While I agree with the opinion that these amendments completely unrelated the main bill are bad, Congress can (and had) not pass the bill if the amendment is not agreeable. For example: the last Defense Appropriations Bill was filibustered and defeated in the Senate because an amendment to allow oil exploration of the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve had been attached by Sen. Ted Stevens from Alaska.
Yeah, but it's harder. First, it has to be worth throwing the main bill out over. Second, the sneaky bastards usually attach it to something they know you can't vote against. So they get you either way - either they get the rider they want, or they have you appearing to vote against a popular law. Not the way democracy is supposed to work.
Yes, there are times when using partitions as a poor-man's quota system (like your web server example) makes some sense. It's a good point. But again, my main objection to multiple partitioning isn't that it shouldn't be done, but rather that it's recommended all the time by people who haven't really thought about the cases where it actually makes sense.
I think doing anything without thinking about it leads to misery, I have to agree with you there. I personally do it because it works for me, and because I once got burned by having/home on the main drive. But as always, do what works for you.
I do think, in general, that partitioning more will *usually* result in fewer problems than partitioning *less,* but that's just me.
Having multiple partitions is very nice for running multiple linux distros, because having a common home directory saves space and makes life easier. Also, I probably reinstall more than I switch drives, so putting/home in the fstab makes things easier. Also, I have a FAT32 partition reachable from both windows and linux, though that obviously doesn't matter to non-dual-booters.
It's also a good idea to put/var on it's own if you're running a webserver, just in case your logs somehow get enormous, it's a fail-safe way to ensure that a growing logfile doesn't cause the main filesystem to run out of space. Yes, I know there are better ways of doing this, but it's a nice backup plan to make absolutely sure.
Finally, I usually leave one primary partition and about 10-20 GB free just in case I want to install a new OS. Who knows when I'll want another free partition hanging around and don't feel like scrounging for another drive?
Bottom line is it's not particularly hard to create partitions, and there are times where it could be advantageous to have things separated, so there's no reason why not to do it.
You reinstall Linux?
I've been on the same install for the last 2+ years and this is even AFTER a major hard drive crash where the entire system had to be restored from backups without reinstalling any underlaying OS.
Yup. Hard drive toasted and this wasn't a problem because I had the home directory on a different drive. Didn't have tape backup capabilities so I reinstalled the system and away I went.
It also gives you flexibility - you might want to install a new distro, or allow multiple distros to use the same home directory. There are a bunch of reasons why, but really no reason not to put/home, at a minimum, on a separate partition.
And 2+ years isn't that long - eventually, you're probably going to reinstall (unless the machine is mission critical, or you're resisting the reinstall for posterity's sake).
That's irrevelant as most if not all bits of hardware come with driver disks, regardless of what OS you're installing on them. It's very rare to buy a new OS-less PC/pile-o-bits and not have any drivers with it...
First, most users toss those disks immediately, especially the sort of user you claim would be thrown by a partition screen. Also, a lot of this MOBO integrated crap doesn't come with drivers available from the OEM except through system restore (I know there is by definition no system restore for an OS-less system, but OS-less systems aren't the only reason people have to install Windows).
Bottom line, there are a lot of times when a user will need to reinstall Windows and not have the original driver disks handy. Yes, I do speak from experience. And the end result is a great deal of pain.
The powerful partition tools are there to allow easy operability with windows. When windows is no longer the main concern in peoples minds as they switch to linux these tools will be hidden and streamline.
Like hell. On a Linux-only machine, they're also there to separate/home from the main distro so that if you have to reinstall it's a piece of cake to re-link the home directory. Obviously, there should be a swap partition too. Anyone installing a linux distro should be doing this.
Depending on the situation, splitting off/var,/usr/local, and/or/etc can make sense too.
I still run blackbox. I don't think it gets any smaller than that. I run a lot of calculations that require pretty much all system resources, and KDE is not an option.
example: A can be charged with the murder of B on the alternate theories that 1) A killed B with intent, or if he didn't have intent, then 2) A killed B by acting in a reckless manner exhibiting indifference to the value of human life. These are both valid alternate theories of the crime of B's murder by A. A can defend against the theories seperately by attacking their seperate premises ("A didn't have intent, nor was A reckless"), or he can defend against them together by attacking the common premise ("A didn't kill B"), or he can do both. Same thing here.
That's different. Those are two different alternatives - either he had intent or he didn't. I'm saying that for the SCO case, 1) there is no situation that would cause the second alternative; and 2) the same counterattack kills both, which is not the case in your example.
