I'm not too worked up over KDE4's bloat given the cheapness of RAM and disk space, but KDE4 lacks one simple thing. There should be a single simple option for the user to set: "Give me KDE3 look and feel all the way, but with the KDE4/Qt4 improved codebase plus the obvious underpinning improvements". I.e., it would get rid of the compositing stuff, Plasma stuff, animation stuff - a plain desktop as folder, plus panels. Basically a quick, simply way to disable all the stuff which is utterly pointless to the task at hand, and in fact gets in the way, at least for some major subset of users.
It is really quite a daunting undertaking to identify and properly manipulate all the distributed settings necessary to accomplish this choice. The capability is there; it's just too hard to accomplish the way it is now. I love the detailed configurability, but there needs to be at least one meta-configuration setting. It's not like it would be hard to code or confuse anybody.
That should pretty much satisfy everybody beyond a few religious adherents to hardware/software minimalism.
You've got me confused. Is there a new world order or something? When did Windows adopt bash? It's true, I can't even begin to imagine using Windows without Cygwin, but Cygwin is not Windows.
Bzzzt. Thank you for playing, but wrong answer. A law is unconstitutional if the constitution plainly prohibits it. Period. If the chumps in Washington were to pass an ex post facto law tomorrow, it is unconstitutional on the face of it, from the word go. It is not RULED unconstitutional until the wheels of justice creak into motion and (hopefully so, and hopefully quickly (ha!) so) declare it so, but it is DE FACTO unconstitutional from the moment it is signed by a president drunk on power, or passed over his veto by 2/3 majorities of 435 morons and 100 fools.
If this hypothetical ex post facto law were not in due course struck down, the arrogant bastards in Washington might soon find out that real power is not reserved for them alone. The population could get pretty rambunctious in the face of such an affront. Hey, it could happen.
News flash: if (ha, when!) the supreme court fucks up, it does not make wrong decisions magically right. There is no formal recourse, but they are not infallible.
Rights exist in the absence of a constitution. The constitution or other legal mechanisms merely recognize them.
Parent post to yours is quite correct. The point is obscured by the fact that the constitution is necessarily not mathematically precise on every point, and knaves can distort it in pretty crazy ways.
Unstable means you better not rely on it. If it could be relied on, RHEL7 would be rolling out BTRFS as a full first line option, or as default - but they are not. Unstable means RHEL6 can't read a BTRFS volume formatted under Fedora18. Come on, it has been 5 years since BTRFS 1.0, and it is still "experimental".
Stable means you can exchange volumes between any linux system over the last 5 years or so without a problem. I can do that with ext4.
I didn't happen to see anything under 14.1", 0.9" thick, and 4.6 lb there. That is a completely different class from 13.3", 0.7", and 3.0 lb. I own two systems (13.3 and 14.1) that differ in physical dimensions by approximately the same amount, and believe me, it is like night and day.
The 14.1" is GIGANTIC and weighs as much as a LOCOMOTIVE. That would be your reaction after coming from a 13.3" lightweight.
For real portability, the 13.3" is the sweet spot - if you can read the screen - which, sadly, I can't really do without tremendous strain any more. But let's assume the tpical user is not 66 years old with a history since early childhood of severe myopia, extreme astigmatism, and gross differential between the two eyes - and exponentially more horrific "floaters" and cloudiness the last couple of decades.
ZoL all the way. I know longer care if the BTRFS glacier _ever_ arrives.
I was hesitant, thinking ZoL was toy status, but I bit the bullet, installed and took the learning curve. It seems fully mature to me. I had confused ZoL with the ZFS Fuse toy, but ithey are completely separate things. ZoL is a high performance, reliable and mature "real" kernel mode file system.
Creating an 18TB double parity RAID-Z2 storage pool takes only a handful of seconds and is completely ready to go. There is no traditional long "build" stage. In general all "mkfs" operations are essentially instantaneous.
