Damn, I hate replying to an AC, mostly because I have a fundamental aversion to feeding the trolls. However, in this case I will gladly make an exception.
The US is the only country founded on individual rights, with the rights of the individual enumerated in its charter, as opposed to a focus on the general welfare of the citizenry.
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.
The latter approach always comes at the occasional expense of the individual, be it Canada's enforced news blackouts and language policing,
Being Canadian, I am obviously unaware of any "enforced news blackouts". Could you please enlighten your freedom deprived northern cousin with some examples? As for the "language policing", Canada is based on the concept of two official languages, French and English. In order to protect this unique cultural heritage, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" specifically guarantees both official languages are recognized and neither can be excluded.
Sorry if I ticked you off. I was trying to imply that the "process" would cuase me to reach a point where I was no longer concerned with the "process". Whether the "process" continues without me would be of very little concern to me. Much like if I gave up driving because I was fed up with the price of gas, I would be far less concerned with the price of gas.
Case I: You buy a movie theater ticket. You have purchased the avility to view the movie. But because you can't make it to the theater that night, you instead set up a video camera on your seat, so you can time shift your viewing of the movie.
Somewhat of an apples and oranges comparison. I believe the ticket you purchased allows you to view the movie at the cinema at the time specified. There is no implied right of being able to view it at another time or place.
Case II: You buy some ephedrine, some lithuim batteries, some drano and some Acetone. They are your property to use as you wish. You decide to whip up a batch of Crack. Are you allowed to do this? NO.
The restriction is on the manufacturing of a controlled substance. It is illegal to produce crack. Whether you do it Drano, or the active ingredients found in Drano is irrelevant. On the other hand, I could easily take these same ingredients and mix them in different proportions to obtain something unrestricted.
Case III: You own your car. You decide it would be cool to remove the windshield wipers and seatbelts. Can you do that? only if you don't put it on the road or try to sell it for such a use.
Not sure about your jurisdiction, but here, vehicles that are to be driven on public roads must meet minimal safety standards. I can in fact sell the car or any other vehicle in any condition. The vehicle could be a complete death trap. Prior to the car being driven on public roads, the car must meet minimal standards. Much like I can purchase a race car that is no where near street legal. I can race the vehicle. I can drive the vehicle anywhere I want as long as I am not trespassing or driving it on a public road.
case IV: you own some swapland. You want to drain it. can you do that? Not if it's considered a protected wetland.
There are many instances where the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few. Similar arguements can be made about historical buildings and the type of renovations that are allowed.
case V: you own a CD. You trade it to someone else for another CD. Can you do that. Yes. You own a peice of DRM'd music for which you contracted to play on a single computer. Can you sell that to someone else. NO. you contracted for that.
Correct. You agreed to the limitations so I fail to see what your problem is. Unless of course the limitations were hidden and beyond the ability of "reasonable" person to determine.
Case VI: Your a farmer and the govenement tells you you can grow so many bushells on your land. You grow more but you plan to use them only for internal consumption on the property. Can you do that? seems like you could but infact you can't (read the case of Wicard Wheat).
This is a rather simplistic view of a complex matter. I would suggest reading http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/c onlaw/wickard.html for a rather insightful analysis of the case. As I understand the American government, the job of the Supreme Court is to "interpret" existing laws, not to make or reppeal laws. Rather it is the function of the legaslative branch to enact or reppeal laws. This case could be very easily seen as an example of poorly thought out legislation, specifically the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.
Face it, we live in a society that is bounded by certain limits. That there are limits is not in question, question should be what are the limits and what is the impact of changes in these limits.
Did the children cause any harm/do any damage other than the cost of having some moron re-image the laptop(s)? These children are being punished not for their breaking of a law but rather for the utter stupidity and incompetence of whomever supplied the laptops.
This entire event can be summed up rather simply, the school board was embarrassed by their own stupidity becoming public knowledge and they tried to cover their ass by maliciously prosecuting children.
