I think you don't know what ZFS really is. It's a very different deal than etx4, ufs etc... It is the file system that made HW raid controllers obsolete.
It also made just about any computer with less than 8 GB of RAM obsolete. It's also not very friendly with applications that need large chunks of RAM, like a database or large Java VM application - the ARC cache causes a lot of fragmentation and is often slow to release it when other applications need more.
It would not surprise me if Apple had been developing their response in anticipation to the judges request for some time.
Well they're already paying lawyers to work on the case, and other similar ones (one FBI agent mentioned to an ABC reporter that he had upwards of 150 smart phones he was holding on to until a crack was available). So, why not pay a couple more billable hours to vet a policy statement?
Lately I've started looking at Kasich as a reasonable alternative
Well, Kasich is a Democrat, and has admitted as such. So I guess if you're looking for an alternative between Establishment Hillary and Socialist Sanders, he's a good choice. But since he's vying for the wrong nomination, that just means you'll end up with Hillary or Sanders.
I'm still confused by the waffling of the Democratic voters. I can't figure out why any of them are supporting Hillary over Sanders, other than they think she has a better chance of winning. That strike me as being okay with Lucifer winning the election, because he's in the Correct Party.
If you add up all the establishment candidate votes, it's well under 50%, even if you gave them Carson.
OMG please don't include Carson in the "establishment" pool - he is far from it (having never held public office, for one thing). Carson was one of the few in the whole field that I had any respect for (despite some well-advertised gaffs), but it looks like now he'll be one of the next ones dropping out.
If the Democrats had any brains, they would actually want Trump to win. Trump will walk right across the isle and work with Democrats in a way that no one else will do, and that'll get stuff done. He is pragmatic in a way that most of them aren't, even if he is a bit of a walking ego trip.
Well... right. But part of that is realizing that the next president will certainly be a 1-term president, with the other party taking over in 2021. There's a financial collapse coming that will be even worse than 2008, maybe even worse that 1929, and there is a civil war looming in Europe. The tensions over there are hardly covered at all by the US media, and only anemically by the media in the EU. It will be a massive amount of turmoil for the next administration that no President can do anything about (or survive).
Sanders is probably the only one that could live through it, if he could orchestrate a massive growth of Federal programs ala FDR. But even Sanders is likely to be seen as a Herbert Hoover in the aftermath.
Re:And there was much rejoicing!
on
Carly Is Out
·
· Score: 2
Fox News has done an excellent job at radicalizing the base
You're kidding, right? I'm starting to think the whole network is run by the Democrats, as spelled out on the NoAgendaShow. Bush and Rubio are the only guys those jerks ever promote. They're firmly establishment, and spend as much time bashing Trump and Cruz as they do Bernie Sanders.
Of course a vast majority of private companies are willing to throw money at any conservative group who will take it if it will get them taxed and / or regulated less. Both sides of the economic political spectrum have their major backers and there is a shit ton of money in the right's
That's not really true. Big companies always hedge their bets by contributing to both sides. The large ones actually like more regulation because it stifles the competition and helps them retain their market share. Corporations like being partners with government, and avoid candidates that eschew corporate influence in crafting regulation. Commerce of every kind is so heavily regulated these days, that companies lobby for specific forms of regulation that provide them a competitive edge. They rarely if ever lobby to reduce regulation. And they already have so many tax loopholes in the thousands of pages of tax code they just hire accountants to avoid taxation, using foreign subsidiaries if necessary.
People may have restated it in many silly ways, but what they actually mean is "Computers become twice as good every 18 months or so." Whether it's multiple cores, or faster clock speeds, or better RAM throughput, that's still what it amounts to: twice as good computers.
I think that's pretty much failed, then, for general purpose computers. At one time, I actually used to upgrade about every 18 months, and would see a really nice boost in performance. That's not so much the case anymore, it takes more like 3-4 years.
Left-leaning activists have an advantage in most places, as they are able to use government grants, funds, and support. That is, government administrators support activist groups that advocate for more government and higher government spending. So they are doing nothing but trying to level the playing field by concentrating the numbers of people that want to reduce government influence, which is MUCH more difficult.
You don't need the voting to be a full time job. But considering bills, figuring out the ramifications, thinking of ways to improve them so that they have the maximum desired impact with minimum side effects? That sure as hell sounds like a full time job.
They're not taking over by force, they will only be 2% of the population, easily outvoted. So if you don't like their ideas, you can vote them down. If that doesn't work, try starting a private fund. If you're looking for some group to "do good things", it doesn't necessarily have to be someone that collects money with the barrel of a gun...
And I personally believe that they should spend as much time reviewing old laws for relevance, modification and possible repeal as they do making new ones.
