In the "real world" GPL3 is restrictive. At many corporations, the legal teams have forbade usage of any GPL3 software. I am also impacted by this at my work place - we have to do with older versions or commercial software as according to the "suits" a Microsoft Server licence & support contract are way cheaper than a lawsuit.
Cool story.
And this goes especially true for Samba - as GPL3 is worded, you are not allowed to use-it to serve protected files, or, if you do, it's fair game to anyone to steal your data as this whole "domain authentication" stuff is Digital Rights Management. So the lawyers say, and management will listen to the lawyers and not the engineers.
Yet another cool story. The GPLv3 only applies if you're distributing the software - NOT using it. So, even if there was such a clause (there isn't), it wouldn't apply.
I recently went to visit friends in Houston, and it took all of 10 minutes to go through US immigration. The immigration officer was polite, friendly and made me feel welcome.
I haven't introduced any variables, I have simply acknowledged existing variables. If your theoretical model didn't already include these variables, and they significantly affect the outcome, then your model is simply wrong - because these variables exist in reality.
They exist depending on the circumstances. Some countries have nukes, others don't. Some have treaties with powerful nations, others don't. They're all variables.
They got themselves to the point where they had to choose between fighting a clearly superior foe or ceasing their empire-building, and chose the former because they just couldn't give up their dreams of glory after all they'd paid for them.
Actually they chose the latter, the Japanese surrendered once it became clear that the US was a superior foe. The US was taking major damage from the Japanese prior to the event and the US was feeling it badly.
You can use history as a cheat sheet, for example compare how Germany was treated after each World War and what the outcome was.
There are too many variables to simplify that to an explanation such as this using the history of Germany in the World Wars.
True, but to significantly affecting productivity through population reduction requires genocide.
Indeed.
Apart from the moral angle, committing genocide certainly increases the chances that your enemies - either this particular one or others - will respond in kind. In the era of weapons of mass destruction at the hands of any serious enemy, it might not be such a good tactical decision.
You've introduced more variables to the situation. of course with added variables such as these the tactics may need to change for the situation, I wasn't advocating this is the end all solution for war -- or everyone would do it, to win a war.
It requires either a dysfunctional culture or a dysfunctional individual.
You know... When the norm of a culture is to behave a certain way, that's not dysfunction, that's the norm for that culture. What you're saying could be equivalent to calling the Japanese 'dysfunctional' because of how their norms in combat and tactics differed from the US during the second World War.
saying that a baby that you spare today might kill your children twenty years from now is a ridiculous excuse and certainly doesn't prove anything.
Another point of view could be that you wiped out the enemy and it's spawn, so that enemy is unable to kill you in the future, that does prove something - Your enemy is gone.
Of course, I'm not condoning genocide, but I can see how it can have a valid tactic and in my point of view -- Ignoring this as a tactic also meas that you cannot plan adequately against such a threat.
how much time would it take to make that model in blender instead?
Assuming you know how to use Blender. Likely far less time, a simple object like a cube is dead easy to duplicate numerous times in Blender, you can create multiple sets in one go and the camera controls for editing are superior to that of what you can get in Minecraft.
Can you explain how shooting a baby in the face will keep anyone from shooting yours?
That baby won't grow up into an adult that can shoot my baby.
For that matter, how is shooting puppies or little old ladies going to help you win?
Reducing the population of the enemy may be helpful in limiting their productivity. Productivity can be effected by a variety, not withstanding emotional changes to others, lack of work force etc.
You do realise that this is exactly the same argument that Osama bin Laden used to justify attacks on the World Trade Center and other civilian targets?
So? Are you trying to say anything Osama Bin Laden ever said never had any sense or logic to it?
Ha ha ha. You know part of the magic of ZFS is management of the entire disk drive. No partitioning
You don't need to partition, you can use/dev/sdb and/dev/sdc instead. My question to you is, is Linux doing something that Solaris doesn't support? ie: Capable of running ZFS in a partition instead of using whole disk?
