More like a usb watchdog that restarts the server if it dies.

the UPS analogy is very wrong

2 i would think as it's going into the kernel but you should probably check that

>like RAID support that doesn't cover RAID5
Is on the way targeted for 3.5 (was held for the fast offline check code)
>no online file system check
btrfs scrub start /blah

GPL for ever.

early in the development of BTRFS commits were sourced from vocal and stubborn devs that would protect it from being re-licensed source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxWuaozpe2I

no because if you lose a disk in a striped array you lose everything. (perhaps you are thinking raid1 in which case it protects you from disk failure but does not provide backups)

but soon they will be working on a btrfs send\receive system so you would be able to take snapshots and push to another disk

IMO there are a number of different failure states that you must cater for.
1. Human failures (the oh shit I deleted something): a snap shot capable file system helps protect you from these (not perfect but fairly good)
2. Hardware failures (disks are dead): traditional backup systems work here (or btrfs\zfs send\receive) disk failures can have reduced impact due to mirroring your data (or strip plus parity) checksums and COW help defend against silent failure
3. Software failures (the OS is hosed, partition table is dead): traditional backup systems work here (or btrfs\zfs send\receive) (though COW file systems and marking shit read-only helps)
4. oh shit the building burnt down: Hope you do offsite backups

BTRFS helps in the first 3 by bringing awesome features to the table (snapshots, COW(so you can walk back up the tree to recover) and mirroring your data on multiple disks) but is only something that can supplement a backup system not replace it at all

only a good backup system helps in the 4th situation.

well comparing it to lvm ignores a significant amount of what btrfs is
you would compare it with the entire stack
mdadm + lvm +ext 3/4

btrfs gets you:
Checksums on data
mirrored metadata on a single disk
lots of flexibility (online resizing and reshaping(single disk to raid 1 to 0 to single disk (or some variant of it) ( additionally raid5/6 like systems are coming)
easy striping and mirroring across different sized disks
snapshots
and probably more go check https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/

Think of it as the manufacturing tech that is in use.

Tick is the first in a new manufacturing tech tock is the further refinement and new micro architecture.

If you're talking about the catholic hospitals they don't have to comply they just have to comply if they want to take fed dollars.

Strings attached is not forcing

I'd say that's because the 117 has been retired for 4 years

That sounds a lot like wakefields bullshit study that was was retracted by the lancet and had his former co authors removing their names from their interpretation of it's results due to his deliberate fabircation of results and fraud

Hell Wakefield lost his medical license for his malpractice in that "research" project

The speed this year is slower than previous (2005 was faster) ones because they have made the rules significantly harder each time round

The cars are awesome to watch as they go by (i've seen quite a few of the races missed the last 2 and 2003) or even overtake you

oh btw NT is limited to a numeric value these days (130km/hr)

http://onefte.com/2011/07/19/its-not-jargon-if-its-your-job/

I can see a problem with revision numbers though.
if I make a change in my repo, you make one in yours and we both merge to C

which revision gets 101?
which revision then changes its number?