Are you doing Z+1? Or just striping with an L2ARC, which is nearly pointless? What's the areal density of the drives? 'Cause if you are using anything above 2TB the odds of getting uncorrectable errors on both drives becomes non-trivial.
At this point you are better off using XFS with a really good backup strategy.
It's very mature, on Solaris. Linux has a different ABI to the storage layer, and different requirements on how filesystems are supposed to behave. So it's not so much a port as a re-implementation.
ZFS wants to live in a fairly specific configuration. It wants a bunch of drives, a bunch of memory, and not much competition for system resources. It's really a NAS filesystem, which is why there are no recovery utilities for it. If your filesystem takes a dump, you're SOL, hope you have a backup.
You can run it on a single drive on a desktop machine, but you are incurring a bunch of overhead and not getting the benefits of a properly set up ZFS configuration.
Legal differences also matter, especially in how medical expenses are covered. Some states allow hospitals to bill auto insurance companies directly, while others require the hospitals to bill the patients medical insurance company, which is then reimbursed by the auto insurance company.
Michigan is the only state with *unlimited* medical liability coverage for automotive insurance. People here are always asking why our premiums are so incredibly high.
Algorithms to validate, store and process passwords have been around a LONG time. Best practices are well known, and are relatively simple. You can build a password-based access control system using off the shelf libraries and known patterns that is very difficult, if not impossible, to bypass. The limiting factor to it's success is human fallibility.
Nearly everything else is complicated, involves a lot of math that not a lot of people understand, or third party hardware you might not trust, or third party services you might not trust, etc.. etc.. etc...
On top of all of that, maybe you can mitigate *some* human fallibility, but it can still come into play.
My source: Close friend who works at a car company designing pickup trucks. He knows his audience.
Most trucks don't handle well because they have a lot of leeway in the suspension for added weight. This makes them seem bouncy on the road. The Toyota, Nissan, Dodge, Ford and Chevy trucks all exhibited this "problem."
It's almost like the Ridgeline was the only truck designed to be driven around town not hauling anything. I guess only Honda knows who *really* buys trucks.
I distinctly remember CR giving the Honda Ridge-line the recommended buy for a pickup truck. It had the lowest hauling capacity, smallest bed, and lowest towing capacity of any of the reviewed trucks, but it had a really nice ride and got decent gas mileage.
Well that's not what a pickup truck is for. Throw some sheetrock in the back. Fill the bed up with dirt. How well does it clean up with a hose? How do the tiedowns work? Load it up with tools and take it down a logging road. Yeah people buy trucks that don't need them, but they are a small minority. There's a reason all the truck ads show them driving off-road and hauling things. The F-150 is the most popular vehicle among millionaires. Those are contractors who own their own companies and drive tools around to their job sites.
Nope. The Ridgeline had a really nice radio so it gets the nod.
"Microsoft claims up to 70 percent more battery life, and double the performance of Apple's laptops."
That's great. How much? The article claims $1500 for the "base model" whatever that is. Is that one going to be twice as fast as an equivalent MacBook?
Also, how long after it's release are the inevitable hardware bugs are worked out?
Because the government is throwing billions of Yuan indiscriminately into research. There is incentive to get that money. Grants are somewhat less forthcoming in the US, so there is a higher requirement for better quality research.
Wouldn't a more effective long-term method of undermining Russia's economy be to spread renewables? Yeah, we can temporarily undermine them with a glut, but we would be ultimately creating a disincentive to actual energy independence.
Yes, but that's the point. 20-30 years out Europe will still be heavily dependent on natural gas. It needs time to get their power grid ready for a more distributed method of power generation. People will also need to retrofit gas burning heaters and utilities with electric.
We can spin up natural gas production pretty quickly. The only major hurdle is building more LNG plants to ship the stuff.
1. Increase permits for fracking of natural gas 2. Start shipping natural gas to Europe
That will just about do it. Most of Russia's economy is based on selling natural gas to Europe. Drop the price of natural gas and Russia's economy goes the way of Venezuela.