So do I, but not even full-time legislatures do that.
What are we supposed to think when the group explicitly replaces "the pursuit of happiness" with "property"?
The Declaration of Independence used "the pursuit of happiness" - but that would just a document saying they wanted to be free from English rule. The Constitution uses "property" instead, because it's, you know, a governing document. So that "change" is actually 226 years old.
Abortion is indeed a deep question, and I would be all for making it illegal if the state incubated the fetus from conception and paid all costs involved in the raising of the resulting child.
Agreed it's a deep question. But the state would only need to incubate - there is no lack of people willing to adopt babies, so that's not an issue.
...a citizen legislature where state house representatives have not raised their $100 per year salary since 1889...
That's not a good thing - it means that representatives are exclusively funded through independent wealth, this may seem like a good idea, but the practical upshot is that working class and to a certain extend middle class can't participate.
I don't know why you would make that assumption. There are many, many political activists that are quite poor, and that requires dedicating more time to the cause than is asked of part-time legislators. In fact, looking through the biographies of the current legislators gives lie to your assumption. For instance, Michael Abbott is a retired high school teacher who started out working at a grocery store. And Glen Aldrich is a carpenter with no more than a high school diploma.
I think having regular citizen legislators, with not much financial gain to be had from the job, is an excellent way to run a state house. It means you are more likely to get people involved for the right reasons, instead of career politicians looking for money and power.
I get the impression a disturbing proportion of politicians don't actually believe in the founding principles of the nation they govern anymore.
At the risk of going wildly offtopic, be careful when you venerate people. Many of the Founding Fathers had slaves and saw no conflict with what they then wrote in the constitution about all men being equal and having the right to liberty. They had their own vested interests, and acted on them.
It was a hugely contentious issue, and many of the framers wanted to eliminate slavery as part of the founding. There were too many states, though, that relied on slavery and would not have agreed to a ban. So a compromise was made in order to keep all the states in the new union. It was always assumed that slavery would be phased out, but it continued to be contentious (especially with the expansion of territory and new states) until it erupted into war 80 years later.
I have no doubt that many of them, indeed, were conflicted about allowing slavery in Constitution that spoke to equality for all, but saw it as a goal even if it could not be immediately realized. Many (Ben Franklin, for instance) had been members of the Abolitionist Society for years. They probably figured it would be best to state their ideals and work toward them, rather than found a new country on a current reality that many of them found intolerable.
They're talking about legislators, not all of government, or even the executive (which is a full-time job). You don't need a group of people in session full time writing laws. Enforcing the law is the job of the executive, the executive administration, and all the myriad state agencies that the legislature authorizes. The attorney general and the courts are all full-time too, and so are all the people working in all those areas (with pay no doubt commiserate with experience and skills).
Why in the world would you want or need making up laws to be a full-time job? My state is significantly larger than New Hampshire, but our legislators only meet for 8 weeks in odd years (when the set the biennial budget), and 4 weeks in even years (they can tweak the budget if needed). That's plenty. If something comes up (like SCOTUS invalidates an important law or something), the governor can call a "special session"). It's NOT a full-time job, and doesn't need to be.
Oh, and it's trademarked and patented by Intel, not Apple. It isn't exclusive to Mac. In fact it works in Linux and Windows as well. Firewire, USB, DVD, Blu-Ray, etc, are trademark and patented as well. The reason you're confused about my definiton of proprietary is because this is the first time you've been called out for not knowing what you're talking about.
Actually, it's trademarked by Intel. Apple has patents on it (3 just for iOS). USB has no existing patents that prevent you from creating devices, there are some specific uses of USB that are patented. Trademarks are only for the logo, not the device itself or the use of "USB". DVD and Blu-Ray are surrounded by RIAA and MPAA licensing, trademarks, patents, and mandatory DRM (duh), but that's not really relevant to the discussion.
I'm called out all the time for not knowing what I'm talking about - by ignorant people like you that just don't know.
> It's trademarked and patented. If that's not proprietary, you must have a definition different than anything I've ever seen.
Name one common standard port more recent than DB9 RS-232 that is not trademarked and patented. Oh, that's right, you can't. Guess you've been wearing a blindfold for the last 20 years.
USB logo is trademarked. USB is not trademarked, and there are no patents in force for creating most basic USB devices. There is also no trademark for VGA whatsoever, and there are no patents currently in force for implementing VGA devices.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you don't know what ZFS really is. It's a very different deal than etx4, ufs etc... It is the file system that made HW raid controllers obsolete.
It also made just about any computer with less than 8 GB of RAM obsolete. It's also not very friendly with applications that need large chunks of RAM, like a database or large Java VM application - the ARC cache causes a lot of fragmentation and is often slow to release it when other applications need more.
