and most consumer level drives aren't even MLC... but TLC
Er, TLC ("triple-level cell", 8 states)) is a form of MLC. MLC is (blindingly obvious from the acronym) "multi-level cell", not "two-level cell" (4 states).
Man, it seems like every Slashdot discussion thread lately has almost immediately devolved into a Democat versus Republican bash-fest.
Without regard to that, this story was a political submission, so OF COURSE there is political discussion in the comments. Now, it is a truism that one man's discussion is another man's bash-fest.
More to the point, this is a year evenly divisible by 4. I would have thought you would grasp by now that reasoning runs way behind rage on years that are evenly divisible by 4.
I feel compelled to point out that gasoline as used in the form of a motor fuel does not "come from" the ground fully formed, but is rather synthesized from components extracted from the ground. Gasoline is a complex brew of many substances: * 0-20% straight-run fractionally-distilled gasoline (naphtha)
(This is too poor in octane rating to be used "straight" in today's engines) * catalytic reformate * catalytically cracked substances * ethers and/or alcohols * detergents * antioxidants and other stabilizers * etc
As soon as we end this neo-prohibitionist bullshit and the jackbooted thugs that get off on it, we can have a better shot of rebuilding our country.
I wouldn't hold my breath. Cannabis was outlawed in many/most states from the mid-1930's until recently - and is still today outlawed in most states. That's 85 years. Federally it was (ludicrously) categorized as a Schedule 1 Substance by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which is still in effect 46 years later. Category 1 is the same category as highly dangerous and addictive opioids and stimulants, as well as powerful psychedelics.
Ghandi's "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Gandhi's struggle would have turned out very, very differently had he been dealing with Hitler or Stalin or Mao instead of the British Empire. His methods only work against an adversary who has at least SOME heart or nobility you can leverage and exploit.
Oh come now. Of the millions of would-be phone buyers, you do NOT "suspect" that "many" of them would welcome Apple's reaction? That's actually a statistical certainty, given that there are many millions of such people. Your false intellectual objection is showing.
Actually a majority voted for Gore (50,999,897), not Bush (50,456,002),... but more than half the Supremes voted for Bush
More to the point, Bush won the electoral college, which is the only tally that counts.
All the Supremes did was scotch an attempted coup d'etat in which Gore forces engineered a carefully crafted selected recount of only localities in Florida where he thought it would help him, and in particular tried to count ballots of highly questionable legality.
In other words some hundreds of people could create it in a month. Color me unimpressed by the level of difficulty. IF, that is (and it's big IF) your premise is accurate.
For pete's sake, inform yourself. Prosecutors and judges try to railroad jurors by lying to them about their powers and duties all the time, but the truth is that a jury, once empaneled, is completely free to reach a finding of not guilty for ANY REASON, and it does not have to reveal what that reason is. A jury's responsibility is awesome, and its power of decision is absolute. That decision cannot be invalidated just because the judge disagrees with it, or disagrees with the process used.
"Politically correct" is the claim that a person is saying something differently not out of respect, but to be seen as showing respect.
Sorry, no. Not even close. "Politically correct" is an OXYMORON used as a tenet by by idiots and tools exclusively. Political beliefs can't be categorized as "correct" or "incorrect", any more than "opinions" or "beliefs" or "core values" can be so categorized.
It's a flaw in our system that a state with 586,000 citizens gets to control two senators while a state with 38,000,000 citizens also only gets to control two citizens.
Sigh. [rolls eyes] No, it's not a flaw. Do you have any concept of dictatorship of the majority? Our "system" was carefully crafted with balances. The House of Representatives is for, er, REPRESENTATION. The Senate is not just by name, but conceptually, based on the Roman Senate. "Senatus" means "council of elders". To be sure, the U.S. Senate, like many parts of our system, has become greatly corrupted recently. A lot of it is traceable to 1913's stupid 17th Amendment. Prior to that, Senators were appointed by their State's legislature.
Yet the Senate still retains certain distinctions when compared to the House. Only the Senate has the institution of the filibuster against railroading. Largely as a result, a supermajority is a necessity in the Senate, rather than just 50% plus 1 vote.
Every law has to pass BOTH the House and the Senate. The House ensures (theoretically) that it has popular support. The Senate ensures to a certain extent that the powerful do not run roughshod over others.
if (something is there) tab1 dinit the something tab2 close the something
It does look like those two things are supposed to be executed in the if.
Wrong. To any halfway competent C programmer it "looks like" no such thing. Because he knows that if there are no braces, the if statement always acts on the single following statement.
If it is C, not Python, the indentation means absolutely nothing except a visual cue, and any C programmer who relies only on visual cues is a C programmer of unacceptable quality.
Bingo. Hear, hear. I learned to HATE dkms and its goddamned "weak updates" with a vengeance. After intensive searching, I never found a clue anywhere as to how to beat the asinine weak update predilection out of dkms.