But none of this stuff is production quality yet on Linux
Define what will make it 'production quality' please.
You can go ahead and add: COMSTAR, SMF, FMD, and an excellent native NFS server implementation, to the list of things Solaris has but Linux doesn't.
I definitely agree NFS on Linux still needs work. Hell, it's still possible to lock up a server if you don't treat NFS just right. But, to be honest, I'd rather see the CIFS support extended more to be honest, mostly better security models offered on it (not only with authentication, but ACLs and file locking that doesn't suck and I couldn't give a crap about iSCSI anymore).
performance VS Solaris is questionable
Do you have any benchmarks regarding this specific setup. I'm genuinely curious. The stuff I find is regarding other implementations involving FUSE.
Linux doesn't have the components to implement all the integrations and beneficial "layering violations" ZFS has on Solaris
Seriously,/dev/sdb,/dev/sdc, access directly to the hard drives without any 'layering violation' issues, been in Linux since the beginning.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect to see the same kind of polish on Linux for ZFS or Dtrace at this point
Is this the same kind of polish that things like cron get on Solaris - Where it still doesn't support attributes like @reboot, but it's all good because the code is old and so it's matured just right or something? (Seriously, I've been told this is why the cron in Solaris is superior - note that I did not say Open Solaris).
With Solaris, you have ZFS out of the box and you just do "zpool create tank mirror c1t0d0 c1t1d0 mirror c1t2d0 c1t3d0
Actually, you can do the same with this implementation, only difference is you need to give the specific device paths like/dev/sdb instead of c1t0d0.
That's just the terms of service for their web site. It means if their site goes down and you lose money because you can't conduct your business, you can't sue them. They're still obligated to pay back your money if they lose it.
It also means that if they lose your money and don't reimburse them because you can't conduct your business due to lack of space bucks/bitcoins, you can't sue them.
They're still obligated to pay back your money if they lose it.
Any 'real world money' sure, but space bucks/bitcoins? Nope.
You can't exactly print out Bitcoins and stash them somewhere, now can you?
No, but you can export your Bitcoin wallet to external storage, erase it from your computer, stash it somewhere and it will have the same effect. Although, you're still subject to having money stolen because of vulnerabilities in the Bitcoin protocol (I don't really know why people are still using Bitcoin when Solidcoin is the superior system - less vulnerabilities).
What protections are there besides the government stepping in if the bank goes bankrupt?
The government stepping in if they 'steal' the money or do shady non-sense too. Also, even without the latter, the quoted argument is still fairly important, nothing is too big to fail.
But no BitCoin bank actually puts that in their terms of service
Based on what you define a "BitCoin bank"... First result on Google searching on this...
Bitcoin Market LLC makes no warranties, expressed or implied, and hereby disclaims and negates all other warranties, including without limitation, implied warranties or conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or non-infringement of intellectual property or other violation of rights. Further, Bitcoin Market LLC does not warrant or make any representations concerning the accuracy, likely results, or reliability of the use of the materials on its Internet web site or otherwise relating to such materials or on any sites linked to this site.
The difference between traditional banks and (unregulated) BitCoin banks, is that traditional banks are usually backed by the government if they should go belly-up. Outside of that, I don't see much difference.
Not only that, but there are regulations in place to ensure protections.
It's just as illegal to steal BitCoins as it is to steal from a traditional bank account, and the bank has the same duty to reimburse the stolen money.
It doesn't actually, since a terms of service for bitcoins can be legally binding in where it says there is no warranty of services. Banks cannot do that.
To put some perspective on the Bitcoinica incidents, in 2008, the estimated UK bank fraud level was £52.5 million; that is 990.28441 times the amount of this Bitcoin theft
To put some perspective, you're protected by law with the above, not with Bitcoin. Any money stolen from individuals is certainly returned.
