices - either we all starve to death while robots harvest a bounty unlike anything the world has ever seen, or we give up on the idea that the only way to pay for things is to work for them.
Uh, read it more carefully. The post you replied to was making that very point - economic growth is a meaningless metric when it leaves huge swaths of the population unemployed.
I can't tell if you're talking about the unjustifiably lavish expenditures, the excessive drinking, or the sexual harassment. All exist, certainly (though the first far less so in this economy), but the same kinds of charges could easily and quite rightly be leveled at startup culture -- as well as banking and finance, and, hell, pretty much any industry where loads of money get thrown around. Do you hold the same amount of contempt for technology entrepreneurs as a whole, then?
If they do the stuff above, sure. The lavish expenditures don't bother me so much - the latter two do. The drinking only concerns me insofar as it results in senior employees making demands of junior ones to accommodate their irresponsibility. Stuff like driving them around, ignoring assaults, not minding the groping, and so on. But hey, they're team players, right?
That is true. But, T-Mobile prices aren't that good to begin with. I switched to their unsubsidized phone, but have not bought any phones through them. There are four phones on my plan:
One was just upgraded to a Nexus 4. I bought it for $350. If I got it from T-Mobile I'd have paid $200 plus around $400 or so over the next 18 months.
One was replaced with an iPhone 4s. Knowing Apple I suspect this one might have benefited from the payment plans as the retail price is likely to be identical when T-Mobile introduces it.
One was replaced with a year-old ATT unlocked phone from Swappa for $180 or so. T-Mobile doesn't sell used phones, and they're not going to offer a smartphone in anything near that class for that price, especially considering the line it is activated on does not have a data plan (we just disabled the APNs).
One is a Samsung Gravity 3 that is 4 years old. I spent $20 on a new battery for it on Amazon, but otherwise it works better than any of their feature phones. It actually has useful keyboard shortcuts for the kinds of things you're likely to do with a feature phone. The more modern versions have keyboard shortcuts for things that cost you a fortune if you don't have a data plan, plus they charge ~$150 for a low-end feature phone when you can get one from China for $30 tops. If somebody actually wants a feature phone they don't need shortcuts to the web browser on hardware keys - they'd have a smartphone if they used it.
Yup, I switched to their unsubsidized plan a few months ago. If you buy new phones it works out about the same with the monthly phone payments. However, it gives you a LOT more flexibility around phone purchases. I can buy any unlocked GSM phone I want, including an iPhone. I can buy a Nexus 4 for $350. I can keep a phone for 3 years and save more, or I can upgrade a phone every year and sell the old one each time.
Their plans are really cheap too. I'm paying $120/mo for four lines with 2x2GB data plans (with no overage charges if you go over), unlimited voice on two lines, and 500min/month on two lines, and all lines have unlimited SMS. To get something remotely comparable from ATT/Verizon I'd be paying double that easily. The phone subsidies on two smartphones and two feature phones are not worth an extra $150/month. Plus, my stepson saves up and buys used smartphones and we just disable the data on them, so he gets a way nicer phone than what you'd get with a subsidy but no data plan.
Most people worldwide just take that kind of flexibility for granted. In the US you only can get it with T-Mobile, unless you want to pay for a subsidy that you won't use.
iPhones on T-Mobile support 4G just fine, but they don't support 3G. On T-Mobile there aren't that many areas that have 3G but not 4G, so that isn't that big of a deal.
Anybody who wants an iPhone on T-Mobile just needs to get an unsubsidized plan and then go buy one from the Apple store. The resulting TCO will be WAY lower than getting it on ATT. You'll pay an extra $450 up-front for the phone, but you'll save a small fortune every month. The $30 data-only plan is an obvious way to save. On a family plan the fact that 2GB+unlimited data only costs $10/mo on T-Mobile is another when added to one of their already-way-cheap voice plans.
I did the math and ATT or Verizon would be costing me an extra $120/month or so, with half the data, and they would also charge me overage if I went over my data limit. For $120/month less (with only two data plans) I can afford to cough up the money for two $600 phones every two years without breaking a sweat. Or I can get a Nexus 4 for $350 and save even more. Heck, I could upgrade a Nexus phone every year on both lines and save tons even if I don't sell my old phones.