Alas, I have no confidence whatever that Red Hat will ever see the light on this. Believe it or not, I am now seriously looking at shitcanning it for my servers in favor of Ubuntu.
Every time I see news about ZFS and Linux, it's a little bit less of a mess.
I've been using ZFS on Linux for years, and the only thing that ever came close to being a mess was the horseshit called DKMS. Under CentOS6 (and I suspect any other linux), it absolutely insisted on building a mess of something it called "weak-modules" when I updated the kernel. These are nothing more than a mess of symlinks to the old module, and they kept breaking my system. I never found a workable way to prevent their creation, and fixing the damage always called for very careful ripping out of the links, and teasing DKMS into creating a proper new module in their place.
Also, rebuilding ZFS from source (using either DKMS or not) takes forever.
If Ubuntu will now do my rebuilding for me, and get rid of the DKMS abortion, that has my full attention. But I've never had the slightest problem from any part of actually running ZFS itself on linux.
creating a separate/boot partition with ext4 defeats the purpose of ZFS
Utter bullshit. I have one ZFS server that is root-on-ZFS, and one with an etx4 root and boot drive. They are both equally useful and performant. Sure, you can do interesting things with root-on-ZFS, but after experiencing both, I am fairly well decided on balance I prefer not using it.
If you are using ZFS, you need to have the offline backup.
So many things can go wrong with ZFS due to failures beyond your control. You use ZFS so you don't have to restore, and keep an offline backup for when ZFS is fucked.
If you can't afford to offline your ZFS data, ZFS is not for you.
What the fuck did you just claim in that unintelligible post? Damned if I can figure out.
All file systems are approximately the same for most day to day users.
Possibly you could make that argument if all ZFS was, was a file system. That's not the case, though. ZFS is a fully integrated file system and logical volume manager, complete with built-in RAID facilities far more advanced than those available otherwise. Another vast advantage is the ability to create and destroy hierarchical file systems (not just directories) at any time during operation without interrupting operation. The creation is virtually instantaneous, and the destruction is asynchronous, so even "zfs destroy" of even an enormous sub file system returns to a prompt essentially immediately.
This is just scratching the surface of stuff you can't to in archaic ext4 or archaic xfs.
I would be interested in knowing which is fastest at read/writes.
Knock yourself out. Nothing could possibly interest me less than that particular metric; I am FAR more concerned with data protection and reliability; but we all have our own set of priorities.
This FCC vote broke down according to party lines, with the two Republicans voting against increased competition in regard to cable boxes and the three Democrats voting in favor.
Thank you. Hope this shuts up some of the tools who claim it makes no difference whether you vote fopr Tweedledee or Tweedledum.
Slashdot Mirror
No it wouldn't/isn't. Not even close.
Er, TLC ("triple-level cell", 8 states)) is a form of MLC. MLC is (blindingly obvious from the acronym) "multi-level cell", not "two-level cell" (4 states).
Without regard to that, this story was a political submission, so OF COURSE there is political discussion in the comments. Now, it is a truism that one man's discussion is another man's bash-fest.
More to the point, this is a year evenly divisible by 4. I would have thought you would grasp by now that reasoning runs way behind rage on years that are evenly divisible by 4.
I feel compelled to point out that gasoline as used in the form of a motor fuel does not "come from" the ground fully formed, but is rather synthesized from components extracted from the ground. Gasoline is a complex brew of many substances:
* 0-20% straight-run fractionally-distilled gasoline (naphtha)
(This is too poor in octane rating to be used "straight" in today's engines)
* catalytic reformate
* catalytically cracked substances
* ethers and/or alcohols
* detergents
* antioxidants and other stabilizers
* etc
I wouldn't hold my breath. Cannabis was outlawed in many/most states from the mid-1930's until recently - and is still today outlawed in most states. That's 85 years. Federally it was (ludicrously) categorized as a Schedule 1 Substance by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which is still in effect 46 years later. Category 1 is the same category as highly dangerous and addictive opioids and stimulants, as well as powerful psychedelics.
The Prohibition of alcohol only lasted 13 years.
This is the first time I've ever sided with Farcebook -- FTFY.
Gandhi's struggle would have turned out very, very differently had he been dealing with Hitler or Stalin or Mao instead of the British Empire. His methods only work against an adversary who has at least SOME heart or nobility you can leverage and exploit.
I take it then that the use of words you find naughty offends you more than the douchebaggery of the Software Freedom Conservancy?
Oh come now. Of the millions of would-be phone buyers, you do NOT "suspect" that "many" of them would welcome Apple's reaction? That's actually a statistical certainty, given that there are many millions of such people. Your false intellectual objection is showing.
And depending on what effect the coming new management at the top does or does not have.
