So we should make it illegal for Yahoo! to do in China what we make it illegal for them to not do here?
While I agree that the Chinese government is very much not nice, the same Congress that is chastising -- and threatening punishment -- Yahoo! executives is the same Congress that allowed damned near any government employee to demand the same information about any Yahoo! customer, in the United States, without a warrant, and prohibiting Yahoo! from telling anyone about it.
Every government in the world may operate by "Do what we say, not what we do," but it's still sickening to hear someone complaining about how awful it was that a Chinese citizen was imprisoned and tortured, yet know that that same someone has refused to do anything to stop American citizens from being imprisoned and tortured.
Human rights are for everyone, not just for foreigners.
No. If you're ever accused of a crime, and a witness in the prosecution's case admits to killing 40 people, all of whom turn up alive or having died in a different way then he described... then suspicion on you is not dropped.
Why would you think you would be?
(Again, I don't know what's going on with this. It's all very weird. However, if the police did not arrest him, and the judge barred any mention of his confession in the trial... that makes me think that it was so off-the-wall that the judge had to block it in order to get a fair trial.)
Evidence has to be disclosed to the defense. Not to the media. The defense should (by this time) know all the evidence, and all the witnesses, that the prosecution is going to present (and vice-versa).
That does not mean that we, the public, already know all that evidence.
You can argue against what they've presented in support of their case so far -- I even said that it was refutable -- but that doesn't mean it's not evidence of a crime. It's just not strong evidence.
The implication by the narrator was that the "confessions" so lacked credence that the cops don't feel a need to do anything. (For example, if they checked on one of the alleged victims, and found that he's still alive -- or died in a different manner than the wannabe-killer described -- then he's just a nut.)
Don't get me wrong -- I read about the confessions when Wired reported it, and thought it would be immediate reasonable doubt. But this show pointed out that the judge has barred them being mentioned during trial. (Which, depending on the reliability of the guy, may end up being grounds for an appeal.)
They don't have a body; they do have evidence of a crime.
What has been disclosed to the media so far -- and that doesn't need to be all of the evidence, mind you -- includes her car, with groceries still in it, left abandoned somewhere, in a bit of disarray; a statement (by a child, who later recanted, and then disappeared) that Hans and Nina argued on the last day anyone saw her alive; and drops of her blood in the house, and in his car.
It's not a lot of evidence, and it's very circumstantial, and some of it is easily refutable... but it is evidence.
We watched the show. Before, I thought he was probably innocent, and she thought he was probably guilty. After watching it, we've each changed our minds. (Although I think it more likely he paid someone to get rid of her.)
I'm very glad I am not involved in the case in any way.
First, a party primary is considered an event for that party, so they do get to set a lot of rules that wouldn't hold up for a general election.
Second, Colbert is (based on his "positions") even less of a Democrat than Joe Lieberman is, so he shouldn't've been on that party's ballot anyway.
Lastly, I would have supported him being on both parties' ballots, as he'd initially promised, but since he decided one was too expensive, I don't have a problem with the dems cutting it off. He can still run as an independent.
I do wonder if he'd actually been in communication with the Party, leading to this as an expected result. It certainly makes his life a lot easier with the FEC.
The tools for administering the system are -- I'm told, by IT people who work on both Macs and non-Macs -- pretty slick. It means one person can monitor, control, and update hundreds of machines at a time.
Other systems have methods for doing this, of course. But the people I know who do this are much happier with the Mac OS X Server Tools than the stuff available for Windows and Linux.
No, verbose boot just causes the graphics to be delayed until loginwindow is run. It does not affect "safe boot" in any way.
One of the first things I do on setting up a new Mac is to change the boot-args nvram variable to be verbose. Not only is it informative if there's a problem, but I find the scrolling text messages to be comforting in their obscurity.
Command-v during the boot chime (or "sudo nvram boot-args=-v" to set it permanently). This shows a lot of "scary" unixy output, but it's great for diagnosing a boot problem.
$826 million in taxes, fines, and interest. Tax evasion (or avoision, as Kent Brockman likes to say) results in fines in addition to the taxes that are owed. And then every day they don't pay the taxes and fines, they get interest added. And that compounds.
The United States has done similar things. For larger amounts. Usually, it gets settled out of court for a fine; I don't know Brazilian courts, but I still suspect that'll happen here.
No, and that's not just due to ZFS -- that's any filesystem with EAs. rename() works, in that the EAs stay with the file, but any other method for moving or copying files around needs to be modified.