For me on CentOS6 it was a simple repo addition and "yum install". It hooks into DKMS for when I do future kernel upgrades.
The postulated AGW effect, far from being uniquely rapid, is in fact, much more gradual than some naturally caused pronounced climate effects. By orders of magnitude.
The Younger Dryas of just 12 thousand years ago caused a mini ice age lasting 1300 years. It had long been thought to be about a decade in onset (still much more rapid than AGW effect), but recent evidence now suggests that it transformed a warm and sunny Europe into an icy, near-glacial freeze in only six months.
Thee were several dramatically rapid such climatic changes during the period from 17,000 to 8000 years ago. Note on the chart (Figure 1) the difference in degree between these changes and "present global warming". The latter is all but invisible in comparison.
At some point it's going to be obvious to even US Republican Senators that climate change is going to economically effect their tiny little world and they might try to do something about it.
And others will say "At some point it's going to be obvious to even the most starry eyed utopists that their suggested counteractions are likely to have catastrophic economic impact on everyone, and most especially the most vulnerable".
Please note that I don't choose to say that. What I do say is that when you launch an attack like yours on your debate opponents, it invites a counterattack on the same basis, and a degenerative conversation. I pretty much agree with all your real points, and offer that any hope of changing minds is going to be based on logic and reason, and not divisive attacks.
Further to be effective you're going to have to lower the population of the planet by BILLIONS. How?
Thermonuclear war? Germ warfare?
That is literally what it would take.
I happen to think there are still people willing to discuss options rationally. I know most no longer believe that, and I know most are too busy insulting those who don't toe the line THEY maintain, but let's just try it anyway for a bit, ok?
Your assertion that "thermonuclear war" or "germ warfare" is "what it would take" to reduce world population by "billions" is clearly incorrect. To reduce population you don't have to kill anyone. Not a single one. All you have to do is cut the birth rate to a figure less than the death rate. Every single individual is going to die obligingly on his own if you give him time. The global mean death rate is 0.837% per annum.
The current estimated global population is 7.12 billion.
Now suppose you cut the birth rate to zero. After one year, 60 million will have died, of natural and accidental causes, leaving 7.06 billion. The decline is reverse exponential, mopified by a rising coefficient. The death rate will rise over time simply because the mean age of the population will increase toward their expected longevity. Within 20 years, you will be down well over a billion. After 100 years, essentially everyone will be dead and your global population will be close to zero. You will have to start raising the birth rate before then or risk extinction. Well before then, because you need people who are not past child-bearing age.
All it takes is will, and force. China has already demonstrated it is eminently possible to control population toward a goal. They have not chosen to actually reduce their population, for reasons which should be obvious (economic being the overriding reason), but they have chosen to greatly reduce the rate of increase. I never claimed that the reduction without killing people would be easy, nor that repercussions would not be severe; merely that it is logically achievable. You claimed, essentially, that it is not possible.
Note that you never specified the time span in which the reduction by billions had to be achieved.
You can see that the solution described works, only slower, if you only limit the birth rate to a lower figure than the death rate, rather than zero. That is easier to envision and swallow.
Finally, be very damned sure that the goal is worth the costs. I mentioned severe repercussions. Cataclysmic economic impact is likely to be one. This might be counteracted by massive automation of economic production, and social adjustment of how the wealth is distributed. Another repercussion is that few of us might find the necessary global enforcement apparatus to be palatable (to say the least).
This is a kind of ridiculous excursion off point. Nobody is "distributing" anything in the context of the discussion.
What I find perplexing is why the Internet Archive chooses, on their own initiative, to make an ex post facto censorship based on robots.txt. Robots.txt tells you "be nice and don't process the site". It's enough to stop processing the site when you see the request. It's an absurdity to go back retroactively and undo what was done in the past, before there was a robots.txt request. The Internet Archive's policy is absurd. It's batty.
I certainly couldn't agree more, there ought to be a dozen or a hundred internet archives, geographically distributed. It ought to be impossible for anyone to make data that was once free go away.