Russia is *stone petrified* that we'll do this, so every time you read an internet site about how fracking causes earthquakes and pollutes drinking water (because somehow the fracking chemicals make it through 2000 feet of impermeable bedrock to the water table) you should take it with a grain of salt. Maybe check out who is funding the research?
You aren't quite getting something. If you don't have a Facebook account, even if Facebook knows you as some entity with a certain set of demographic information that possibly knows certain other people, it isn't going to recommend you to them as a possible acquaintance as you have no Facebook account to recommend them to.
I was thinking the first was Top Gun in '87 (with the Diet Pepsi commercial); remembered that one cause I bought it. But it seems there were at least two before that one:
''Top Gun'' will cost $26.95, the lowest introductory price ever asked for a major movie on cassette. While other companies have just raised their prices from $79.95 to $89.95, Paramount has lowered its price from the $29.95 it charged for ''Beverly Hills Cop'' and ''Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.''
Not all movies were priced for rental. I'd guesstimate that 2/3 were priced for rental, with the rest for sell-through. But after the windfall of Jurassic Park, in about a year most movies were being priced for sell-through. I clearly remember in 1995-1996 seeing one new movie coming out for $60 a copy and thinking how weird it was, when just a couple of years before most movies came out at that price.
And movie companies forget the lesson of VHS over and over and over again.
Make stuff cheap. Sell it to everybody. Make tons of money.
I worked at a video store when VHS movies were initially $80 a copy for a few months, then went down to $25. This was purely to get money from the video rental stores.
Then Jurassic Park came out on VHS, and Spielberg had the brilliant idea to sell it for $20 right off the bat. Almost made the same amount of money that ticket sales made. Instead of selling a couple of million copies for $80 a pop, they sold ten million copies at $20.
It's almost as if there are demand/price curves that determine these things.
It costs several hundred million dollars to bring a new vehicle to market, especially with a new drivetrain, as type acceptance on new drivetrains takes years.
I know a lot of people don't quite get this concept, but companies don't like spending money on things that don't make money.
If GM DIDN'T care about the Bolt, they wouldn't have spent the time, effort and money developing it.
So two presidents and the CEO dumped $1.8 million shares of stock? Most CEOs get paid mostly in stocks as the capital gains is less than their income tax would be. I would think they owned more than that. If you knew the stock was going to tank wouldn't you unload everything?
There could still be insider trading happening here, but really, at a company that size a couple of million dollars in stocks isn't that much.
EVs are ideal for off-road use. Massive amounts of torque at low speeds, but no gearbox so driving them is easier.....Current range would be around 250-300 miles per charge
The "massive amounts of torque" bit negates the "250-300 miles per charge" bit. Using that torque destroys your range. And, if you're doing something like rock climbing, you are using that torque *constantly* to maintain position.
The biggest problem is, if you run out of juice out on a rugged trail somewhere, how do you get power to recharge your vehicle? You could load up a truck with batteries and recharge from those but, odds are if you ran out of juice to get to a certain point on the trail, a truck loaded down with batteries is going to gobble up at least as much power to get to the same point. This is, of course, if we're talking a total ban on ICE vehicles.
Ever see one of the new, state of the art, "glass cockpits" in airplanes? Giant, all-LCD displays across the entire control console. They still have knobs and physical buttons all over the place. Because some functions are still easier to perform with physical controls.
Every time you're looking down at a screen to fiddle with something you aren't looking at the road. The UI of a car should be designed to keep your eyes on the road as much as humanly possible. Every function you perform regularly should have a dedicated, physical button within easy reach of the steering wheel to keep your eyes on the road as much as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you doing Z+1? Or just striping with an L2ARC, which is nearly pointless? What's the areal density of the drives? 'Cause if you are using anything above 2TB the odds of getting uncorrectable errors on both drives becomes non-trivial.
At this point you are better off using XFS with a really good backup strategy.
Funny, I thought ZFS was very mature by now.