Flippers, steel ball(s), tilt, blinking lights and ringing bells. Few things are more fun than being able to shake a machine just the right way to keep that ball bouncing between two or three bumpers or making that backhand shot (right flipper shooting the ball up the right side of the machine) for a free ball.
Ahh to have the days of three-games-for-a-quarter back!
Even in a civil case the prosecution has to prove with a preponderence of evidence the defendent is guilty, or some such legal term.
Yes, I fully agree, he who made the statement must be the one to prove the statement.
However, the original example opens a rather complex issue, namely who is the accused and who is the accusor.
For example, let's assume a newspaper publishes an article that states you are an evil criminal mastermind producing kiddie porn. You have asked the newspaper to retract/correct the sorry but they refuse. You then take the next logical step, litigation. That the newspaper published the article is trivial to prove. Now the question becomes do you have to prove yourself innocent of the accusation or does the newspaper have to prove the accusations are correct?
So a blogger can never publish a negative statement about anyone?
It was not my intention to imply anything of the sort, I apologize. Perhaps a re-phrasing of the point may clear up any misunderstanding.
In this hypothetical case, the blogger, posts/publishes comments. The comments are later determined to be false (everyone makes mistakes). Now the situation has changed and restitution/punishment must be determined. After all, the wronged party is entitled to something. One of the factors in determining the restitution/punishment should take into account the efforts the original blogger took to ensure accuracy. In other words more due diligence equals less restitution.
The GP originally said "The only case under which Burger King would have the right to sue would be if Burger King could demonstrate that there were no cyanide in its french fries,". Whether the french fries contained cyanide or not does not preclude Burger King from bringing suit. It will definitely have a rather strong impact on the outcome of the suit.
Sorry about point 3. It was flippant and uncalled for.
The only case under which Burger King would have the right to sue would be if Burger King could demonstrate that there were no cyanide in its french fries, that the blogger intentionally fabricated the story to damage Burger King's reputation, and that a reasonable person would believe the story produced by the blogger.
I must disagree with some of these comments.
1) Burger King does not have to prove anything about their fries. The blogger must offer proof that Burger King added the cyanide. That cyanide was found in the fries is NOT proof that Burger King added cyanide to the fries. Cyanide could quite possibly be a naturally occuring compound in the potatoes or a result of cooking.
2) The degree of fabrication could and IMHO should only be a factor in determining restitution. It has nothing to do with determing the validity of the litigation. Even if the blogger could show he/she truly believed the comments were accurate and took every possible action to verify the statement, that does not change the fundamental fact that the statement is WRONG.
3) Please define "reasonable person". Perhaps I have a Burger King franchise in an area where the population is prone to believing whatever they read or is easily swayed by popular opinion. As a result, I have suffered grievous financial set backs due to your incorrect blogging.
Approximately 600 systems split between Solaris and AIX, three change management systems (actually 1200 because root gets changed monthly), two VPN solutions and at last count about a dozen different pasword standards.
I have a fairly extensive background with raid setups but not within Linux nor on an X86 platform so if someone would fill in some blanks, I would be very appreciative.
1) The original poster is looking to setup a 4 drive array, RAID-5 prefered and is looking for a 4 port SATA adapter. My recommendation would be get two adapters with two drives each to provide greater redundancy. I am guessing this can be done with stock PCI SATA controllers. Would a configuration such as this have a negative performance impact based on the characteristics of the PCI bus?
2) Assuming a straight software RAID config, what happens during the boot process if a drive is lost? For example, let's assume the following RAID-1 configuration: Controller 1:
Disk 0
Disk 1 Controller 2:
Disk 2
Disk 3 / is mirrored across disk 0 and disk 2 - partition 1 /boot is mirrored across disk 0 and disk 2 - partition 2 /home is mirrored across disk 1 and disk 3 - partition 1
No swap - too confusing for this discussion.
Let's say disk 0 on controller 1 fails. I would hope the system will generate some type of message/alert and then continue functioning normally until it could be shutdown to replace the failed drive (too cheap to go hot-swap). Eventually, I get a new disk and shut the system down to replace the failed disk. I reboot and something happens. Ideally I should see the system come up normally with the possible exception of a warning message and then I can remirror / and/boot when convenient. Can anyone confirm that this is what actually happens?
