I understand that you think "we would respond differently if this were RAID 5" is a sign of hypocrisy or something. But it's not really that.
Yes it is, and that's a very short sighted approach. I hope you're not a developer.
I was really just throwing out drives and times. I had name-brand systems that were in a RAID 0 to consolidate two drives (the drive contents were expendable since this was just scratch space) and they ran for many years with few failures.
I suspect not, since his point seemed to be that you shouldn't be using RAID 0 for data that you care about anyway.
I meant, what if there was a bug in the RAID 5 code that caused similar corruption? This is equivalent (almost) to blaming the victim. Yes, you did risky behavior, but the problem wasn't caused because of the risky behavior.
You can't remove drives from a ZFS pool - once they're in (even if you have free space on other drives), the number of drives can't go down. Which really bothers me. With LVM you can evacuate data off of drives and shrink the pv. LVM in itself isn't a filesystem, but if you think of a pool as an LVM volume the functionality is somewhat similar.
RAID 0 is only as unstable as its least stable component. In this case it's most likely a drive failure, and most drives are fairly long MTBFs. The chances of a disk failure increase as a function of time and number of drives deployed. A two-drive RAID 0 will be more stable than a five-drive RAID 0 which will be more stable than a 10 drive RAID 0 that's three years old. In the case of higher RAID levels, you can remove a single (or multiple) drive failure as the point of failure. In this case, the point of failure is the kernel, so it's perfectly legitimate to consider this a really bad problem. Would you say the same thing if the bug affected RAID 1 or RAID 5?
I have 4 drives in a RAID 10, so two RAID 1 arrays of two drives each combined together in a RAID 0. I did it mostly because I can add new drive at any time and just chain them onto the RAID 0.
The first claim makes my "rant" — about the need to use a reverse of the usual burden-of-proof principle for Executive government officials — on-topic and otherwise appropriate.
Trying to prove a negative? And you're wondering why I'm rolling my eyes at you?
And you know this from?..
From the article I linked to. Did you bother reading it?
And, maybe, they did... But seeing Clinton being in favor decided not to rock the boat and alienate the probably next President...
Yes. That's exactly what they did. *eyeroll*
A rather backwards way of conceding a point, but I'll take it. It must've been hard for you as it is.
Yeah, no. This is about the vote to give a Russian country control of 20% of US uranium production and Sec. Clinton's (non)involvement in it. If you want to spittle on about other things, find someone else who is interested.
Yeah, I kinda gathered that.
You haven't laid out anything other than a bunch of baseless accusations. You should write a book about it, I'm sure it'll sell.
Sure, if by "never contacted" you mean "given lots of money, along with other people on the panel, to vote a specific way".
Any evidence of that? Otherwise, you're just making up stuff. Please stick to the facts.
I'm gonna have to go with a [citation needed] for most of that.
Starting with this one:
The State Department is trying to delay the release of her emails until AFTER the election.
No, they're trying to delay until January 2016, a full 10 months BEFORE the election, even before the primaries. If there's anything damaging in there, it'll be far worse for her and Democrats if there's something serious enough for her to quit the race since she's effectively the only person running. Getting the e-mails out now turns it into a non-story by then since they'll have already been released.
Nonsense. She was the most influential person on that panel and among the 10 most influential members of the government. Her approval or lack thereof was, in all likelihood, the deciding factor.
You realize that she wasn't the person that voted and the person who did represent the State Department had no contact with her about it, yes? And the other departments that are represented in the vote include DHS, Defense, and Energy? If any one of them had qualms about it, I'm certain they would have brought it up (especially DHS and Defense) and recommended a veto.
The rest of what you put down is an incoherent rant that really doesn't have much to do with the issue at hand.
Very limited influence given it wasn't her that actually voted and the person who was the State Department representative said he was never contacted by her about it.
The article, headlined Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Is completely wrong if it's implying that Sec. Clinton was the only person involved in approving the deal. She didn't have veto authority (only the president does) and she was part of a panel of 8 other members who also approved the deal. If she were the only person to approve or she was the deciding factor, the accusation might have merit and more examination done. She wasn't directly involved in the deal, there's no indication that she was a deciding factor, and there's little indication that she personally profits from money donated to the Clinton Foundation. There might be questions about the sources of money for the CF, but to imply that there's some sort of quid pro quo going on is just baseless.
E = MC ** 2 +- 3db
