Comment Re:Unfamiliar (Score 1) 370
Think about why you want to do that. Normally, it's due to fuck up from not setting your pool up in a sensible manner in the first place. Don't do that.
1 GB of RAM is worth about $20 these days anyhow (less?).
And yes, de-dup is expensive. Most of the time in my experience you get far better benefits from compression anyhow (source: real world enterprise datasets at work).
CPU and RAM overhead is not "required". If you want to do things like in-line de-dupe, sure. If you use retarded ways of setting up your pools, then sure, expandability sucks.
The rules aren't "wierd", they are just different. The big mistake people make with ZFS is diving into it without reading any of the documentation on the assumption that they know what they're doing because they've used other filesystems before.
Don't do that. Have run ZFS for years, it's awesome.
Michael Totten did, and he found a police state overseeing wrenching poverty, complete with shortages for essentials and goods of retched quality.
In short: Communism.
Let's not forget that the best estimates for the death of communist regimes killing their own people is right around 100 million people. Both The Black Book of Communism and R.J. Rummel's Death by Government come up with roughly the same number of people killed.
Communism is incompatible with both human rights and a healthy economy, and never has, never can, and never will meet the needs of its own people or offer better lives than those under capitalism.
Embargoes have nothing to do with it...
We should have been working hard at improving nuclear power, and solving its problems, to the point that this would, by now, be a no-brainer.
The US Navy has been all-in with Nuclear power. R&D has been non-stop. If they haven't "solved its problems", it's unlikely throwing even more money at it, would do so.
the real challenge to commercial nuclear shipping is the operations and maintenance costs; on the nuclear as well as secondary side. The Navy spares no expense in maintaining their fleet, training crews, and keeping large crews to oversee operations; all of which would add tremendously to the cost of a commercial nuke vessel and likely make it noncompetitive with traditional ones. Now, if you could have upscale how power is produced for space probes an run a nuclear-electric ship with a simple nuke side you might have a winner, at least form a technology and cost perspective.
International law on these issues is anything but clear, and are subject to a great deal of argument, which is why there are always contested areas.
As for the UK, it's a natural island that has been inhabited by the same peoples for centuries (at the least - you can argue about 1066). Now that's clear.
International law, as put in practice for centuries, is pretty clear: as long as I can beat the crap out of you I can sail wherever I want.
I gladly accept Nigerian checks on CL. This way the scammers are out of FedEx/UPS fee and I add another fake check to my office collection.
Not a good idea. You are dealing with crooks who may or may not have accomplices near you and you are giving them a real address. Check out 419eater.com for safe ways to do that if you want to bait scammers.
This isn't your usual 419 scam. They're not offering millions of dollars to suckers.
What they're doing is buying stuff from Craigslist sellers with bogus checks that look awfully real. There's another step where they send a too-large check and ask for a partial refund. The checks are so good that they clear, and the fraud isn't discovered until weeks later, at which time your bank yanks the money back.
There's still hints of the usual 419 stuff in there, but you don't have to be either gullible or greedy. You simply have to misunderstand the idiotic system under which checks are processed, which is most of us. The idea that a certified check could fail, a month after you deposited it, is baffling to the majority of people who think of a certified check as practically good as cash.
The checking system is so screwed up that most sellers need to treat all checks with suspicion. But credit cards are expensive to process, and Paypal... is Paypal.
True, and that is what scam artists depend on to run their con. Banks in the US have to make the funds available after a set period even though the check has not cleared; i.e. the issuing bank has not yet accepted the check and verified that it was a valid check and the funds are available in the account. Most people think that because the bank has deposited the funds in their account that the check is good; a not unreasonable expectation because most checks do not bounce and thus they never realize the bank may not have actually cleared the check before the funds were made available. The law was designed to prevent banks from putting excessive holds on checks but a side effect was to give scammers a new way to cheat people.
I think I get the distinction he is trying to formulate. Red Hat focuses their products around their GNU/Linux distribution, that is without GNU/Linux they would not have a product. Rackspace on the other hand have a product that would exists even without OpenStack. Their primary gains in reduction of development costs, since other individuals and companies are contributing to the effort.
Basically these are the two vectors commercial companies have with free software. Either they provide ancillary services to existing software, that is they are basically consultants; or they copyleft some piece of software that is not their in business model and as a result reduce costs.
Good point. I can see where they would be considered two distinct models.
Nothing in Stallman's philosophy precludes profit-driven development - on the contrary, he actively encourages it ! He precludes a certain METHOD of profit generation, not the idea of profit.
Your response is like saying "We can't have pollution standards because saying you can't make profit by dumping strychnine in my drinking water is the same saying you can't make profit at all".
There is absolutely no free software problem with profit.
Of course, and nothing I said is anything remote to your drinking water example. I did point out that profit drives much free software development; if only because it is difficult to maintain enthusiasm for development by volunteers over time or to get bugs fixed that are not of interest to the volunteers.
There is a freedom problem with software that are sold in one PARTICULAR bad way because the harms that it causes to the public far outweigh the profit earned by the seller.
The only thing Stallman has ever done is point out the age-old lesson that if you don't force the medicine seller to tell you what's in his medicine most of it ends up being snake-oil.
However, free open source software is not the only way to do that. The assumption that non-free software is bad and harmful and by extension free software is good and beneficial is incorrect on particle as well ideological terms. Stallman has a very narrow view of what software development should look like and even what constitutes "free." I simply disagree with the idea that his viewpoint is the correct one.
Contract law
But the source is free to the public, there's no terms and conditions I have to agree to. Indeed, it would no longer be Free Software, or at least it wouldn't be Open Source Software according to the Open Source Definition.
There are, as is pointed out in the link you provided, terms and conditions attached to the use of the software; which do not make it any less free. in fact they keep it free.
Again, the AGPL is a license that you must accept to use the software. You focus on the output which is not the issue; the issue is how you may use the software under the license and your obligation as a result of using the software.
Please name the legal requirement that I accept the AGPL in order to use the software. In the US, there is:
* Copyright law * Patent law
Patents aren't the issue here, and copyright law is not being invoked by merely making the software available on the network (and in fact, this use is explicitly defined as non-infringing).
Contract law
May Euell Gibbons eat your only copy of the manual!