I'll tackle that one, and very succinctly. A panel you can fire is preferable to a panel you can't. Any day. And they both have precisely the same motivation. To save money, the better to spend it somewhere else.
Nice try, but I'm not buying it. I'd like to think as a non producer or non creator of content their liability would be covered under the same principle as ISP exemption. Do the jackboots come for Comcast because someone peer-to-peers or receives via email a picture of Candy Sweet allegedly taken one day before her 18th birthday? I don't think so. Why should the Internet Archive be treated any differently?
Perhaps I am naive, but one thing I am not. I am not wrong on the principle. That is the way it SHOULD be.
Robots.txt should be subject to exactly the same principle as the US Congress. No retroactive censorship, just the way ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.
Come to that, I am not clear on what the legal basis of robots.txt is. To the best of my knowledge there is no legal basis whatsoever for prosecuting non-compliance; i.e., it is a gentlemen's agreement; no more. Am I mistaken?
Mark Shuttleworth, you go to blazes, you rigid, small minded twit. I say that because your vapid insult works both ways. You insult those who rationally oppose the fragmentation caused by Mir. You insult the huge number of sincere tea party advocates with your insulting, condescending, stupid metaphor. And by the way, before you insult ME, I would feel exactly the same if you said "Socialist Workers Party", "Communist Party", or "Libertarian Party".
Actually, your closed mind is its own reward. You're not an issues, merits kind of guy, are you? Now see what you've got me doing? I did really see a tremendous lot of value and good coming from Canonical until fairly recently.
Mark Shuttleworth, you go to hell, you rigid, small minded twat. I say that because your vapid insult works both ways. You insult those who rationally oppose the fragmentation caused by Mir. You insult the huge number of sincere tea party advocates with your insulting, condescending, stupid metaphor. And by the way, before you insult ME, I would feel exactly the same if you said "Socialist Workers Party", "Communist Party", or "Libertarian Party".
Actually, your closed mind is its own reward. You're not an issues, merits kind of guy, are you? Now see what you've got me doing? I did really see a tremendous lot of value and good coming from Canonical until fairly recently.
Germany has 40m households, and their average electricity consumption is 10 kWh per household per day
What the heck? Are you sure about that? I'm one person, I use about 15 kWh a day on my own, and I'm a fanatic miser. I don't leave a single light on except the room I'm in at the moment. Practically all my lights are CFL or LED. I don't have an electric stove, clothes dryer, or water heater. Those are huge pigs; most people have all of those. I am a fanatic about not holding the refrigerator door open wide or cracked open for more seconds than absolutely required. My TV is tuned to take no more than 30W.
Duh. A car catching fire while being driven is a whole hell of a lot more important to me as a driver than a car catching fire on a dealers lot, being hauled on the back of a semi, or on the assembly line. The latter cases are all exceedingly unlikely to injure anyone, they sure as hell won't injure the occupants because there are no occupants in any of those cases, and none of them destroy a driver's investment.
Fair enough. My present requirements do not include encryption. If they did, maybe zfs send | encrypt | ssh target 'cat > snapshotxxx.crypt.img' might be worth consideration. Recovery from the remote would then be more complex, as it would involve reconstructing from a series of differentials.
Heh, I hear you. I have rsync'ed some pretty big rsnapshot repositories to backup repositories, but I was helped by having 16 GB of RAM:-) But still, it was appallingly slow reconciling all those links, even if the actual transfer for an incremental is not that much.
I'll go you one better than rsnapshot (and make no mistake, I think rsnapshot was an absolutely wonderful idea and a superb invention).
Just use rsync to a zfs backup point. Take a zfs snapshot after each backup, or not; your call. Make zfs snapshots whenever you feel like it. There is no undue performance or storage problem with many, many snapshots. You could make one snapshot a day and have a simple cron job that deletes all the snapshots older than the last couple of weeks, except retains all the Sundays for a couple of months, all the first Sunday of the months for a couple of years, and all the first Sunday of the years forever. That would leave you with about 50 snapshots plus 1 for every year, which is very light. Or suit yourself with your own schedule.