It's very mature, on Solaris. Linux has a different ABI to the storage layer, and different requirements on how filesystems are supposed to behave. So it's not so much a port as a re-implementation.
ZFS wants to live in a fairly specific configuration. It wants a bunch of drives, a bunch of memory, and not much competition for system resources. It's really a NAS filesystem, which is why there are no recovery utilities for it. If your filesystem takes a dump, you're SOL, hope you have a backup.
You can run it on a single drive on a desktop machine, but you are incurring a bunch of overhead and not getting the benefits of a properly set up ZFS configuration.
Vi?
Legal differences also matter, especially in how medical expenses are covered. Some states allow hospitals to bill auto insurance companies directly, while others require the hospitals to bill the patients medical insurance company, which is then reimbursed by the auto insurance company.
Michigan is the only state with *unlimited* medical liability coverage for automotive insurance. People here are always asking why our premiums are so incredibly high.
Algorithms to validate, store and process passwords have been around a LONG time. Best practices are well known, and are relatively simple. You can build a password-based access control system using off the shelf libraries and known patterns that is very difficult, if not impossible, to bypass. The limiting factor to it's success is human fallibility.
Nearly everything else is complicated, involves a lot of math that not a lot of people understand, or third party hardware you might not trust, or third party services you might not trust, etc.. etc.. etc...
On top of all of that, maybe you can mitigate *some* human fallibility, but it can still come into play.
My source: Close friend who works at a car company designing pickup trucks. He knows his audience.
Most trucks don't handle well because they have a lot of leeway in the suspension for added weight. This makes them seem bouncy on the road. The Toyota, Nissan, Dodge, Ford and Chevy trucks all exhibited this "problem."
It's almost like the Ridgeline was the only truck designed to be driven around town not hauling anything. I guess only Honda knows who *really* buys trucks.
I distinctly remember CR giving the Honda Ridge-line the recommended buy for a pickup truck. It had the lowest hauling capacity, smallest bed, and lowest towing capacity of any of the reviewed trucks, but it had a really nice ride and got decent gas mileage.
Well that's not what a pickup truck is for. Throw some sheetrock in the back. Fill the bed up with dirt. How well does it clean up with a hose? How do the tiedowns work? Load it up with tools and take it down a logging road. Yeah people buy trucks that don't need them, but they are a small minority. There's a reason all the truck ads show them driving off-road and hauling things. The F-150 is the most popular vehicle among millionaires. Those are contractors who own their own companies and drive tools around to their job sites.
Nope. The Ridgeline had a really nice radio so it gets the nod.
To my knowledge, these Tesla things are not sticking like the way they stuck on Uber.
Everybody likes Elon Musk. Nobody likes Travis Kalanick. It can be as simple as that.
Unlike traditional automakers, Tesla does not have a union. Yet.
Unlike traditional *American* automakers. There isn't a single unionized foreign-owned assembly plant in the US.
"Microsoft claims up to 70 percent more battery life, and double the performance of Apple's laptops."
That's great. How much? The article claims $1500 for the "base model" whatever that is. Is that one going to be twice as fast as an equivalent MacBook?
Also, how long after it's release are the inevitable hardware bugs are worked out?
Because the government is throwing billions of Yuan indiscriminately into research. There is incentive to get that money. Grants are somewhat less forthcoming in the US, so there is a higher requirement for better quality research.
NASDAQ uses Gentoo.
You can use array mics, or boom mics, to cut down on noise in an office environment, but every other criticism is spot on.
Wouldn't a more effective long-term method of undermining Russia's economy be to spread renewables? Yeah, we can temporarily undermine them with a glut, but we would be ultimately creating a disincentive to actual energy independence.
Yes, but that's the point. 20-30 years out Europe will still be heavily dependent on natural gas. It needs time to get their power grid ready for a more distributed method of power generation. People will also need to retrofit gas burning heaters and utilities with electric.
We can spin up natural gas production pretty quickly. The only major hurdle is building more LNG plants to ship the stuff.