More to the point, Bush won the electoral college, which is the only tally that counts.
All the Supremes did was scotch an attempted coup d'etat in which Gore forces engineered a carefully crafted selected recount of only localities in Florida where he thought it would help him, and in particular tried to count ballots of highly questionable legality.
More than half of Americans are mind-numbingly stupid motherfucking bastards. Tell us something we DON'T know.
This is year 7 of the Obama train wreck and month 14 of an utterly incompetent and do-nothing Repugnican control of both houses of Congress.
In other words some hundreds of people could create it in a month. Color me unimpressed by the level of difficulty. IF, that is (and it's big IF) your premise is accurate.
For pete's sake, inform yourself. Prosecutors and judges try to railroad jurors by lying to them about their powers and duties all the time, but the truth is that a jury, once empaneled, is completely free to reach a finding of not guilty for ANY REASON, and it does not have to reveal what that reason is. A jury's responsibility is awesome, and its power of decision is absolute. That decision cannot be invalidated just because the judge disagrees with it, or disagrees with the process used.
Sorry, no. Not even close. "Politically correct" is an OXYMORON used as a tenet by by idiots and tools exclusively. Political beliefs can't be categorized as "correct" or "incorrect", any more than "opinions" or "beliefs" or "core values" can be so categorized.
Sigh. [rolls eyes] No, it's not a flaw. Do you have any concept of dictatorship of the majority? Our "system" was carefully crafted with balances. The House of Representatives is for, er, REPRESENTATION. The Senate is not just by name, but conceptually, based on the Roman Senate. "Senatus" means "council of elders". To be sure, the U.S. Senate, like many parts of our system, has become greatly corrupted recently. A lot of it is traceable to 1913's stupid 17th Amendment. Prior to that, Senators were appointed by their State's legislature.
Yet the Senate still retains certain distinctions when compared to the House. Only the Senate has the institution of the filibuster against railroading. Largely as a result, a supermajority is a necessity in the Senate, rather than just 50% plus 1 vote.
Every law has to pass BOTH the House and the Senate. The House ensures (theoretically) that it has popular support. The Senate ensures to a certain extent that the powerful do not run roughshod over others.
Wrong. To any halfway competent C programmer it "looks like" no such thing. Because he knows that if there are no braces, the if statement always acts on the single following statement.
If it is C, not Python, the indentation means absolutely nothing except a visual cue, and any C programmer who relies only on visual cues is a C programmer of unacceptable quality.
Again an un-proofread post. Sigh. But at least this time I can divine what you are saying. You are right that any data not backed up is at risk. Duh.
Bingo. Hear, hear. I learned to HATE dkms and its goddamned "weak updates" with a vengeance. After intensive searching, I never found a clue anywhere as to how to beat the asinine weak update predilection out of dkms.
Alas, I have no confidence whatever that Red Hat will ever see the light on this. Believe it or not, I am now seriously looking at shitcanning it for my servers in favor of Ubuntu.
I've been using ZFS on Linux for years, and the only thing that ever came close to being a mess was the horseshit called DKMS. Under CentOS6 (and I suspect any other linux), it absolutely insisted on building a mess of something it called "weak-modules" when I updated the kernel. These are nothing more than a mess of symlinks to the old module, and they kept breaking my system. I never found a workable way to prevent their creation, and fixing the damage always called for very careful ripping out of the links, and teasing DKMS into creating a proper new module in their place.
Also, rebuilding ZFS from source (using either DKMS or not) takes forever.
If Ubuntu will now do my rebuilding for me, and get rid of the DKMS abortion, that has my full attention. But I've never had the slightest problem from any part of actually running ZFS itself on linux.
Me too. Even FreeBSD.
Utter bullshit. I have one ZFS server that is root-on-ZFS, and one with an etx4 root and boot drive. They are both equally useful and performant. Sure, you can do interesting things with root-on-ZFS, but after experiencing both, I am fairly well decided on balance I prefer not using it.
What the fuck did you just claim in that unintelligible post? Damned if I can figure out.
Possibly you could make that argument if all ZFS was, was a file system. That's not the case, though. ZFS is a fully integrated file system and logical volume manager, complete with built-in RAID facilities far more advanced than those available otherwise. Another vast advantage is the ability to create and destroy hierarchical file systems (not just directories) at any time during operation without interrupting operation. The creation is virtually instantaneous, and the destruction is asynchronous, so even "zfs destroy" of even an enormous sub file system returns to a prompt essentially immediately.
This is just scratching the surface of stuff you can't to in archaic ext4 or archaic xfs.
Knock yourself out. Nothing could possibly interest me less than that particular metric; I am FAR more concerned with data protection and reliability; but we all have our own set of priorities.
Thank you. Hope this shuts up some of the tools who claim it makes no difference whether you vote fopr Tweedledee or Tweedledum.