Uh, how isn't it comparable? The Galaxy S3 does have an external SD and a slightly larger screen. The iPhone has neither. The Nexus 4 has more up-to-date software. If you're on Verizon or Sprint then the fact that the Nexus 4 is not available in CDMA is an issue.
Some complain about the lack of LTE, but at least in the US ATT's LTE service isn't nearly as fast as what the Nexus 4 can deliver by HSPA+. If ATT gets their act together they could in theory do better as LTE is somewhat faster than HSPA+, but by the time they do that you probably will have a newer phone anyway. On T-Mobile LTE isn't even supported yet, and their HSPA+ service probably outperforms ATT's LTE service anyway.
Are you suggesting that I can't write a bad review about a product unless I've first taken the manufacturer to court?
You might feel that way, but the laws certainly are not written that way. As long as she reasonably believes her statements to be true she cannot be sued for making them. Well, at least the plaintiff should not be able to win - in the US you can be sued on any whim of fancy if somebody wants to spend the money to do it.
Defamation per se simply means that the plaintiff doesn't have to prove that he was harmed. The plaintiff still needs to prove that the statement was false, and that the defendant either knew that it was false or acted with negligence with regard to whether it was false.
You know, every time two parties go to court having paid "reasonable" legal fees, one party loses. I'm sure they're likely to think that if only they had spent more that they'd have done better. Judging by most investigative journalism I've seen, I'm inclined to agree.
And yes, having a relative who is a lawyer and who once upon a time used to work for a big firm, I tend to agree with your observations regarding those sorts of firms. That said, just the stories of holiday parties alone gives me plenty of contempt for the entire profession. If my employer did half the nonsense the average law firm does around the holidays, they'd be sued out of existence.
From everything I've seen and experienced, the US court system is incredibly expensive. The one time I had to use the courts it cost thousands of dollars even for a matter that got settled without a trial, and the lawyer really wasn't terribly expensive by most standards I've seen. I'm sure the cost would have been in the $10-20k range if it went into a serious trial, let alone appeals. That's the cost of a car that lasts 20 years for a case that lasts 20 weeks only because everything gets dragged out by latency.
Sounds like the court was a bit out of hand. I suspect that an appeal would have corrected some of the issues in this trial. However, as you pointed out, it isn't like those are free.
As you said insurance companies aren't really in it to prove a point. Their position is whatever is calculated to have the overall best outcome for them. If it is cheaper to pay them off they'll just do it. If it is cheaper in the long run to fight tooth and nail in the face of incredible odds, they'll do that (sometimes just to deter future suits). The legal costs of your one case are completely trivial to them - the decision to settle or appeal is just like you deciding whether to buy or lease a car.
Actually, they have to both prove that the statements were false, and that she either knew they were false or was reckless about making statements without care for whether they were false.
She doesn't actually have to prove anything, though she can of course provide evidence if she wishes.
The article you linked to says as much. He didn't consider the suit frivolous, but he did state that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff, and that libel cases in the US tend to be an uphill battle unless it is really egregious.
They would need to prove actual malice per New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. That is, they'd have to prove that she knew the accusation to be false, or that it was made with flagrant disregard for its truthfulness.
If the workers were the only ones with access to the house and it was generally kept locked, and there were no other signs of intrusion, then it would be hard to argue that she had anything other than a reasonable believe that they had stolen it. Sure, that would never be adequate evidence to have them arrested, but in a libel case the burden of proof is on them to show that such a belief was not reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
How important are the fsyncs? I think a lot of software uses them due to some implementation decisions with ext4 (though Linus's decision to override the default settings set by the ext4 team alleviated many of them). However, with btrfs being copy-on-write I would think that you'd be far less vulnerable to issues if you modify a file in place without fsyncing. With btrfs you'll end up with either the original file intact or the modified file intact. With ext4 and some journal settings I think you could potentially also end up with a truncated file.
TCP also need to buffer on the receive side, since it guarantees in-order delivery. If a packet gets lost then every packet after that gets through gets buffered up until the lost packet is retransmitted/received. Also, if the odd packet gets delivered out-of-order the the a few packets need to be buffered to sort them back out again.
I don't care much about native linux support for Windows. However, the sad thing is that in many ways SMB is probably the best networked filesystem on linux just the same, even though it doesn't support half of POSIX. The closest competitor is NFS, and that is full of security issues.