It would not surprise me if Apple had been developing their response in anticipation to the judges request for some time.
Well they're already paying lawyers to work on the case, and other similar ones (one FBI agent mentioned to an ABC reporter that he had upwards of 150 smart phones he was holding on to until a crack was available). So, why not pay a couple more billable hours to vet a policy statement?
Lately I've started looking at Kasich as a reasonable alternative
Well, Kasich is a Democrat, and has admitted as such. So I guess if you're looking for an alternative between Establishment Hillary and Socialist Sanders, he's a good choice. But since he's vying for the wrong nomination, that just means you'll end up with Hillary or Sanders.
I'm still confused by the waffling of the Democratic voters. I can't figure out why any of them are supporting Hillary over Sanders, other than they think she has a better chance of winning. That strike me as being okay with Lucifer winning the election, because he's in the Correct Party.
If you add up all the establishment candidate votes, it's well under 50%, even if you gave them Carson.
OMG please don't include Carson in the "establishment" pool - he is far from it (having never held public office, for one thing). Carson was one of the few in the whole field that I had any respect for (despite some well-advertised gaffs), but it looks like now he'll be one of the next ones dropping out.
Bush has even HIGHER unfavorability ratings than Trump
One of those small things that give me a glimmer of hope in the electorate.
If the Democrats had any brains, they would actually want Trump to win. Trump will walk right across the isle and work with Democrats in a way that no one else will do, and that'll get stuff done. He is pragmatic in a way that most of them aren't, even if he is a bit of a walking ego trip.
Well... right. But part of that is realizing that the next president will certainly be a 1-term president, with the other party taking over in 2021. There's a financial collapse coming that will be even worse than 2008, maybe even worse that 1929, and there is a civil war looming in Europe. The tensions over there are hardly covered at all by the US media, and only anemically by the media in the EU. It will be a massive amount of turmoil for the next administration that no President can do anything about (or survive).
Sanders is probably the only one that could live through it, if he could orchestrate a massive growth of Federal programs ala FDR. But even Sanders is likely to be seen as a Herbert Hoover in the aftermath.
Fox News has done an excellent job at radicalizing the base
You're kidding, right? I'm starting to think the whole network is run by the Democrats, as spelled out on the NoAgendaShow. Bush and Rubio are the only guys those jerks ever promote. They're firmly establishment, and spend as much time bashing Trump and Cruz as they do Bernie Sanders.
Of course a vast majority of private companies are willing to throw money at any conservative group who will take it if it will get them taxed and / or regulated less. Both sides of the economic political spectrum have their major backers and there is a shit ton of money in the right's
That's not really true. Big companies always hedge their bets by contributing to both sides. The large ones actually like more regulation because it stifles the competition and helps them retain their market share. Corporations like being partners with government, and avoid candidates that eschew corporate influence in crafting regulation. Commerce of every kind is so heavily regulated these days, that companies lobby for specific forms of regulation that provide them a competitive edge. They rarely if ever lobby to reduce regulation. And they already have so many tax loopholes in the thousands of pages of tax code they just hire accountants to avoid taxation, using foreign subsidiaries if necessary.
People may have restated it in many silly ways, but what they actually mean is "Computers become twice as good every 18 months or so." Whether it's multiple cores, or faster clock speeds, or better RAM throughput, that's still what it amounts to: twice as good computers.
I think that's pretty much failed, then, for general purpose computers. At one time, I actually used to upgrade about every 18 months, and would see a really nice boost in performance. That's not so much the case anymore, it takes more like 3-4 years.
Puppet uses exit statuses which are an out of date concept.
Exit statuses are useless now? WTH?
Left-leaning activists have an advantage in most places, as they are able to use government grants, funds, and support. That is, government administrators support activist groups that advocate for more government and higher government spending. So they are doing nothing but trying to level the playing field by concentrating the numbers of people that want to reduce government influence, which is MUCH more difficult.
Your premise is wrong. You're assuming they are "fringe". If that was the case, their efforts to sway 51% of voters would be impossible.
You don't need the voting to be a full time job. But considering bills, figuring out the ramifications, thinking of ways to improve them so that they have the maximum desired impact with minimum side effects? That sure as hell sounds like a full time job.
That's just research the staffers do.
They're not taking over by force, they will only be 2% of the population, easily outvoted. So if you don't like their ideas, you can vote them down. If that doesn't work, try starting a private fund. If you're looking for some group to "do good things", it doesn't necessarily have to be someone that collects money with the barrel of a gun...
And I personally believe that they should spend as much time reviewing old laws for relevance, modification and possible repeal as they do making new ones.