3) Based on the configuration described above, should/etc/fstab refer to "md" devices or "disk labels"? If either device names or labels can be used, is there a recommendation for one over the other?
I would be quite thankfull for any information regarding these question. Thanks.
Taking some general numbers: Current Number of Transisters: 1.7G Initial Number of Transisters: 60 Time Frame: 39 years.
So now to get from 60 to 1.7G, you have to double 60 approximately 24.755997 times. That means that for a 39 year period, we have the chip density double every 1.575376 years or every 18.9 months.
Looking at it another way, the actual time line is 22 months behind the prediction or the chip boys are off on their prediction by 4.7%.
Based on my experience, any project that is that long and is off by less than 5% is pretty DAMN good.
A place I used to work at, had a project called "Automated Information Distribution System". It was great when you were at meeting the chair[man:person:woman] asked the question, "Ok who has AIDS?".
I work for a rather large technology company and about two years ago, Blackberries became quite popular amongst the managment gang. During a rather prolonged conference call discussing some technical "challenges", one of the previously mentioned management types joined the call. The question was then raised about client notification. The PHB then promptly responded "Yes they are aware, we have been Rimming each other all weekend".
Well, the obvious answer can be parphrased from Dune, "The ultimate control of something is the ability to destroy it". The more subtile answer deals with our species desire for "more".
In a far off time, the Internet was a wonderfull place devoid of such mundane things as commerce. Now, fastforwarding a few years to the present, people are making significant sums of money off of the internet selling "products". One of the best to get somebody to buy something is to make them aware of a "need" they have for your product. This is normally accomplished through such methods as a sales force and marketing. A basic fundamental of marketing is, "get them in the door and somebody will see something they need or at least think they need". With the internet, the goal is the same "get as many as possible to view the site and at least a few will buy". So what better way to get somebody to visit your store than to have a "trusted", third-party tell you what you are looking for can be found at this place?
Sadly, there was less humour intended than what has been interpreted.
While "Supreme Court" decsions are a valid metric of a legel system, it is definitely not the only one. Further more, that one metric should not eclipse the total lack of common sense demonstrated by lower courts. I'll try to put a slightly different spin on the matter.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you own a car. Eventually, the car will require service of some kind. You take the car to "Joe's Fix-it Place" and flunky number one works on your car. Your car does not get fixed correctly.
You return to "Joe's Fix-it Place" and ask to have someone more experienced work on your car. Again the car is not repaired correctly. This is repeated several times until finally you are allowed the honour of having the Supreme Fix-It Guy look at your car. After this, your car runs far better than it ever has.
Now the question is, what's your opinion of "Joe's Fix-it Place"? Oh and before you answer that, if you ever return to "Joe's Fix-it Place", you will have to start again with flunky number one and work your way up to the Supreme Fix-it Guy.
What part of "Part 1 of 4" did you not understand? The article was devoted to comparing the purcahse price (one of MANY items associated with TCO) of a system both with and without Windows. There is NO mention anywhere in the article about the on-going costs after the initial purchase.
Who is the moron who mod'd the parent "Insightful"? The mod'ing of the parent and the parent itself have one a most favoured place in the All-Time/. Hall of Shame.
Slashdot Mirror
The US is the only country founded on individual rights, with the rights of the individual enumerated in its charter, as opposed to a focus on the general welfare of the citizenry.
I would strongly suggest you visit the following link: Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. There are some rather interesting passages such as:
The latter approach always comes at the occasional expense of the individual, be it Canada's enforced news blackouts and language policing,
Being Canadian, I am obviously unaware of any "enforced news blackouts". Could you please enlighten your freedom deprived northern cousin with some examples? As for the "language policing", Canada is based on the concept of two official languages, French and English. In order to protect this unique cultural heritage, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" specifically guarantees both official languages are recognized and neither can be excluded.