Linux really needs a SIMPLE network filesystem solution that is secure and functional in all routine modes of operation. No, I don't want to set up a kerberos realm and openafs/etc.
Surprised nobody has answered this yet. Yes, it matters, and in fact the further you go towards the poles the better. That delta-v boost you get at the equator is entirely in the wrong direction. You actually have to expend energy to lose that velocity to go into a true polar orbit. If you just pointed your rocket due north and expended the energy necessary to get into orbit you'd end up in a highly inclined orbit that wasn't quite polar. If you wanted to be in a polar orbit you need to actually aim your rocket north-west to get rid of the eastward starting velocity from the earth's rotation. The closer to the equator your start out at, the more energy it will cost you.
However, for anything other than polar orbits it is highly advantageous to launch close to the equator. That is part of why the ISS is at such a highly-inclined orbit that isn't terribly useful for anything else - if it were easier to reach the Russians wouldn't have been able to reach it without wasting a lot more energy (basically you need to "fly" your rocket down to the equator and THEN go into orbit after burning off all the velocity you imparted shuttling yourself down there).
If you want to learn about orbital mechanics in a practical way, go download Orbiter. It is a free (as in beer) orbital flight simulator which is relatively accurate. You can fly something realistic, but generally you start out with "super ships" that have a lot more energy/fuel that is normally carried, so you can manually fly yourself to orbit and not worry about wasting 10% here and there. You learn a lot about how things work in the process. Dock with the ISS, and then fly to the moon and back and you'll have a pretty good idea of how things work.
'behaves like LGPL in places where GPL compatibility issues stop us from posting to the store.'... which.. can they even do?
They can do that for new code, or for code they hold the copyright to. They'd have to make up a new license. Whether LGPL is sufficient might be questionable.
They would not be able to distribute GPL code linked or embedded in their software for which they do not own copyright.
Look instead at the incompetent government that WROTE THE RULES, morons.
Your statement presupposes that it is possible for anybody to write rules that actually work in the face of those actively trying to subvert them. Computer systems follow rules more systematically than any human ever will, and yet it is almost impossible to write a non-trivial computer program that does exactly what you intend it to do.
If it is impossible to determine a priori whether a computer program halts, then it is surely impossible to tell if a law contains loopholes.
Simply getting rid of the laws does not solve the problem either, as this is even more slanted in favor of those with power.
The solution is to have courts stop pretending that society is just a computer program, and instead of ruling on whether the strict wording of some law was broken just rule on whether the principle behind the law was broken. Some complain that this would make it hard to understand what is and isn't legal and lead to inconsistent application of justice. However, it is the very ability to predict how the courts will act that leads to the kinds of exploits we see. Which security line would deter more terrorists - one where complex rules are used to waive some through and thoroughly check others, or one where everything is random and therefore unexploitable?
The problem exists with everybody. Suppose I go down to my local town hall and get a copy of the local ordinances. I discover there is no noise ordinance. So, I tell my neighbor that they'll have to pay me $30 a month to not blast my stereos at 150dB all night. A huge brouhaha ensues and the town council passes a noise ordinance.
So then I discover there is no ordinance against blight or property appearance. So not I tell them to pay me $30/month to not paint my house in a garish checkerboard pattern.
There will ALWAYS be loopholes in the law, just as there will always be bugs in computer software. There is no law that can govern an unprincipled, disciplined, and intelligent man.
Sometimes I think the solution has to be a judge that has the guts to say "we find that Google broke no laws, but rule against them anyway at 10x the disputed amount." Our legal system has a pervasive culture that substitutes consistent and systematic rulings for just ones. Looking around me I really have to question whether a true "nation governed by the rule of law" is anything more than a collective delusion.
I have no presence in the US, not having lived or worked there for 20 years. However, because I haven't (yet) handed back my US passport, the US thinks I ought to be subject to income tax. No other developed country claims the right to tax people who neither live nor work in the country.
Yes, but you still maintain the right to return to the US at any time, and if whatever country you're living in goes through a political revolution and you run to the embassy, there is a decent chance that they'll fly you out even under gunfire. Certainly the US passport will carry weight in negotiations.
If you don't want to pay taxes, just repudiate your citizenship.