Mac OS X has a couple of different ways of handling this, based on the API set you're using. Carbon has their own method, that I don't know too much about; the POSIXy API has copyfile(), which allows you to copy data, extended metadata, or security information. (There's a man page for it in the Leopard seeds.)
The version of vim that comes with it seems to copy the extended data; I don't know if emacs has been modified to do so.
It's a sad fact, but UNIX tended to be so low-level that there weren't any routines provided to copy files around (well, you could always do system("cp src dst"); and that'll still work 8-)), and as soon as filesystems started presenting more data, that became a problem.
In addition to using a new system-provided API (as Mac OS X does with copyfile()), the system can also present the objects as directories; this works for letting tar et al copy them, but it then means that anything that examines a filesystem object type before manipulating it won't let you read or write it.
It's true that you can't expand a RAID-Z set (I think, anyway -- if you replace all of the drives, one at a time, does that work?), but you can add another RAID-Z set, and expand the pool.
That's the big thing in ZFS, combining all of the resources into a pool, rather than treating disks (or groups of disks) as part of a volume. The other part of this was making filesystems nearly as light-weight as directories.
My plan is to use twinned drives, adding them as a mirror to the pool. I can replace each drive individually, let it re-silver, and then do the same with the other, to expand it, or I can simply add another pair of drives to the pool, and get more space that way. There are advantages and disadvantages to each.
Oh, as for resource forks -- the model that Sun is choosing (as are some others) is that the extended attributes are treated as sub-files to a directory. I'm not sure that simply going to a directory is not a better idea, but that has a whole slew of its own problems. It's a bit ironic, really -- Apple had an idea from the beginning, and every application was prepared to deal with it, but nobody else did the same thing. Then, when Apple went with the flow, everyone else started trying to do what Apple did... and none of the applications are prepared for it.
Not quite... ZFS stores a checksum with each block pointer. So wherever you have a structure that indicates where the data is, there's also a checksum of that data. This also means that the block pointers themselves are checksummed with their pointers. And so forth. The only one that doesn't have a checksum with the pointer is the top-level root pointer, and they have multiple copies of that for redundant checksumming.
And yes, for true integrity, you need ECC memory, and ECC CPUs. I don't know if the Intel CPUs have any sort of internal error checking; I have worked with processors that have.
No. You need a 2/3rds majority to over-turn a veto -- in a 100 member Senate, that's 67 votes. The 60 votes thing is for "cloture," which is to force the end of debate or end a filibuster.
This has nothing to do with vetoing -- yes, Snippy would veto any of these things. But by simply threatening a filibuster, and taking advantage of the generally "cordial" nature of the Senate and its rules, they can completely avoid taking a public stand on any unpopular issue.
In response to an earlier post: a filibuster can't be as wide-ranging as it used to be (or so I've been told); instead, it needs to be on topic to the debate. So no reading of the phone book, unless you're listing people who are affected by it.
Honestly, I don't know who offends me more: the Republicans for doing this out of cowardice; the Democrats for not standing up to them; or the media for kowtowing to their right-wing masters and not reporting the truth, or asking any questions. Probably the media, if I had to choose.
This was not a failed vote to reinstate habeas corpus; this was a failed vote to end a threatened filibuster by Republican Senators.
After years of crying that Democrats threatened filibuster, and the media reporting it as such, we have come to a time where the Republicans have turned almost every debate leading to a vote into a threatened filibuster... and the media are not reporting it as such. Instead, they swallow the GOP line that there needed to be 60 votes for it.
One of the things Apple can do, for example, is require a new firmware update to work with a new version of iTunes, which is required to play new songs from iTMS. Now, that's not really mandatory, in that nobody really has to install it... but the first time someone wants to buy a song from the store, they'll probably do so.
In other words, the people who really care (who are close to fanatics in their attitude) wouldn't be affected, but the vast majority would simply do the upgrade.
which still owes Novell 95 percent of the SVRX UNIX
Actually, they owe Novell 100%, and then Novell is to pay TSG back 5%.
Perhaps a mere technicality since they'll be lucky if they get enough to cover the postage, but it really is worth remembering that none of that money is TSG's until Novell sends it back.
came early on, when they decided, as a company, that their users were a product, and advertisers were their real customers.
They've got a great box -- it has, literally, changed the way I watch television -- but for everything they do, they first have to ask how well it can sell advertising.