Zfs snapshots are essentially instantaneous to make, and very quick to delete. Every single snapshot is a directly addressable representation of the entire store: every file. The differential mechanics are all handled by zfs internally. It's as if you are making a full (not differential) backup every day and somehow finding and financing a small city to store them all in. But your actual storage is only differentially larger than a single backup. OK, so far that's essentially what rsnapshot does, with a bunch of code.
The advantage over rsnapshot is efficiency and simplicity. All those zillions of hard links behind rsnapshot's strategy are time consuming to create and delete.
Obviously, either way you do have to be reasonably smart about database files, sparse files and open files.
BTW, rsyncing an encrypted fs to a remote, well, err, it doesn't really work. Because normal encryption turns small localized file deltas into completely different file contents, turning every rsync in which a lot of large files are modestly changed into a huge data transfer. You can use rsyncrypto to try to work around this, at the cost of some of the security of the encryption.
What do you think "Manhattan Project" level of spending is? The whole frikkin deal only cost 2 billion 1940s dollars, or 26 billion 2013 dollars. For an earth shattering game changer, it was cheaper than dirt. That was out of about 300 billion 1940s dollars the US spent on WW2 in its entirety.
For comparison, the B-17/B-24 four engine bomber building program (28,000 planes between the two) cost very roughly 7 billion. They battered Germany for some 2-1/2 years, but it still took a colossal ground invasion on two fronts to force the Germans to surrender. But two B-29s plus two nuclear bombs finished Japan without a single boot on the ground of the Japanese homeland.
Thank you. I don't suppose the fools behind the policy of generating all this stuff will ever face any sanctions for necessitating this cleanup effort.
Still, if I could pursue this just a bit more... If we spent $0.5 billion a year to get 90% of the work done, and keeping in mind the 80-20 rule, could we not have spent several billion instead and got it all done by now? I mean that is really chicken feed. And it sounds like the money has to be spent anyway; we're just spreading out the timespan so the rubes don't see so much money going out in one year.
OK, we have now heard from la-la land. Any invasion of Iran is a complete and utter fantasy on the face of it. Did you not learn anything from what happened in Iraq from 2003 until the invaders stuck their fingers in their ears, sang kumbaya and made a slow motion capitulation about a decade later? Iran has well over twice the population, and much more importantly is filled with forbidding, highly defensible terrain, not just a big indefensible desert.
The combined crushingly massive coalition forces that existed in 1991 MIGHT have been able to inflict a decisive military victory over Iran if they had been tasked with it. Maybe. The cost to the coalition would have been staggering. But invade, occupy, and subdue them? Not in the most supremely deluded imagination.
The forces available in 2003 would have been sadly unequal to the task, and those available today - don't make me laugh.
Just to be clear, yes, Iran could be devastated militarily from the air with physical destruction if anyone was willing to brave the backfire of universal global revulsion and condemnation. But "invaded", to use your word? No one with any grip on reality at all thinks anybody is stupid enough to bloody and bankrupt themselves with such a spectacularly ill conceived notion.
As to your proposal that Iran could be completely prevented from exporting any oil... Iran shares borders with Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. It has coastline on the Gulf of Oman outside of the Persian Gulf chokepoint. Russia and Kazakhstan are right across the Caspian Sea. Do you really think you're going to be able make them all toe the line and sign up for this embargo? Even if they sign up, are they just going to be snickering behind your back while they quietly flout it? How do you stop tankers from calling on Iran to pick up oil? With a naval blockade? That sounds like an act of war to me. Iran has submarines, you know, and every vessel you put out there on blockade duty is nothing but a target for a submarine.