What exactly do you think the word "citizen" means? Citizenship is more than a relationship of convenience. It is supposed to be about a community of people who pledge to come to the aid of one-another. If you have income, then you've pledged a part of it to assist the rest of the community. If you don't want to participate, then just register that with the nearest embassy and you (and the citizens of the USA) are free of your pledge.
I see no reason why you can't automate creative work. Your brain is nothing more than a bunch of neurons wired together - why can't it be duplicated? We simply do not yet know how, just as once we did not know how to build a machine that could add numbers.
Robots building and designing the robots is inevitable. I think the only question is whether they all work for 10 super-rich guys at the top, or if perhaps those who weren't born into the robot-owning families actually can live off of something more than scraps.
Sure, but who would hire you for a few hours a month when their money would be better-spent on robots.
I see two choices - either we all starve to death while robots harvest a bounty unlike anything the world has ever seen, or we give up on the idea that the only way to pay for things is to work for them.
Uh, read it more carefully. The post you replied to was making that very point - economic growth is a meaningless metric when it leaves huge swaths of the population unemployed.
I can't tell if you're talking about the unjustifiably lavish expenditures, the excessive drinking, or the sexual harassment. All exist, certainly (though the first far less so in this economy), but the same kinds of charges could easily and quite rightly be leveled at startup culture -- as well as banking and finance, and, hell, pretty much any industry where loads of money get thrown around. Do you hold the same amount of contempt for technology entrepreneurs as a whole, then?
If they do the stuff above, sure. The lavish expenditures don't bother me so much - the latter two do. The drinking only concerns me insofar as it results in senior employees making demands of junior ones to accommodate their irresponsibility. Stuff like driving them around, ignoring assaults, not minding the groping, and so on. But hey, they're team players, right?
That is true. But, T-Mobile prices aren't that good to begin with. I switched to their unsubsidized phone, but have not bought any phones through them. There are four phones on my plan:
One was just upgraded to a Nexus 4. I bought it for $350. If I got it from T-Mobile I'd have paid $200 plus around $400 or so over the next 18 months.
One was replaced with an iPhone 4s. Knowing Apple I suspect this one might have benefited from the payment plans as the retail price is likely to be identical when T-Mobile introduces it.
One was replaced with a year-old ATT unlocked phone from Swappa for $180 or so. T-Mobile doesn't sell used phones, and they're not going to offer a smartphone in anything near that class for that price, especially considering the line it is activated on does not have a data plan (we just disabled the APNs).
One is a Samsung Gravity 3 that is 4 years old. I spent $20 on a new battery for it on Amazon, but otherwise it works better than any of their feature phones. It actually has useful keyboard shortcuts for the kinds of things you're likely to do with a feature phone. The more modern versions have keyboard shortcuts for things that cost you a fortune if you don't have a data plan, plus they charge ~$150 for a low-end feature phone when you can get one from China for $30 tops. If somebody actually wants a feature phone they don't need shortcuts to the web browser on hardware keys - they'd have a smartphone if they used it.
Uh, I was able to voice-dictate on my LAST Android phone, which was two years old...
Yup, I switched to their unsubsidized plan a few months ago. If you buy new phones it works out about the same with the monthly phone payments. However, it gives you a LOT more flexibility around phone purchases. I can buy any unlocked GSM phone I want, including an iPhone. I can buy a Nexus 4 for $350. I can keep a phone for 3 years and save more, or I can upgrade a phone every year and sell the old one each time.
Their plans are really cheap too. I'm paying $120/mo for four lines with 2x2GB data plans (with no overage charges if you go over), unlimited voice on two lines, and 500min/month on two lines, and all lines have unlimited SMS. To get something remotely comparable from ATT/Verizon I'd be paying double that easily. The phone subsidies on two smartphones and two feature phones are not worth an extra $150/month. Plus, my stepson saves up and buys used smartphones and we just disable the data on them, so he gets a way nicer phone than what you'd get with a subsidy but no data plan.
Most people worldwide just take that kind of flexibility for granted. In the US you only can get it with T-Mobile, unless you want to pay for a subsidy that you won't use.
iPhones on T-Mobile support 4G just fine, but they don't support 3G. On T-Mobile there aren't that many areas that have 3G but not 4G, so that isn't that big of a deal.