Sorry if I ticked you off. I was trying to imply that the "process" would cuase me to reach a point where I was no longer concerned with the "process". Whether the "process" continues without me would be of very little concern to me. Much like if I gave up driving because I was fed up with the price of gas, I would be far less concerned with the price of gas.
Have a nice day!
and should end "...ad nauseam"
What is truly amzaing is how we haven't managed to blow up the world yet with all of these acronyms especially when they are so context specific.
To my simple mind, TPS is "Transactions Per Second". "Test Procedure Specification" would never have entered my mind.
Case I: You buy a movie theater ticket. You have purchased the avility to view the movie. But because you can't make it to the theater that night, you instead set up a video camera on your seat, so you can time shift your viewing of the movie.
c onlaw/wickard.html for a rather insightful analysis of the case. As I understand the American government, the job of the Supreme Court is to "interpret" existing laws, not to make or reppeal laws. Rather it is the function of the legaslative branch to enact or reppeal laws. This case could be very easily seen as an example of poorly thought out legislation, specifically the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.
Somewhat of an apples and oranges comparison. I believe the ticket you purchased allows you to view the movie at the cinema at the time specified. There is no implied right of being able to view it at another time or place.
Case II: You buy some ephedrine, some lithuim batteries, some drano and some Acetone. They are your property to use as you wish. You decide to whip up a batch of Crack. Are you allowed to do this? NO.
The restriction is on the manufacturing of a controlled substance. It is illegal to produce crack. Whether you do it Drano, or the active ingredients found in Drano is irrelevant. On the other hand, I could easily take these same ingredients and mix them in different proportions to obtain something unrestricted.
Case III: You own your car. You decide it would be cool to remove the windshield wipers and seatbelts. Can you do that? only if you don't put it on the road or try to sell it for such a use.
Not sure about your jurisdiction, but here, vehicles that are to be driven on public roads must meet minimal safety standards. I can in fact sell the car or any other vehicle in any condition. The vehicle could be a complete death trap. Prior to the car being driven on public roads, the car must meet minimal standards. Much like I can purchase a race car that is no where near street legal. I can race the vehicle. I can drive the vehicle anywhere I want as long as I am not trespassing or driving it on a public road.
case IV: you own some swapland. You want to drain it. can you do that? Not if it's considered a protected wetland.
There are many instances where the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few. Similar arguements can be made about historical buildings and the type of renovations that are allowed.
case V: you own a CD. You trade it to someone else for another CD. Can you do that. Yes. You own a peice of DRM'd music for which you contracted to play on a single computer. Can you sell that to someone else. NO. you contracted for that.
Correct. You agreed to the limitations so I fail to see what your problem is. Unless of course the limitations were hidden and beyond the ability of "reasonable" person to determine.
Case VI: Your a farmer and the govenement tells you you can grow so many bushells on your land. You grow more but you plan to use them only for internal consumption on the property. Can you do that? seems like you could but infact you can't (read the case of Wicard Wheat).
This is a rather simplistic view of a complex matter. I would suggest reading http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/
Face it, we live in a society that is bounded by certain limits. That there are limits is not in question, question should be what are the limits and what is the impact of changes in these limits.
Is your real name Draco?
Did the children cause any harm/do any damage other than the cost of having some moron re-image the laptop(s)? These children are being punished not for their breaking of a law but rather for the utter stupidity and incompetence of whomever supplied the laptops.
This entire event can be summed up rather simply, the school board was embarrassed by their own stupidity becoming public knowledge and they tried to cover their ass by maliciously prosecuting children.
Flippers, steel ball(s), tilt, blinking lights and ringing bells. Few things are more fun than being able to shake a machine just the right way to keep that ball bouncing between two or three bumpers or making that backhand shot (right flipper shooting the ball up the right side of the machine) for a free ball.
Ahh to have the days of three-games-for-a-quarter back!
You don't live in the US do you?
No.
Even in a civil case the prosecution has to prove with a preponderence of evidence the defendent is guilty, or some such legal term.
Yes, I fully agree, he who made the statement must be the one to prove the statement.
However, the original example opens a rather complex issue, namely who is the accused and who is the accusor.