So, to recap: 1) I do in fact well understand the premise of the logical "fork attack." 2) I understand this is valid in a court of law without being contradictory. 3) SCO screwed it up because it gains them nothing.
Just to clarify a bit, as an attorney: it's termed "pleading in the alternative," and in this case SCO's claim is better described as "We maintain that we own the copyrights; but even *if* that were not the case, we would win anyway because Defendant was contractually obligated to transfer them to us." It is not the same thing as admitting, even conditionally, that they might not own the copyrights.
Right, I get that - used the same basic tactic in debate rounds years ago. What I'm saying is that while this line of argument isn't contradictory, it doesn't actually do anything because both alternatives rely on the same premise, namely that SCO was entitled to the copyright on the first place. Not only that, I don't see any situation in which the copyrights "should have" been transferred but weren't. There's either a contract that transferred the rights, or there's not. I don't think the transfer of copyright requires any sort of registry anymore(as a patent would), so it's not as if they could have a contract that said "We give SCO the copyright" and then failed to file the proper paperwork. I just don't see any situation in which the second alternative would apply.
So really, the problem with this for me is that I don't see the two "alternatives" as being different, but as I'm not a lawcritter I could be missing a somewhat subtle distinction here.
As an aside, what it indicates to me is that the original lawyers were probably very wrong in their assessment of SCOs copyright ownership, and Boies et al are using this amendment to plug a quickly leaking ship. I've heard things to that effect.
SCOX is arguing that Novell has infringed on their copyrights with SuSe Linux. They've also argued that Novell has failed to properly transfer the copyrights to them. Two lines of argument, each in opposition to each other, are perfectly fine the the court system. I forget the name for this, but basically SCOX is offering judge Kimball two different ways to give them 'relief' for Novell's supposed wrongdoing.
Agreed, but I don't think this one's well set up. The idea is to present the same concept as a fork in chess, where you present a dual attack, and defending one prong leaves your opponent skewered by the other one.
Here, though, that doesn't happen. SCO is basically saying "You violated our copyright, and if you didn't, it's because you didn't give it to us like you were supposed to."
The problem is, both provisions are easily countered by the same argument, that there was no provision for transfer of copyright under the SCO/Novell agreement. So while SCO's argument isn't contradictory, it does reveal the fact that they're screwed. It isn't literally contradictory but it has the same effect.
I'm not the original poster but my reading of that is, what he thought was amazing was not the 2%, but the fact that of the entire Apple product line, that was the only instance of an over 2% failure rate. It's not that 2% is spectacular but that Apple only had one item come close to that.
Well, first, that is really high - I wouldn't want to duplicate that number. Second, they have had a number pf problems with dodgy hardware. On the current PB line, that would include the hinge (mine was replaced), the latch, and the issue with bright spots on the display.
Defect rates are measured in PPM, not %. Logic also suggests otherwise - if every part in a laptop had a 2% failure rate, none would make it out the door. Engage brain.
say what you want but only the iBook logic board failure had over a 2% failure rate which everyone knows in consumer electronics is AMAZING. The thing is Apple is more high profile than Dell HP or any of the other PC manufacturers so their issues make front page news while I can name whole shipments of Dell desktops we sent back for failures, litterally whole labs. I have only had one or two Apple systems fail.
Are you insane? A 2% failure rate for a specific part is catastrophic. No amount of kool-aid changes the fact that the logic board problem was a disaster. Even Apple ultimately admitted the problem.
People love to knock Apple cause their problems are front page news, but the truth is they have a much better failure to working ratio than all of the other manufacturers.
Keep in mind my daughters computer is a PII 350. I have a copy of XP Pro but it won't even initialize (might be the disc or the computer).
Maybe it's time I get her a new computer.
I'd say that's a rather old computer indeed, but probably not the problem. It could be the disc, because the disc when used properly boots initially into a DOS mode that virtually any PC can boot. In general, using a functioning Windows disc to redo the MBR is quite easy, I've done it after screwing up a Linux install on occasion.
If there weren't OTHER physicists publishing similar papers first, perhaps some physicists would. That's the point.
If so, it's incorrect. People forget the giants in physics who were around in the early 1900's, a time that was arguably the golden age of physics even aside from Einstein. This was the time of Planck, Rutherford, Bohr, etc. If anything, I'd turn the premise on its head - during the *strongest* period for physics in the last couple of centuries, Einstein *still* stood out.