Anybody who wants an iPhone on T-Mobile just needs to get an unsubsidized plan and then go buy one from the Apple store. The resulting TCO will be WAY lower than getting it on ATT. You'll pay an extra $450 up-front for the phone, but you'll save a small fortune every month. The $30 data-only plan is an obvious way to save. On a family plan the fact that 2GB+unlimited data only costs $10/mo on T-Mobile is another when added to one of their already-way-cheap voice plans.
I did the math and ATT or Verizon would be costing me an extra $120/month or so, with half the data, and they would also charge me overage if I went over my data limit. For $120/month less (with only two data plans) I can afford to cough up the money for two $600 phones every two years without breaking a sweat. Or I can get a Nexus 4 for $350 and save even more. Heck, I could upgrade a Nexus phone every year on both lines and save tons even if I don't sell my old phones.
Uh, how isn't it comparable? The Galaxy S3 does have an external SD and a slightly larger screen. The iPhone has neither. The Nexus 4 has more up-to-date software. If you're on Verizon or Sprint then the fact that the Nexus 4 is not available in CDMA is an issue.
Some complain about the lack of LTE, but at least in the US ATT's LTE service isn't nearly as fast as what the Nexus 4 can deliver by HSPA+. If ATT gets their act together they could in theory do better as LTE is somewhat faster than HSPA+, but by the time they do that you probably will have a newer phone anyway. On T-Mobile LTE isn't even supported yet, and their HSPA+ service probably outperforms ATT's LTE service anyway.
Are you suggesting that I can't write a bad review about a product unless I've first taken the manufacturer to court?
You might feel that way, but the laws certainly are not written that way. As long as she reasonably believes her statements to be true she cannot be sued for making them. Well, at least the plaintiff should not be able to win - in the US you can be sued on any whim of fancy if somebody wants to spend the money to do it.
Defamation per se simply means that the plaintiff doesn't have to prove that he was harmed. The plaintiff still needs to prove that the statement was false, and that the defendant either knew that it was false or acted with negligence with regard to whether it was false.
You know, every time two parties go to court having paid "reasonable" legal fees, one party loses. I'm sure they're likely to think that if only they had spent more that they'd have done better. Judging by most investigative journalism I've seen, I'm inclined to agree.
And yes, having a relative who is a lawyer and who once upon a time used to work for a big firm, I tend to agree with your observations regarding those sorts of firms. That said, just the stories of holiday parties alone gives me plenty of contempt for the entire profession. If my employer did half the nonsense the average law firm does around the holidays, they'd be sued out of existence.
From everything I've seen and experienced, the US court system is incredibly expensive. The one time I had to use the courts it cost thousands of dollars even for a matter that got settled without a trial, and the lawyer really wasn't terribly expensive by most standards I've seen. I'm sure the cost would have been in the $10-20k range if it went into a serious trial, let alone appeals. That's the cost of a car that lasts 20 years for a case that lasts 20 weeks only because everything gets dragged out by latency.
Sounds like the court was a bit out of hand. I suspect that an appeal would have corrected some of the issues in this trial. However, as you pointed out, it isn't like those are free.
As you said insurance companies aren't really in it to prove a point. Their position is whatever is calculated to have the overall best outcome for them. If it is cheaper to pay them off they'll just do it. If it is cheaper in the long run to fight tooth and nail in the face of incredible odds, they'll do that (sometimes just to deter future suits). The legal costs of your one case are completely trivial to them - the decision to settle or appeal is just like you deciding whether to buy or lease a car.
Actually, they have to both prove that the statements were false, and that she either knew they were false or was reckless about making statements without care for whether they were false.
She doesn't actually have to prove anything, though she can of course provide evidence if she wishes.
The article you linked to says as much. He didn't consider the suit frivolous, but he did state that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff, and that libel cases in the US tend to be an uphill battle unless it is really egregious.
They would need to prove actual malice per New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. That is, they'd have to prove that she knew the accusation to be false, or that it was made with flagrant disregard for its truthfulness.
If the workers were the only ones with access to the house and it was generally kept locked, and there were no other signs of intrusion, then it would be hard to argue that she had anything other than a reasonable believe that they had stolen it. Sure, that would never be adequate evidence to have them arrested, but in a libel case the burden of proof is on them to show that such a belief was not reasonable.