The next question they have to ask is whether any of the content owners will get mad at them for it. And that's a significant problem as well.
Chris Torek gave a presentation at UseNIX about how a constant quantum could result in a process having its CPU usage unaccounted.
His solution was to use a randomized quantum. Not unique per process, but randomized when the kernel starts running each process. That gave you a better accounting of the CPU time (statistics, doncha know:)), but also made this kind of attach much, much harder.
I'm somewhat disappointed that I did not see Chris and Steven's paper referenced in this one. (I believe that the title of that paper was "Randomized Sampling Clock for CPU Utilization Estimation and Code Profiling," for those who care to find it.)
From seeing several different screenshots, I think it depends on what your desktop image is. Solid colours seem to work real well with it; some pictures work really nice; and a tiger pattern seems to be the worst:).
Postal mail is paid for by the sender. The spam you get... the sender pays nothing. Neither does the non-spam sender. That is both the beauty and curse of email.
Some estimates I've seen place spam at over 70% of all email traffic. And this while non-spam email use has been growing significantly. Who do you think pays for the network bandwidth and disk space?
The EFF is complicit in this. For years they (especially John Gilmore) have been decrying any blocking of traffic by ISPs. The direct result of this attitude is that now, in order to ensure delivery of email, you have to pay.
I don't like it, particularly. But if you're going to expect "the free market" to solve a problem, then you should not complain when the "solution" involves paying money.
If you disable the data checksumming, you have removed one of the main advantages of ZFS. You also can't (yet, anyway) disable metadata checksumming. (Not all of the advantages, of course -- the volume management is very well done, and it's got more space available than HFS+ does. But most home users don't run into those limits.)
People doing video editing on the Mac tend to suck up every single bit of bandwidth available; Apple has done a lot of work to give them that. And they continue to want more bandwidth. HFS+ lets you do pre-allocation of files, and direct-to-disk I/O. ZFS doesn't.
Of course, most home users won't run into that, either. So it's largely a wash. Except for the data integrity, which you're suggesting be turned off, and the volume management.
Slashdot Mirror
So we should make it illegal for Yahoo! to do in China what we make it illegal for them to not do here?
While I agree that the Chinese government is very much not nice, the same Congress that is chastising -- and threatening punishment -- Yahoo! executives is the same Congress that allowed damned near any government employee to demand the same information about any Yahoo! customer, in the United States, without a warrant, and prohibiting Yahoo! from telling anyone about it.
Every government in the world may operate by "Do what we say, not what we do," but it's still sickening to hear someone complaining about how awful it was that a Chinese citizen was imprisoned and tortured, yet know that that same someone has refused to do anything to stop American citizens from being imprisoned and tortured.
Human rights are for everyone, not just for foreigners.
No. If you're ever accused of a crime, and a witness in the prosecution's case admits to killing 40 people, all of whom turn up alive or having died in a different way then he described... then suspicion on you is not dropped.
Why would you think you would be?
(Again, I don't know what's going on with this. It's all very weird. However, if the police did not arrest him, and the judge barred any mention of his confession in the trial... that makes me think that it was so off-the-wall that the judge had to block it in order to get a fair trial.)
Evidence has to be disclosed to the defense. Not to the media. The defense should (by this time) know all the evidence, and all the witnesses, that the prosecution is going to present (and vice-versa).
That does not mean that we, the public, already know all that evidence.
You can argue against what they've presented in support of their case so far -- I even said that it was refutable -- but that doesn't mean it's not evidence of a crime. It's just not strong evidence.
The implication by the narrator was that the "confessions" so lacked credence that the cops don't feel a need to do anything. (For example, if they checked on one of the alleged victims, and found that he's still alive -- or died in a different manner than the wannabe-killer described -- then he's just a nut.)
Don't get me wrong -- I read about the confessions when Wired reported it, and thought it would be immediate reasonable doubt. But this show pointed out that the judge has barred them being mentioned during trial. (Which, depending on the reliability of the guy, may end up being grounds for an appeal.)
They don't have a body; they do have evidence of a crime.
What has been disclosed to the media so far -- and that doesn't need to be all of the evidence, mind you -- includes her car, with groceries still in it, left abandoned somewhere, in a bit of disarray; a statement (by a child, who later recanted, and then disappeared) that Hans and Nina argued on the last day anyone saw her alive; and drops of her blood in the house, and in his car.
It's not a lot of evidence, and it's very circumstantial, and some of it is easily refutable... but it is evidence.