Oil is fungible. As soon as it gets to a third party, no one can prove (and no one would care) where any given barrel came from. It's all mixed together.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not too worked up over KDE4's bloat given the cheapness of RAM and disk space, but KDE4 lacks one simple thing. There should be a single simple option for the user to set: "Give me KDE3 look and feel all the way, but with the KDE4/Qt4 improved codebase plus the obvious underpinning improvements". I.e., it would get rid of the compositing stuff, Plasma stuff, animation stuff - a plain desktop as folder, plus panels. Basically a quick, simply way to disable all the stuff which is utterly pointless to the task at hand, and in fact gets in the way, at least for some major subset of users.
It is really quite a daunting undertaking to identify and properly manipulate all the distributed settings necessary to accomplish this choice. The capability is there; it's just too hard to accomplish the way it is now. I love the detailed configurability, but there needs to be at least one meta-configuration setting. It's not like it would be hard to code or confuse anybody.
That should pretty much satisfy everybody beyond a few religious adherents to hardware/software minimalism.
You've got me confused. Is there a new world order or something? When did Windows adopt bash? It's true, I can't even begin to imagine using Windows without Cygwin, but Cygwin is not Windows.
Agree 100% with everything else.
Bzzzt. Thank you for playing, but wrong answer. A law is unconstitutional if the constitution plainly prohibits it. Period. If the chumps in Washington were to pass an ex post facto law tomorrow, it is unconstitutional on the face of it, from the word go. It is not RULED unconstitutional until the wheels of justice creak into motion and (hopefully so, and hopefully quickly (ha!) so) declare it so, but it is DE FACTO unconstitutional from the moment it is signed by a president drunk on power, or passed over his veto by 2/3 majorities of 435 morons and 100 fools.
If this hypothetical ex post facto law were not in due course struck down, the arrogant bastards in Washington might soon find out that real power is not reserved for them alone. The population could get pretty rambunctious in the face of such an affront. Hey, it could happen.
News flash: if (ha, when!) the supreme court fucks up, it does not make wrong decisions magically right. There is no formal recourse, but they are not infallible.
Rights exist in the absence of a constitution. The constitution or other legal mechanisms merely recognize them.
Parent post to yours is quite correct. The point is obscured by the fact that the constitution is necessarily not mathematically precise on every point, and knaves can distort it in pretty crazy ways.
Unstable means you better not rely on it. If it could be relied on, RHEL7 would be rolling out BTRFS as a full first line option, or as default - but they are not. Unstable means RHEL6 can't read a BTRFS volume formatted under Fedora18. Come on, it has been 5 years since BTRFS 1.0, and it is still "experimental".
Stable means you can exchange volumes between any linux system over the last 5 years or so without a problem. I can do that with ext4.
I didn't happen to see anything under 14.1", 0.9" thick, and 4.6 lb there. That is a completely different class from 13.3", 0.7", and 3.0 lb. I own two systems (13.3 and 14.1) that differ in physical dimensions by approximately the same amount, and believe me, it is like night and day.
The 14.1" is GIGANTIC and weighs as much as a LOCOMOTIVE. That would be your reaction after coming from a 13.3" lightweight.
For real portability, the 13.3" is the sweet spot - if you can read the screen - which, sadly, I can't really do without tremendous strain any more. But let's assume the tpical user is not 66 years old with a history since early childhood of severe myopia, extreme astigmatism, and gross differential between the two eyes - and exponentially more horrific "floaters" and cloudiness the last couple of decades.
ZoL all the way. I know longer care if the BTRFS glacier _ever_ arrives.
I was hesitant, thinking ZoL was toy status, but I bit the bullet, installed and took the learning curve. It seems fully mature to me. I had confused ZoL with the ZFS Fuse toy, but ithey are completely separate things. ZoL is a high performance, reliable and mature "real" kernel mode file system.
Creating an 18TB double parity RAID-Z2 storage pool takes only a handful of seconds and is completely ready to go. There is no traditional long "build" stage. In general all "mkfs" operations are essentially instantaneous.