So do I, but not even full-time legislatures do that.
What are we supposed to think when the group explicitly replaces "the pursuit of happiness" with "property"?
The Declaration of Independence used "the pursuit of happiness" - but that would just a document saying they wanted to be free from English rule. The Constitution uses "property" instead, because it's, you know, a governing document. So that "change" is actually 226 years old.
Life begins when they dictate life begins, life ends when they dictate life ends.
Pretty sure that's life itself dictating that, not some authoritarian.
Abortion is indeed a deep question, and I would be all for making it illegal if the state incubated the fetus from conception and paid all costs involved in the raising of the resulting child.
Agreed it's a deep question. But the state would only need to incubate - there is no lack of people willing to adopt babies, so that's not an issue.
OMG! Those evil libertarians are going to take over the government and ... leave everyone alone! Evil plan, just evil.
Yes, if they all vote as a well regimented bloc.
Which is impossible with this group - these are libertarians.
...a citizen legislature where state house representatives have not raised their $100 per year salary since 1889...
That's not a good thing - it means that representatives are exclusively funded through independent wealth, this may seem like a good idea, but the practical upshot is that working class and to a certain extend middle class can't participate.
I don't know why you would make that assumption. There are many, many political activists that are quite poor, and that requires dedicating more time to the cause than is asked of part-time legislators. In fact, looking through the biographies of the current legislators gives lie to your assumption. For instance, Michael Abbott is a retired high school teacher who started out working at a grocery store. And Glen Aldrich is a carpenter with no more than a high school diploma.
I think having regular citizen legislators, with not much financial gain to be had from the job, is an excellent way to run a state house. It means you are more likely to get people involved for the right reasons, instead of career politicians looking for money and power.
I get the impression a disturbing proportion of politicians don't actually believe in the founding principles of the nation they govern anymore.
At the risk of going wildly offtopic, be careful when you venerate people. Many of the Founding Fathers had slaves and saw no conflict with what they then wrote in the constitution about all men being equal and having the right to liberty. They had their own vested interests, and acted on them.
It was a hugely contentious issue, and many of the framers wanted to eliminate slavery as part of the founding. There were too many states, though, that relied on slavery and would not have agreed to a ban. So a compromise was made in order to keep all the states in the new union. It was always assumed that slavery would be phased out, but it continued to be contentious (especially with the expansion of territory and new states) until it erupted into war 80 years later.
I have no doubt that many of them, indeed, were conflicted about allowing slavery in Constitution that spoke to equality for all, but saw it as a goal even if it could not be immediately realized. Many (Ben Franklin, for instance) had been members of the Abolitionist Society for years. They probably figured it would be best to state their ideals and work toward them, rather than found a new country on a current reality that many of them found intolerable.
They're talking about legislators, not all of government, or even the executive (which is a full-time job). You don't need a group of people in session full time writing laws. Enforcing the law is the job of the executive, the executive administration, and all the myriad state agencies that the legislature authorizes. The attorney general and the courts are all full-time too, and so are all the people working in all those areas (with pay no doubt commiserate with experience and skills).
Why in the world would you want or need making up laws to be a full-time job? My state is significantly larger than New Hampshire, but our legislators only meet for 8 weeks in odd years (when the set the biennial budget), and 4 weeks in even years (they can tweak the budget if needed). That's plenty. If something comes up (like SCOTUS invalidates an important law or something), the governor can call a "special session"). It's NOT a full-time job, and doesn't need to be.
Oh, and it's trademarked and patented by Intel, not Apple. It isn't exclusive to Mac. In fact it works in Linux and Windows as well. Firewire, USB, DVD, Blu-Ray, etc, are trademark and patented as well. The reason you're confused about my definiton of proprietary is because this is the first time you've been called out for not knowing what you're talking about.
Actually, it's trademarked by Intel. Apple has patents on it (3 just for iOS). USB has no existing patents that prevent you from creating devices, there are some specific uses of USB that are patented. Trademarks are only for the logo, not the device itself or the use of "USB". DVD and Blu-Ray are surrounded by RIAA and MPAA licensing, trademarks, patents, and mandatory DRM (duh), but that's not really relevant to the discussion.
I'm called out all the time for not knowing what I'm talking about - by ignorant people like you that just don't know.
> It's trademarked and patented. If that's not proprietary, you must have a definition different than anything I've ever seen.
Name one common standard port more recent than DB9 RS-232 that is not trademarked and patented. Oh, that's right, you can't. Guess you've been wearing a blindfold for the last 20 years.
USB logo is trademarked. USB is not trademarked, and there are no patents in force for creating most basic USB devices. There is also no trademark for VGA whatsoever, and there are no patents currently in force for implementing VGA devices.