If unix permissions are enough, you can max out the zfs permissions and ignore them. Pretty sure I have a post on my blog for that - it's been about three years since I did any Nexenta work though.

The plaintiffs - or rather their counsel - should have done their homework better and ensured that the plaintiffs had standing, though.. and I think the judge made that very clear in their highly public statements.

no kidding - I expect Apple to prevail, even if it shouldn't, merely based on this very rough approximation of the attorneys' degree of diligence in the case.

Yes, people really are stupid. Give them something to be angry about, and they'll vote against their own interests.

It's rather presumptive of you, and every other Democrat, to pretend to know people's interests better than they do. It's part of the unmistakable arrogance that comes from the left, and was perfectly displayed by Gruber. You and your fellow leftists are cut from the same cloth as every other human, but you whip each other up with flattery on how kind, intelligent and compassionate you are for simply being on the left. Whether ruin or prosperity follows your policy actions isn't terribly important. You had the best intentions, you see, and the books can always be cooked after the fact to hide any negative news that doesn't fit the narrative.

If you think the entire power budget for a wifi ap is the radio, you're pretty silly. They run slightly warm - more than 1W above the radio power. 8W is about median.

(I'm not studied up enough on the topic at hand- 'enhanced interrogation'- to condemn it or defend it.)

I realize this is a distracting thing to say, and I don't support torture, and it appears we've used it, and it's a crime that no one in power will unfortunately ever be held accountable to. My intent was more to say that I haven't RTFA or summary report; and I was responding only to the position of 'let's just ignore them because they're so terrible at killing us.'

If not terrorists, how about Barbarians who must be kept at bay? The people who think we need to empathize with barbarians are often under the following mistaken impressions:

1) Westerners are the only real evil in the world today.

2) Westerners are the only people who act; who have agency. All other people do not have their own plans, thoughts and ideals- they merely react to what westerners do. They are automatons we can control through correct choices.

I prefer to discourage people from attacking my countrymen, and simultaneously limit their capabilities to do so. That often means killing the people who are trying to kill us, until they get the idea that trying to kill us is a bad idea. Their incompetence in killing us does not erase the trespass. People who get into accidents have their insurance rates go up. People who try to kill us get killed. Actions have consequences.

If your neighbor was trying to kill you, repeatedly, would you tolerate it? Would you find the milk in your cereal curdled one day from poison, push it away, then look out your window and say 'Ah, nice try Mohammed! Maybe next time!.' I mean, you might notice that next crude tripwire before you set off the IED in your hedges.

You wouldn't tolerate it. You'd have him thrown in jail at the first try. Back to the national scale, if the people trying to kill us are in countries that will have them thrown in jail, great. If not, well, now we're back to the concept of war between distinct states or peoples. The fact that one side is weak and incompetent does not mean they get to keep trying without reprisal.

What you seem to advocate- ignoring attacks by barbarians as just another risk in modern society- is in it's own special moral vacuum. I'm having a hard time fathoming how such a dereliction could seem morally superior to you, and I can only guess your education has been a steady diet of 'Western civilization is the worst thing that ever happened to the world.' That sort of 'critical theory' rubbish has been all the rage in higher education for decades.

(I'm not studied up enough on the topic at hand- 'enhanced interrogation'- to condemn it or defend it.)

if you're here you should be able to tell the difference between reviewing the first entrant in a new product category and every subsequent device.

What kind of idiot economist says things like this? It's designed to enrich the corporations and take away the rights of the People. It does a great job at that. It's what critics said would happen before it was enacted and the power structure likes it just fine. You sound like a fool when you pretend it's a mistake.

Do the communities who benefit from the secondary-use life of these batteries have the infrastructure and culture to properly recycle the materials

I have an idea - let's get them evening lighting they can afford, so they can be a bit more productive and start building the wealth they'll need to get into a modernized high-tech society.

Look into the history of lamp oil prices, for instance, and its impact on economic development. Teaser: $140/gal (2014) for lamp oil before the Industrial Revolution.

Exactly. There is no right or wrong in fiction writing. This guy is just full of it and stuck in his own rut.

Even worse, he feels entitled to tell writers that they ought to be catering to his preferences specifically, and implicitly that they should feel bad about writing for other people's preferences.

He should, instead, be writing nice reviews about the authors who write the way he likes. Maybe it will catch on by increasing popularity, but the only effect the entitlement mentality ever has is to drive people away from his position. His essay will probably have no impact at all, but if it does, not in the direction he hopes.