For me on CentOS6 it was a simple repo addition and "yum install". It hooks into DKMS for when I do future kernel upgrades.
Serious question: do you believe China's population control measures to be tyranny?
The postulated AGW effect, far from being uniquely rapid, is in fact, much more gradual than some naturally caused pronounced climate effects. By orders of magnitude.
The Younger Dryas of just 12 thousand years ago caused a mini ice age lasting 1300 years. It had long been thought to be about a decade in onset (still much more rapid than AGW effect), but recent evidence now suggests that it transformed a warm and sunny Europe into an icy, near-glacial freeze in only six months.
Thee were several dramatically rapid such climatic changes during the period from 17,000 to 8000 years ago. Note on the chart (Figure 1) the difference in degree between these changes and "present global warming". The latter is all but invisible in comparison.
And others will say "At some point it's going to be obvious to even the most starry eyed utopists that their suggested counteractions are likely to have catastrophic economic impact on everyone, and most especially the most vulnerable".
Please note that I don't choose to say that. What I do say is that when you launch an attack like yours on your debate opponents, it invites a counterattack on the same basis, and a degenerative conversation. I pretty much agree with all your real points, and offer that any hope of changing minds is going to be based on logic and reason, and not divisive attacks.
Eh? Could you elaborate on how that follows? I believe it to be a red herring. I totally follow everything else.
I happen to think there are still people willing to discuss options rationally. I know most no longer believe that, and I know most are too busy insulting those who don't toe the line THEY maintain, but let's just try it anyway for a bit, ok?
Your assertion that "thermonuclear war" or "germ warfare" is "what it would take" to reduce world population by "billions" is clearly incorrect. To reduce population you don't have to kill anyone. Not a single one. All you have to do is cut the birth rate to a figure less than the death rate. Every single individual is going to die obligingly on his own if you give him time. The global mean death rate is 0.837% per annum.
The current estimated global population is 7.12 billion.
Now suppose you cut the birth rate to zero. After one year, 60 million will have died, of natural and accidental causes, leaving 7.06 billion. The decline is reverse exponential, mopified by a rising coefficient. The death rate will rise over time simply because the mean age of the population will increase toward their expected longevity. Within 20 years, you will be down well over a billion. After 100 years, essentially everyone will be dead and your global population will be close to zero. You will have to start raising the birth rate before then or risk extinction. Well before then, because you need people who are not past child-bearing age.
All it takes is will, and force. China has already demonstrated it is eminently possible to control population toward a goal. They have not chosen to actually reduce their population, for reasons which should be obvious (economic being the overriding reason), but they have chosen to greatly reduce the rate of increase. I never claimed that the reduction without killing people would be easy, nor that repercussions would not be severe; merely that it is logically achievable. You claimed, essentially, that it is not possible.
Note that you never specified the time span in which the reduction by billions had to be achieved.
You can see that the solution described works, only slower, if you only limit the birth rate to a lower figure than the death rate, rather than zero. That is easier to envision and swallow.
Finally, be very damned sure that the goal is worth the costs. I mentioned severe repercussions. Cataclysmic economic impact is likely to be one. This might be counteracted by massive automation of economic production, and social adjustment of how the wealth is distributed. Another repercussion is that few of us might find the necessary global enforcement apparatus to be palatable (to say the least).
This is a kind of ridiculous excursion off point. Nobody is "distributing" anything in the context of the discussion.
What I find perplexing is why the Internet Archive chooses, on their own initiative, to make an ex post facto censorship based on robots.txt. Robots.txt tells you "be nice and don't process the site". It's enough to stop processing the site when you see the request. It's an absurdity to go back retroactively and undo what was done in the past, before there was a robots.txt request. The Internet Archive's policy is absurd. It's batty.
I certainly couldn't agree more, there ought to be a dozen or a hundred internet archives, geographically distributed. It ought to be impossible for anyone to make data that was once free go away.