1. Increase permits for fracking of natural gas
2. Start shipping natural gas to Europe
That will just about do it. Most of Russia's economy is based on selling natural gas to Europe. Drop the price of natural gas and Russia's economy goes the way of Venezuela.
Russia is *stone petrified* that we'll do this, so every time you read an internet site about how fracking causes earthquakes and pollutes drinking water (because somehow the fracking chemicals make it through 2000 feet of impermeable bedrock to the water table) you should take it with a grain of salt. Maybe check out who is funding the research?
You aren't quite getting something. If you don't have a Facebook account, even if Facebook knows you as some entity with a certain set of demographic information that possibly knows certain other people, it isn't going to recommend you to them as a possible acquaintance as you have no Facebook account to recommend them to.
I was thinking the first was Top Gun in '87 (with the Diet Pepsi commercial); remembered that one cause I bought it. But it seems there were at least two before that one:
''Top Gun'' will cost $26.95, the lowest introductory price ever asked for a major movie on cassette. While other companies have just raised their prices from $79.95 to $89.95, Paramount has lowered its price from the $29.95 it charged for ''Beverly Hills Cop'' and ''Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.''
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/15/arts/marketing-top-gun-cassette.html
Not all movies were priced for rental. I'd guesstimate that 2/3 were priced for rental, with the rest for sell-through. But after the windfall of Jurassic Park, in about a year most movies were being priced for sell-through. I clearly remember in 1995-1996 seeing one new movie coming out for $60 a copy and thinking how weird it was, when just a couple of years before most movies came out at that price.
And movie companies forget the lesson of VHS over and over and over again.
Make stuff cheap. Sell it to everybody. Make tons of money.
I worked at a video store when VHS movies were initially $80 a copy for a few months, then went down to $25. This was purely to get money from the video rental stores.
Then Jurassic Park came out on VHS, and Spielberg had the brilliant idea to sell it for $20 right off the bat. Almost made the same amount of money that ticket sales made. Instead of selling a couple of million copies for $80 a pop, they sold ten million copies at $20.
It's almost as if there are demand/price curves that determine these things.
Source? K, thx.
Uh, the article?
Because of unions. Next question?
If GM cared about selling the Bolt...
It costs several hundred million dollars to bring a new vehicle to market, especially with a new drivetrain, as type acceptance on new drivetrains takes years.
I know a lot of people don't quite get this concept, but companies don't like spending money on things that don't make money.
If GM DIDN'T care about the Bolt, they wouldn't have spent the time, effort and money developing it.
So two presidents and the CEO dumped $1.8 million shares of stock? Most CEOs get paid mostly in stocks as the capital gains is less than their income tax would be. I would think they owned more than that. If you knew the stock was going to tank wouldn't you unload everything?
There could still be insider trading happening here, but really, at a company that size a couple of million dollars in stocks isn't that much.
EVs are ideal for off-road use. Massive amounts of torque at low speeds, but no gearbox so driving them is easier.....Current range would be around 250-300 miles per charge
The "massive amounts of torque" bit negates the "250-300 miles per charge" bit. Using that torque destroys your range. And, if you're doing something like rock climbing, you are using that torque *constantly* to maintain position.
The biggest problem is, if you run out of juice out on a rugged trail somewhere, how do you get power to recharge your vehicle? You could load up a truck with batteries and recharge from those but, odds are if you ran out of juice to get to a certain point on the trail, a truck loaded down with batteries is going to gobble up at least as much power to get to the same point. This is, of course, if we're talking a total ban on ICE vehicles.
They can. Knobs are still easier to use.
Ever see one of the new, state of the art, "glass cockpits" in airplanes? Giant, all-LCD displays across the entire control console. They still have knobs and physical buttons all over the place. Because some functions are still easier to perform with physical controls.
Every time you're looking down at a screen to fiddle with something you aren't looking at the road. The UI of a car should be designed to keep your eyes on the road as much as humanly possible. Every function you perform regularly should have a dedicated, physical button within easy reach of the steering wheel to keep your eyes on the road as much as possible.