Yeah, they would have gotten so much better a deal on gay rights if they had supported McCain & Palin.

I'm sure the reason the reward was so paltry was because the rest of the reward went to cleaning the development team's underwear.

There may be such a button, but since the code will be stored on btrfs, it'll corrupt itself in a few months and disappear.

It also has an active development community; the git repo has regular and frequent commits (for a filesystem). ZFS on Linux seems to test more and release less often -- a fact I appreciate as I haven't lost a single bit of data on my ZFS filesystems, but have lost entire btrfs filesystems multiple times. (Yeah, sure, btrfs is "experimental" and will eat your data... so why is Facebook even thinking about using it?)

It would be the biggest "fuck you" in the history of open source if ORACLE licensed ZFS as GPLv3 only, as the license would still be incompatible with the Linux Kernel.

The whole reason the CDDL was chosen by Sun was to be incompatible with GPLv2. Oddly enough, the GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2 as well.

From a license persepective, it makes no useful difference, as you'd taint the kernel with an incompatible license to run the code whether it's GPLv3 or CDDL.

Not that anybody'll really notice, but I have a feeling that Facebook's backup and recovery system is queuing up for a stress test.

Having lost data with BTRFS multiple times on my disk array (as recently as last month), I have no confidence in it. The best thing I can say about btrfs is is that it was able to tell me that it had lost data. Not many filesystems do that; but ZFS on Linux has been rock solid for years, and not only tells me if data has been lost, but actually preserves the data as well.

Is there any empirical evidence that information can't be destroyed?

If not, what would be the consequences of just ditching the law(?) that creates the paradox?

And if they can get the data, there's no expectation of privacy.

Circular reasoning at its best.

Don't you know you have to use monkeys if you want to type Shakespeare?

But neither party is interested in ending the intrusive, ineffective "War on Drugs".

Law enforcement personnel don't think about these things the same way the rest of us do.

It''s called "telegraphic speech", as if the writer didn't want to pay for the extra characters.

Newspapers do it for space: the bigger the typeface, the less room for text.

I suspect it carries over to internet articles because of cognitive side-effects: if every headline was a complete sentence they would take more effort on the readers' part. You want something that will instantly grab (or lose) a reader's attention without any mental effort on their part.

(Look at how many people don't RTFA, or even RTFSummary. Full sentences would lead to people who don't even RTFHeadline.)

However, telegraphic speech can cause problems for readers.

Why does the crew have the capability of turning essential equipment off?

They were hoping a little blonde girl would be kidnapped or murdered, but they had to settle for a missing airplane mostly full of foreigners.

And with it missing at sea, they can't even pose a teddy bear in photos of the wreckage.

They usually post something to drive up hits on weekends. This weekend global warming, next weekend evolution.

Tomorrow we'll be back to Tesla and Bitcoin.