We watched the show. Before, I thought he was probably innocent, and she thought he was probably guilty. After watching it, we've each changed our minds. (Although I think it more likely he paid someone to get rid of her.)
I'm very glad I am not involved in the case in any way.
K-Mart is still around?
First, a party primary is considered an event for that party, so they do get to set a lot of rules that wouldn't hold up for a general election.
Second, Colbert is (based on his "positions") even less of a Democrat than Joe Lieberman is, so he shouldn't've been on that party's ballot anyway.
Lastly, I would have supported him being on both parties' ballots, as he'd initially promised, but since he decided one was too expensive, I don't have a problem with the dems cutting it off. He can still run as an independent.
I do wonder if he'd actually been in communication with the Party, leading to this as an expected result. It certainly makes his life a lot easier with the FEC.
The tools for administering the system are -- I'm told, by IT people who work on both Macs and non-Macs -- pretty slick. It means one person can monitor, control, and update hundreds of machines at a time.
Other systems have methods for doing this, of course. But the people I know who do this are much happier with the Mac OS X Server Tools than the stuff available for Windows and Linux.
No, verbose boot just causes the graphics to be delayed until loginwindow is run. It does not affect "safe boot" in any way.
One of the first things I do on setting up a new Mac is to change the boot-args nvram variable to be verbose. Not only is it informative if there's a problem, but I find the scrolling text messages to be comforting in their obscurity.
Command-v during the boot chime (or "sudo nvram boot-args=-v" to set it permanently). This shows a lot of "scary" unixy output, but it's great for diagnosing a boot problem.
:).
Of course, I'm a cli guy
$826 million in taxes, fines, and interest. Tax evasion (or avoision, as Kent Brockman likes to say) results in fines in addition to the taxes that are owed. And then every day they don't pay the taxes and fines, they get interest added. And that compounds.
The United States has done similar things. For larger amounts. Usually, it gets settled out of court for a fine; I don't know Brazilian courts, but I still suspect that'll happen here.
No, and that's not just due to ZFS -- that's any filesystem with EAs. rename() works, in that the EAs stay with the file, but any other method for moving or copying files around needs to be modified.
Mac OS X has a couple of different ways of handling this, based on the API set you're using. Carbon has their own method, that I don't know too much about; the POSIXy API has copyfile(), which allows you to copy data, extended metadata, or security information. (There's a man page for it in the Leopard seeds.)
The version of vim that comes with it seems to copy the extended data; I don't know if emacs has been modified to do so.
It's a sad fact, but UNIX tended to be so low-level that there weren't any routines provided to copy files around (well, you could always do system("cp src dst"); and that'll still work 8-)), and as soon as filesystems started presenting more data, that became a problem.
In addition to using a new system-provided API (as Mac OS X does with copyfile()), the system can also present the objects as directories; this works for letting tar et al copy them, but it then means that anything that examines a filesystem object type before manipulating it won't let you read or write it.
You can disable Spotlight on a volume with sudo mdutil -i off /Volumes/foo (or simply / for the root volume).
As has been commented above, ZFS already has support for the metadata stuff.
It's true that you can't expand a RAID-Z set (I think, anyway -- if you replace all of the drives, one at a time, does that work?), but you can add another RAID-Z set, and expand the pool.
That's the big thing in ZFS, combining all of the resources into a pool, rather than treating disks (or groups of disks) as part of a volume. The other part of this was making filesystems nearly as light-weight as directories.
My plan is to use twinned drives, adding them as a mirror to the pool. I can replace each drive individually, let it re-silver, and then do the same with the other, to expand it, or I can simply add another pair of drives to the pool, and get more space that way. There are advantages and disadvantages to each.
Oh, as for resource forks -- the model that Sun is choosing (as are some others) is that the extended attributes are treated as sub-files to a directory. I'm not sure that simply going to a directory is not a better idea, but that has a whole slew of its own problems. It's a bit ironic, really -- Apple had an idea from the beginning, and every application was prepared to deal with it, but nobody else did the same thing. Then, when Apple went with the flow, everyone else started trying to do what Apple did... and none of the applications are prepared for it.
I'm not sure how it'll all turn out.
Not quite... ZFS stores a checksum with each block pointer. So wherever you have a structure that indicates where the data is, there's also a checksum of that data. This also means that the block pointers themselves are checksummed with their pointers. And so forth. The only one that doesn't have a checksum with the pointer is the top-level root pointer, and they have multiple copies of that for redundant checksumming.