I'll tackle that one, and very succinctly. A panel you can fire is preferable to a panel you can't. Any day. And they both have precisely the same motivation. To save money, the better to spend it somewhere else.
Nice try, but I'm not buying it. I'd like to think as a non producer or non creator of content their liability would be covered under the same principle as ISP exemption. Do the jackboots come for Comcast because someone peer-to-peers or receives via email a picture of Candy Sweet allegedly taken one day before her 18th birthday? I don't think so. Why should the Internet Archive be treated any differently?
Perhaps I am naive, but one thing I am not. I am not wrong on the principle. That is the way it SHOULD be.
Robots.txt should be subject to exactly the same principle as the US Congress. No retroactive censorship, just the way ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.
Come to that, I am not clear on what the legal basis of robots.txt is. To the best of my knowledge there is no legal basis whatsoever for prosecuting non-compliance; i.e., it is a gentlemen's agreement; no more. Am I mistaken?
Mark Shuttleworth, you go to blazes, you rigid, small minded twit. I say that because your vapid insult works both ways. You insult those who rationally oppose the fragmentation caused by Mir. You insult the huge number of sincere tea party advocates with your insulting, condescending, stupid metaphor. And by the way, before you insult ME, I would feel exactly the same if you said "Socialist Workers Party", "Communist Party", or "Libertarian Party".
Actually, your closed mind is its own reward. You're not an issues, merits kind of guy, are you? Now see what you've got me doing? I did really see a tremendous lot of value and good coming from Canonical until fairly recently.
Mark Shuttleworth, you go to hell, you rigid, small minded twat. I say that because your vapid insult works both ways. You insult those who rationally oppose the fragmentation caused by Mir. You insult the huge number of sincere tea party advocates with your insulting, condescending, stupid metaphor. And by the way, before you insult ME, I would feel exactly the same if you said "Socialist Workers Party", "Communist Party", or "Libertarian Party".
Actually, your closed mind is its own reward. You're not an issues, merits kind of guy, are you? Now see what you've got me doing? I did really see a tremendous lot of value and good coming from Canonical until fairly recently.
What the heck? Are you sure about that? I'm one person, I use about 15 kWh a day on my own, and I'm a fanatic miser. I don't leave a single light on except the room I'm in at the moment. Practically all my lights are CFL or LED. I don't have an electric stove, clothes dryer, or water heater. Those are huge pigs; most people have all of those. I am a fanatic about not holding the refrigerator door open wide or cracked open for more seconds than absolutely required. My TV is tuned to take no more than 30W.
Nobody else has a clue stick?
Duh. A car catching fire while being driven is a whole hell of a lot more important to me as a driver than a car catching fire on a dealers lot, being hauled on the back of a semi, or on the assembly line. The latter cases are all exceedingly unlikely to injure anyone, they sure as hell won't injure the occupants because there are no occupants in any of those cases, and none of them destroy a driver's investment.
Consider yourself educated.
Fair enough. My present requirements do not include encryption. If they did, maybe zfs send | encrypt | ssh target 'cat > snapshotxxx.crypt.img' might be worth consideration. Recovery from the remote would then be more complex, as it would involve reconstructing from a series of differentials.
Heh, I hear you. I have rsync'ed some pretty big rsnapshot repositories to backup repositories, but I was helped by having 16 GB of RAM :-) But still, it was appallingly slow reconciling all those links, even if the actual transfer for an incremental is not that much.
I'll go you one better than rsnapshot (and make no mistake, I think rsnapshot was an absolutely wonderful idea and a superb invention).
Just use rsync to a zfs backup point. Take a zfs snapshot after each backup, or not; your call. Make zfs snapshots whenever you feel like it. There is no undue performance or storage problem with many, many snapshots. You could make one snapshot a day and have a simple cron job that deletes all the snapshots older than the last couple of weeks, except retains all the Sundays for a couple of months, all the first Sunday of the months for a couple of years, and all the first Sunday of the years forever. That would leave you with about 50 snapshots plus 1 for every year, which is very light. Or suit yourself with your own schedule.