For example, let's assume a newspaper publishes an article that states you are an evil criminal mastermind producing kiddie porn. You have asked the newspaper to retract/correct the sorry but they refuse. You then take the next logical step, litigation. That the newspaper published the article is trivial to prove. Now the question becomes do you have to prove yourself innocent of the accusation or does the newspaper have to prove the accusations are correct?
So a blogger can never publish a negative statement about anyone?
It was not my intention to imply anything of the sort, I apologize. Perhaps a re-phrasing of the point may clear up any misunderstanding.
In this hypothetical case, the blogger, posts/publishes comments. The comments are later determined to be false (everyone makes mistakes). Now the situation has changed and restitution/punishment must be determined. After all, the wronged party is entitled to something. One of the factors in determining the restitution/punishment should take into account the efforts the original blogger took to ensure accuracy. In other words more due diligence equals less restitution.
The GP originally said "The only case under which Burger King would have the right to sue would be if Burger King could demonstrate that there were no cyanide in its french fries,". Whether the french fries contained cyanide or not does not preclude Burger King from bringing suit. It will definitely have a rather strong impact on the outcome of the suit.
Sorry about point 3. It was flippant and uncalled for.
The only case under which Burger King would have the right to sue would be if Burger King could demonstrate that there were no cyanide in its french fries, that the blogger intentionally fabricated the story to damage Burger King's reputation, and that a reasonable person would believe the story produced by the blogger.
I must disagree with some of these comments.
1) Burger King does not have to prove anything about their fries. The blogger must offer proof that Burger King added the cyanide. That cyanide was found in the fries is NOT proof that Burger King added cyanide to the fries. Cyanide could quite possibly be a naturally occuring compound in the potatoes or a result of cooking.
2) The degree of fabrication could and IMHO should only be a factor in determining restitution. It has nothing to do with determing the validity of the litigation. Even if the blogger could show he/she truly believed the comments were accurate and took every possible action to verify the statement, that does not change the fundamental fact that the statement is WRONG.
3) Please define "reasonable person". Perhaps I have a Burger King franchise in an area where the population is prone to believing whatever they read or is easily swayed by popular opinion. As a result, I have suffered grievous financial set backs due to your incorrect blogging.
It already is a line item, 2.5 days every month.
Approximately 600 systems split between Solaris and AIX, three change management systems (actually 1200 because root gets changed monthly), two VPN solutions and at last count about a dozen different pasword standards.
Kind of sucks the will to live right out of you!
Case in point: the first Intel P4s were clocked higher than PIIIs but performed less opertions per cycle, and were in fact slower than the PIIIs!!!
Care to back that up with a source?
Most of what you say makes some sense. The glaring problem is:
3.) Tcp/IP filtering @ the IP Stack levels (UDP & TCP) allowing ONLY port 80.
Could you please explain how things like DNS(pretty well required for surfing), HTTPS (port 443), FTP, SSH and several other services would work?
Basically it's 220 - your age.
GREAT!!! I am in the "zone" constantly, that's my resting HR!
MOD:
Satire +1
I have a fairly extensive background with raid setups but not within Linux nor on an X86 platform so if someone would fill in some blanks, I would be very appreciative.
/boot is mirrored across disk 0 and disk 2 - partition 2
/home is mirrored across disk 1 and disk 3 - partition 1
/boot when convenient. Can anyone confirm that this is what actually happens?
/etc/fstab refer to "md" devices or "disk labels"? If either device names or labels can be used, is there a recommendation for one over the other?
1) The original poster is looking to setup a 4 drive array, RAID-5 prefered and is looking for a 4 port SATA adapter. My recommendation would be get two adapters with two drives each to provide greater redundancy. I am guessing this can be done with stock PCI SATA controllers. Would a configuration such as this have a negative performance impact based on the characteristics of the PCI bus?
2) Assuming a straight software RAID config, what happens during the boot process if a drive is lost? For example, let's assume the following RAID-1 configuration:
Controller 1:
Disk 0
Disk 1
Controller 2:
Disk 2
Disk 3
/ is mirrored across disk 0 and disk 2 - partition 1
No swap - too confusing for this discussion.