There are people on many sides who want Bitcoin to fail, and who will do anything to stop it from growing. The banks hate it, because it will disintermediate and replace their business. The Statists dont like it because it will defund their socialist dreams. The gold bugs loathe it because it is not gold. Keynesian journalists bristle at the fact that the money supply in Bitcoin is limited, and dream of seeing it destroyed.
I doubt the majority of people in the above industries even know what Bitcoin even is. I think you have misconceptions of grandeur, sir.
Bitcoin will continue to grow, and events like this will winnow out the weak services and strengthen the existing ones.
But why would you use Bitcoin instead of Solidcoin?
The majority of people at one point in the UK lived in relatively poor hygiene compared to now, laws and actions were implemented to resolve this, for a very long time (many decades), the state of did not improve and many people were in violation of various laws. During this time, some people ended up prison for making available some of the worst living conditions available.
Before comparisons are brought on regarding it being incomparable, I beg to differ - As we all climb the 'Maslow' pyramid, the focus of laws on what parts of life become more relevant in today's society.
If the majority thought the law should exist, they would obey it.
Many people agreed, many people didn't agree, many people didn't know and many people didn't care regarding hygiene - Many did not obide by the laws for numerous decades. I don't see this being much different. You just happen to be one of the people who disagree in my example.
If the majority do not obey it AND they are not insane, then they do NOT support the law existing and would vote against it.
I like how you just justified some of the worst existing democracies (which are more dictatorships ran out of fear) out there.
(and maybe entirely--this has been done more than once in the past) due to realignment of previously-state-operated services to the counties (which is a popular way for California to do stealth service cuts -- instead of cutting services up-front, the funds that were supporting the services (and sometimes, less funds than the state was using to support the services) are redistributed to the counties which often can't use them as efficiently (having to reproduce the administrative functions provided by the state 58 times between them.)
I heard an inception noise for each of those brackets.
Workers in Amazon's fulfillment centers often complain that they are "held to unreasonable metrics" and that they are "worked to death and then fired."
I think Amazon didn't get the memo you can only do that in China.
Slashdot Mirror
Cool story.
Yet another cool story. The GPLv3 only applies if you're distributing the software - NOT using it. So, even if there was such a clause (there isn't), it wouldn't apply.
Were you fingerprinted?
Clearly this town is more modern than their "thousands of years old culture"!
They exist depending on the circumstances. Some countries have nukes, others don't. Some have treaties with powerful nations, others don't. They're all variables.
Actually they chose the latter, the Japanese surrendered once it became clear that the US was a superior foe. The US was taking major damage from the Japanese prior to the event and the US was feeling it badly.
There are too many variables to simplify that to an explanation such as this using the history of Germany in the World Wars.
Indeed.
You've introduced more variables to the situation. of course with added variables such as these the tactics may need to change for the situation, I wasn't advocating this is the end all solution for war -- or everyone would do it, to win a war.
You know... When the norm of a culture is to behave a certain way, that's not dysfunction, that's the norm for that culture. What you're saying could be equivalent to calling the Japanese 'dysfunctional' because of how their norms in combat and tactics differed from the US during the second World War.
Another point of view could be that you wiped out the enemy and it's spawn, so that enemy is unable to kill you in the future, that does prove something - Your enemy is gone.
Of course, I'm not condoning genocide, but I can see how it can have a valid tactic and in my point of view -- Ignoring this as a tactic also meas that you cannot plan adequately against such a threat.
Assuming you know how to use Blender. Likely far less time, a simple object like a cube is dead easy to duplicate numerous times in Blender, you can create multiple sets in one go and the camera controls for editing are superior to that of what you can get in Minecraft.
Note: I am not the grand parent poster.
That baby won't grow up into an adult that can shoot my baby.
Reducing the population of the enemy may be helpful in limiting their productivity. Productivity can be effected by a variety, not withstanding emotional changes to others, lack of work force etc.