And as grandparent stated, Einstein's 1905 will probably never be duplicated. The fact that he never got the Nobel for relativity is staggering - by the time it was fully understood, he already had a Nobel, and he was so highly regarded that giving him more Nobels would have been superfluous.
I don't understand why people hate pointers. Is it the fear of memory math? What's going on? Because pointers have a ton of advantages. Make it easy to save memory, and also make it easy to allow generic function prototyping through function pointers.
Function pointers are probably my favorite thing about low-level languages (and even a few higher-level languages that provide such support).
You could, but you had to open the catfood and feed it to your cat before you could discover the existence of the EULA, much less its terms. The pet food store won't accept returns of opened bags of cat food, citing USDA and manfacturer policies about "food piracy."
They will do that. However, the courts have ruled that the catfood manufacturer has to offer you a remedy, and as such they have to provide you a refund. Of course, it will be a pain in the ass to get them to do this, but I digress.
He's just another utterly clueless pundit. To have them buy Opera is to admit that they didn't have what it takes to secure and extend the thing. MS flatly won't be inclined to do that if they can help it- this suggestion is in the same class as saying MS ought to do a Linux version of MS Office.
Yup. That and there's nothing inherently wrong with IE that MS doesn't basically refuse to fix. There's no patent's they'd be buying. Opera doesn't have (now) anything that other browsers don't or can't figure out how to make. Opera doesn't have the sort of resources that would make them worth acquiring.
In other words, there is no way in hell this happens - MS is completely capable of creating a good browser if they care enough to do so. They've demonstrated this in the past. There's no need for them to spend $400M for the privelege.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but it's harder. First, it has to be worth throwing the main bill out over. Second, the sneaky bastards usually attach it to something they know you can't vote against. So they get you either way - either they get the rider they want, or they have you appearing to vote against a popular law. Not the way democracy is supposed to work.
I think doing anything without thinking about it leads to misery, I have to agree with you there. I personally do it because it works for me, and because I once got burned by having /home on the main drive. But as always, do what works for you.
I do think, in general, that partitioning more will *usually* result in fewer problems than partitioning *less,* but that's just me.
It's also a good idea to put /var on it's own if you're running a webserver, just in case your logs somehow get enormous, it's a fail-safe way to ensure that a growing logfile doesn't cause the main filesystem to run out of space. Yes, I know there are better ways of doing this, but it's a nice backup plan to make absolutely sure.
Finally, I usually leave one primary partition and about 10-20 GB free just in case I want to install a new OS. Who knows when I'll want another free partition hanging around and don't feel like scrounging for another drive?
Bottom line is it's not particularly hard to create partitions, and there are times where it could be advantageous to have things separated, so there's no reason why not to do it.
Yup. Hard drive toasted and this wasn't a problem because I had the home directory on a different drive. Didn't have tape backup capabilities so I reinstalled the system and away I went.
It also gives you flexibility - you might want to install a new distro, or allow multiple distros to use the same home directory. There are a bunch of reasons why, but really no reason not to put /home, at a minimum, on a separate partition.
And 2+ years isn't that long - eventually, you're probably going to reinstall (unless the machine is mission critical, or you're resisting the reinstall for posterity's sake).
First, most users toss those disks immediately, especially the sort of user you claim would be thrown by a partition screen. Also, a lot of this MOBO integrated crap doesn't come with drivers available from the OEM except through system restore (I know there is by definition no system restore for an OS-less system, but OS-less systems aren't the only reason people have to install Windows).
Bottom line, there are a lot of times when a user will need to reinstall Windows and not have the original driver disks handy. Yes, I do speak from experience. And the end result is a great deal of pain.
Like hell. On a Linux-only machine, they're also there to separate /home from the main distro so that if you have to reinstall it's a piece of cake to re-link the home directory. Obviously, there should be a swap partition too. Anyone installing a linux distro should be doing this.
Depending on the situation, splitting off /var, /usr/local, and/or /etc can make sense too.
I still run blackbox. I don't think it gets any smaller than that. I run a lot of calculations that require pretty much all system resources, and KDE is not an option.
That and scheduling shows with a large appeal to males during Monday Night Football and wondering why the ratings aren't stellar. Duh.
That's different. Those are two different alternatives - either he had intent or he didn't. I'm saying that for the SCO case, 1) there is no situation that would cause the second alternative; and 2) the same counterattack kills both, which is not the case in your example.