And yes, for true integrity, you need ECC memory, and ECC CPUs. I don't know if the Intel CPUs have any sort of internal error checking; I have worked with processors that have.
No. You need a 2/3rds majority to over-turn a veto -- in a 100 member Senate, that's 67 votes. The 60 votes thing is for "cloture," which is to force the end of debate or end a filibuster.
This has nothing to do with vetoing -- yes, Snippy would veto any of these things. But by simply threatening a filibuster, and taking advantage of the generally "cordial" nature of the Senate and its rules, they can completely avoid taking a public stand on any unpopular issue.
In response to an earlier post: a filibuster can't be as wide-ranging as it used to be (or so I've been told); instead, it needs to be on topic to the debate. So no reading of the phone book, unless you're listing people who are affected by it.
Honestly, I don't know who offends me more: the Republicans for doing this out of cowardice; the Democrats for not standing up to them; or the media for kowtowing to their right-wing masters and not reporting the truth, or asking any questions. Probably the media, if I had to choose.
This was not a failed vote to reinstate habeas corpus; this was a failed vote to end a threatened filibuster by Republican Senators.
After years of crying that Democrats threatened filibuster, and the media reporting it as such, we have come to a time where the Republicans have turned almost every debate leading to a vote into a threatened filibuster... and the media are not reporting it as such. Instead, they swallow the GOP line that there needed to be 60 votes for it.
Stupid, lazy, cowardly reporters.
"optional" is such an ambiguous word :).
One of the things Apple can do, for example, is require a new firmware update to work with a new version of iTunes, which is required to play new songs from iTMS. Now, that's not really mandatory, in that nobody really has to install it... but the first time someone wants to buy a song from the store, they'll probably do so.
In other words, the people who really care (who are close to fanatics in their attitude) wouldn't be affected, but the vast majority would simply do the upgrade.
Actually, they owe Novell 100%, and then Novell is to pay TSG back 5%.
Perhaps a mere technicality since they'll be lucky if they get enough to cover the postage, but it really is worth remembering that none of that money is TSG's until Novell sends it back.
How do they put a seatbelt on the computer?
came early on, when they decided, as a company, that their users were a product, and advertisers were their real customers.
They've got a great box -- it has, literally, changed the way I watch television -- but for everything they do, they first have to ask how well it can sell advertising.
The next question they have to ask is whether any of the content owners will get mad at them for it. And that's a significant problem as well.
Chris Torek gave a presentation at UseNIX about how a constant quantum could result in a process having its CPU usage unaccounted.
His solution was to use a randomized quantum. Not unique per process, but randomized when the kernel starts running each process. That gave you a better accounting of the CPU time (statistics, doncha know :)), but also made this kind of attach much, much harder.
I'm somewhat disappointed that I did not see Chris and Steven's paper referenced in this one. (I believe that the title of that paper was "Randomized Sampling Clock for CPU Utilization Estimation and Code Profiling," for those who care to find it.)
From seeing several different screenshots, I think it depends on what your desktop image is. Solid colours seem to work real well with it; some pictures work really nice; and a tiger pattern seems to be the worst :).
Postal mail is paid for by the sender. The spam you get... the sender pays nothing. Neither does the non-spam sender. That is both the beauty and curse of email.
Some estimates I've seen place spam at over 70% of all email traffic. And this while non-spam email use has been growing significantly. Who do you think pays for the network bandwidth and disk space?
The EFF is complicit in this. For years they (especially John Gilmore) have been decrying any blocking of traffic by ISPs. The direct result of this attitude is that now, in order to ensure delivery of email, you have to pay.
I don't like it, particularly. But if you're going to expect "the free market" to solve a problem, then you should not complain when the "solution" involves paying money.
If you disable the data checksumming, you have removed one of the main advantages of ZFS. You also can't (yet, anyway) disable metadata checksumming. (Not all of the advantages, of course -- the volume management is very well done, and it's got more space available than HFS+ does. But most home users don't run into those limits.)
People doing video editing on the Mac tend to suck up every single bit of bandwidth available; Apple has done a lot of work to give them that. And they continue to want more bandwidth. HFS+ lets you do pre-allocation of files, and direct-to-disk I/O. ZFS doesn't.
Of course, most home users won't run into that, either. So it's largely a wash. Except for the data integrity, which you're suggesting be turned off, and the volume management.