Note, I am not the grand parent poster.
So? Are you trying to say anything Osama Bin Laden ever said never had any sense or logic to it?
TB;DR
Too Bold; Did not Read.
You don't need to partition, you can use /dev/sdb and /dev/sdc instead. My question to you is, is Linux doing something that Solaris doesn't support? ie: Capable of running ZFS in a partition instead of using whole disk?
Define what will make it 'production quality' please.
I definitely agree NFS on Linux still needs work. Hell, it's still possible to lock up a server if you don't treat NFS just right. But, to be honest, I'd rather see the CIFS support extended more to be honest, mostly better security models offered on it (not only with authentication, but ACLs and file locking that doesn't suck and I couldn't give a crap about iSCSI anymore).
Do you have any benchmarks regarding this specific setup. I'm genuinely curious. The stuff I find is regarding other implementations involving FUSE.
Seriously, /dev/sdb, /dev/sdc, access directly to the hard drives without any 'layering violation' issues, been in Linux since the beginning.
Is this the same kind of polish that things like cron get on Solaris - Where it still doesn't support attributes like @reboot, but it's all good because the code is old and so it's matured just right or something? (Seriously, I've been told this is why the cron in Solaris is superior - note that I did not say Open Solaris).
Actually, you can do the same with this implementation, only difference is you need to give the specific device paths like /dev/sdb instead of c1t0d0.
It also means that if they lose your money and don't reimburse them because you can't conduct your business due to lack of space bucks/bitcoins, you can't sue them.
Any 'real world money' sure, but space bucks/bitcoins? Nope.
No, but you can export your Bitcoin wallet to external storage, erase it from your computer, stash it somewhere and it will have the same effect. Although, you're still subject to having money stolen because of vulnerabilities in the Bitcoin protocol (I don't really know why people are still using Bitcoin when Solidcoin is the superior system - less vulnerabilities).
Note: I am not the grand parent.
First result I found on Google, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NULPfp0Zu5g
Haven't bothered validating it, but I saw plenty other results too that seemed relevant to your question.
The government stepping in if they 'steal' the money or do shady non-sense too. Also, even without the latter, the quoted argument is still fairly important, nothing is too big to fail.
Based on what you define a "BitCoin bank"... First result on Google searching on this...
According to their data, they are well used.
The comparison was between Bitcoinica and UK bank fraud if you read the previous posts, my comparisons are based on this.
I've never heard of banks under those names.
Not only that, but there are regulations in place to ensure protections.
It doesn't actually, since a terms of service for bitcoins can be legally binding in where it says there is no warranty of services. Banks cannot do that.
To put some perspective, you're protected by law with the above, not with Bitcoin. Any money stolen from individuals is certainly returned.
I doubt the majority of people in the above industries even know what Bitcoin even is. I think you have misconceptions of grandeur, sir.
But why would you use Bitcoin instead of Solidcoin?
The majority of people at one point in the UK lived in relatively poor hygiene compared to now, laws and actions were implemented to resolve this, for a very long time (many decades), the state of did not improve and many people were in violation of various laws. During this time, some people ended up prison for making available some of the worst living conditions available.
Before comparisons are brought on regarding it being incomparable, I beg to differ - As we all climb the 'Maslow' pyramid, the focus of laws on what parts of life become more relevant in today's society.
Many people agreed, many people didn't agree, many people didn't know and many people didn't care regarding hygiene - Many did not obide by the laws for numerous decades. I don't see this being much different. You just happen to be one of the people who disagree in my example.
I like how you just justified some of the worst existing democracies (which are more dictatorships ran out of fear) out there.
I don't buy that logic.
Through the need to improve ourselves?
It's not really an issue when you sit at the top of Maslow's pyramid.
I heard an inception noise for each of those brackets.
I think Amazon didn't get the memo you can only do that in China.
Clearly he needs to throw money at the problem.