So, to recap: 1) I do in fact well understand the premise of the logical "fork attack." 2) I understand this is valid in a court of law without being contradictory. 3) SCO screwed it up because it gains them nothing.
Right, I get that - used the same basic tactic in debate rounds years ago. What I'm saying is that while this line of argument isn't contradictory, it doesn't actually do anything because both alternatives rely on the same premise, namely that SCO was entitled to the copyright on the first place. Not only that, I don't see any situation in which the copyrights "should have" been transferred but weren't. There's either a contract that transferred the rights, or there's not. I don't think the transfer of copyright requires any sort of registry anymore(as a patent would), so it's not as if they could have a contract that said "We give SCO the copyright" and then failed to file the proper paperwork. I just don't see any situation in which the second alternative would apply.
So really, the problem with this for me is that I don't see the two "alternatives" as being different, but as I'm not a lawcritter I could be missing a somewhat subtle distinction here.
As an aside, what it indicates to me is that the original lawyers were probably very wrong in their assessment of SCOs copyright ownership, and Boies et al are using this amendment to plug a quickly leaking ship. I've heard things to that effect.
Agreed, but I don't think this one's well set up. The idea is to present the same concept as a fork in chess, where you present a dual attack, and defending one prong leaves your opponent skewered by the other one.
Here, though, that doesn't happen. SCO is basically saying "You violated our copyright, and if you didn't, it's because you didn't give it to us like you were supposed to."
The problem is, both provisions are easily countered by the same argument, that there was no provision for transfer of copyright under the SCO/Novell agreement. So while SCO's argument isn't contradictory, it does reveal the fact that they're screwed. It isn't literally contradictory but it has the same effect.
Nice job completely regurgitating the grandparent's post and throwing in a gratuitous link to your own page in the process.
Well, first, that is really high - I wouldn't want to duplicate that number. Second, they have had a number pf problems with dodgy hardware. On the current PB line, that would include the hinge (mine was replaced), the latch, and the issue with bright spots on the display.
Yes, I am a PB owner. ;)
Defect rates are measured in PPM, not %. Logic also suggests otherwise - if every part in a laptop had a 2% failure rate, none would make it out the door. Engage brain.
Here are the odds:
Are you insane? A 2% failure rate for a specific part is catastrophic. No amount of kool-aid changes the fact that the logic board problem was a disaster. Even Apple ultimately admitted the problem.
People love to knock Apple cause their problems are front page news, but the truth is they have a much better failure to working ratio than all of the other manufacturers.
Back that up?
No, it was dumb then too.
I'd say that's a rather old computer indeed, but probably not the problem. It could be the disc, because the disc when used properly boots initially into a DOS mode that virtually any PC can boot. In general, using a functioning Windows disc to redo the MBR is quite easy, I've done it after screwing up a Linux install on occasion.
Or a windows CD? If you can't find a single soul who will loan you a windows CD...I mean, come on.
Linux needs to makes it as easy to remove these bootloaders as it is to install them.
So you want linux...to reinstall the Microsoft bootloader for you? Riiiiiight.
If so, it's incorrect. People forget the giants in physics who were around in the early 1900's, a time that was arguably the golden age of physics even aside from Einstein. This was the time of Planck, Rutherford, Bohr, etc. If anything, I'd turn the premise on its head - during the *strongest* period for physics in the last couple of centuries, Einstein *still* stood out.
And as grandparent stated, Einstein's 1905 will probably never be duplicated. The fact that he never got the Nobel for relativity is staggering - by the time it was fully understood, he already had a Nobel, and he was so highly regarded that giving him more Nobels would have been superfluous.
w00t!
Apparantly you missed the joke, and luckily this isn't worth my modpoints.
Function pointers are probably my favorite thing about low-level languages (and even a few higher-level languages that provide such support).
They will do that. However, the courts have ruled that the catfood manufacturer has to offer you a remedy, and as such they have to provide you a refund. Of course, it will be a pain in the ass to get them to do this, but I digress.
Yup. That and there's nothing inherently wrong with IE that MS doesn't basically refuse to fix. There's no patent's they'd be buying. Opera doesn't have (now) anything that other browsers don't or can't figure out how to make. Opera doesn't have the sort of resources that would make them worth acquiring.
In other words, there is no way in hell this happens - MS is completely capable of creating a good browser if they care enough to do so. They've demonstrated this in the past. There's no need for them to spend $400M for the privelege.
This one is even dumb by Dvorak's standards.