Zfs snapshots are essentially instantaneous to make, and very quick to delete. Every single snapshot is a directly addressable representation of the entire store: every file. The differential mechanics are all handled by zfs internally. It's as if you are making a full (not differential) backup every day and somehow finding and financing a small city to store them all in. But your actual storage is only differentially larger than a single backup. OK, so far that's essentially what rsnapshot does, with a bunch of code.
The advantage over rsnapshot is efficiency and simplicity. All those zillions of hard links behind rsnapshot's strategy are time consuming to create and delete.
Obviously, either way you do have to be reasonably smart about database files, sparse files and open files.
BTW, rsyncing an encrypted fs to a remote, well, err, it doesn't really work. Because normal encryption turns small localized file deltas into completely different file contents, turning every rsync in which a lot of large files are modestly changed into a huge data transfer. You can use rsyncrypto to try to work around this, at the cost of some of the security of the encryption.
What do you think "Manhattan Project" level of spending is? The whole frikkin deal only cost 2 billion 1940s dollars, or 26 billion 2013 dollars. For an earth shattering game changer, it was cheaper than dirt. That was out of about 300 billion 1940s dollars the US spent on WW2 in its entirety.
For comparison, the B-17/B-24 four engine bomber building program (28,000 planes between the two) cost very roughly 7 billion. They battered Germany for some 2-1/2 years, but it still took a colossal ground invasion on two fronts to force the Germans to surrender. But two B-29s plus two nuclear bombs finished Japan without a single boot on the ground of the Japanese homeland.
I understand. Not to mention the whole business of the US supporting Al Qaeda in Syria while ostensibly fighting it elsewhere.
Thank you. I don't suppose the fools behind the policy of generating all this stuff will ever face any sanctions for necessitating this cleanup effort.
Still, if I could pursue this just a bit more... If we spent $0.5 billion a year to get 90% of the work done, and keeping in mind the 80-20 rule, could we not have spent several billion instead and got it all done by now? I mean that is really chicken feed. And it sounds like the money has to be spent anyway; we're just spreading out the timespan so the rubes don't see so much money going out in one year.
OK, we have now heard from la-la land. Any invasion of Iran is a complete and utter fantasy on the face of it. Did you not learn anything from what happened in Iraq from 2003 until the invaders stuck their fingers in their ears, sang kumbaya and made a slow motion capitulation about a decade later? Iran has well over twice the population, and much more importantly is filled with forbidding, highly defensible terrain, not just a big indefensible desert.
The combined crushingly massive coalition forces that existed in 1991 MIGHT have been able to inflict a decisive military victory over Iran if they had been tasked with it. Maybe. The cost to the coalition would have been staggering. But invade, occupy, and subdue them? Not in the most supremely deluded imagination.
The forces available in 2003 would have been sadly unequal to the task, and those available today - don't make me laugh.
Just to be clear, yes, Iran could be devastated militarily from the air with physical destruction if anyone was willing to brave the backfire of universal global revulsion and condemnation. But "invaded", to use your word? No one with any grip on reality at all thinks anybody is stupid enough to bloody and bankrupt themselves with such a spectacularly ill conceived notion.
As to your proposal that Iran could be completely prevented from exporting any oil... Iran shares borders with Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. It has coastline on the Gulf of Oman outside of the Persian Gulf chokepoint. Russia and Kazakhstan are right across the Caspian Sea. Do you really think you're going to be able make them all toe the line and sign up for this embargo? Even if they sign up, are they just going to be snickering behind your back while they quietly flout it? How do you stop tankers from calling on Iran to pick up oil? With a naval blockade? That sounds like an act of war to me. Iran has submarines, you know, and every vessel you put out there on blockade duty is nothing but a target for a submarine.
Oil is fungible. As soon as it gets to a third party, no one can prove (and no one would care) where any given barrel came from. It's all mixed together.