Let's say disk 0 on controller 1 fails. I would hope the system will generate some type of message/alert and then continue functioning normally until it could be shutdown to replace the failed drive (too cheap to go hot-swap). Eventually, I get a new disk and shut the system down to replace the failed disk. I reboot and something happens. Ideally I should see the system come up normally with the possible exception of a warning message and then I can remirror / and
3) Based on the configuration described above, should
I would be quite thankfull for any information regarding these question. Thanks.
No...really, it's behind.
Taking some general numbers:
Current Number of Transisters: 1.7G
Initial Number of Transisters: 60
Time Frame: 39 years.
So now to get from 60 to 1.7G, you have to double 60 approximately 24.755997 times. That means that for a 39 year period, we have the chip density double every 1.575376 years or every 18.9 months.
Looking at it another way, the actual time line is 22 months behind the prediction or the chip boys are off on their prediction by 4.7%.
Based on my experience, any project that is that long and is off by less than 5% is pretty DAMN good.
A place I used to work at, had a project called "Automated Information Distribution System". It was great when you were at meeting the chair[man:person:woman] asked the question, "Ok who has AIDS?".
Reminds me something I found very humourous.
I work for a rather large technology company and about two years ago, Blackberries became quite popular amongst the managment gang. During a rather prolonged conference call discussing some technical "challenges", one of the previously mentioned management types joined the call. The question was then raised about client notification. The PHB then promptly responded "Yes they are aware, we have been Rimming each other all weekend".
Kind of casts a new light on "customer service".
Well, the obvious answer can be parphrased from Dune, "The ultimate control of something is the ability to destroy it". The more subtile answer deals with our species desire for "more".
In a far off time, the Internet was a wonderfull place devoid of such mundane things as commerce. Now, fastforwarding a few years to the present, people are making significant sums of money off of the internet selling "products". One of the best to get somebody to buy something is to make them aware of a "need" they have for your product. This is normally accomplished through such methods as a sales force and marketing. A basic fundamental of marketing is, "get them in the door and somebody will see something they need or at least think they need". With the internet, the goal is the same "get as many as possible to view the site and at least a few will buy". So what better way to get somebody to visit your store than to have a "trusted", third-party tell you what you are looking for can be found at this place?
Sadly, there was less humour intended than what has been interpreted.
While "Supreme Court" decsions are a valid metric of a legel system, it is definitely not the only one. Further more, that one metric should not eclipse the total lack of common sense demonstrated by lower courts. I'll try to put a slightly different spin on the matter.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you own a car. Eventually, the car will require service of some kind. You take the car to "Joe's Fix-it Place" and flunky number one works on your car. Your car does not get fixed correctly.
You return to "Joe's Fix-it Place" and ask to have someone more experienced work on your car. Again the car is not repaired correctly. This is repeated several times until finally you are allowed the honour of having the Supreme Fix-It Guy look at your car. After this, your car runs far better than it ever has.
Now the question is, what's your opinion of "Joe's Fix-it Place"? Oh and before you answer that, if you ever return to "Joe's Fix-it Place", you will have to start again with flunky number one and work your way up to the Supreme Fix-it Guy.
Just goes to prove, when it comes to court rulings, we can be just as brain-dead as our beloved American cousins!
I require a warm beach somewhere...
No problem, the "Warm Beach" days are sceduled for June 29, July 8 though 11 and August 14 through 19. Please feel free to join us!
It happens to work reasonably well for Canada. Although close, we not quite yet the 51st state.
Please, please RTFA!
/. Hall of Shame.
What part of "Part 1 of 4" did you not understand? The article was devoted to comparing the purcahse price (one of MANY items associated with TCO) of a system both with and without Windows. There is NO mention anywhere in the article about the on-going costs after the initial purchase.
Who is the moron who mod'd the parent "Insightful"? The mod'ing of the parent and the parent itself have one a most favoured place in the All-Time