Interestingly: Christianity was 1000-1500 years old at the time. And Islam is about that old now.

Incandescent bulbs are hot from heat, not IR. There's a lot of IR, as well, which may make this kind of coating worthwhile; but, the heat will still radiate.

The only problem with this is that there is NOONE in the US that Apple can go to for manufacturing.

Apple was, for a long time, a die-hard "Made in the US" organization. Eventually, though, they got to the point where American Manufacturing was just completely unable to manufacture their products. And it's not just the individual plants - it's the entire manufacturing chain, from mining to final product assembly. Obama even asked Steve Jobs what Apple needed to manufacture the iPhone in the US. His reply? To paraphrase: "it can't be done."

This seems to be a good writeup:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1

Weylin

You're missing the point.

Richard Stallman *****HATED***** copyright. Hated it with a passion. He found the very concept repugnant. So, he wrote the GPL to essentially say "do whatever you want with this, just don't say you invented it from scratch and don't prevent anyone else from doing the same." The GPL is essentially about removing copyright restrictions, and preventing someone else from re-implementing them back onto the same body of work.

So, while copyright law does in fact make the GPL enforceable, the whole pint of the GPL is to use copyright law to remove copyright. Hence why it's often called copyleft - compared to a normal copyright, it's kinda the logical opposite.

And if we're getting into poop-flinging on "logic 101" I recommend studying what logic actually is. Formal Logic; Informal Logic (aka Natural Language Logic); Symbolic Logic; Mathematical Logic... there's several different types of "logic." This discussion revolved primarily around the informal variety, which your parent post used correctly.

Weylin

OK, so the post you responded to ended in a cheap, ignorant shot. So what do you do? End in a cheap, ignorant shot at Ayn Rand. Hypocrite.

It probably has something to do with the difference between claims and description in a patent application. Claims are the part that matter. Often the claims are constructed so they *just barely* pass the obviousness test, e.g. by taking two ideas that are too obvious by themselves, but combining them in a way that's less obvious. The description can then be far more general, and is often shared between many patents, but that doesn't affect the validity of the claims *at all*. To determine the validity of a patent you have to look very carefully at what is being claimed, and only refer to the description as background to understand the claims.

Disclaimer: IANAL and I don't give legal advice. I've just been through this nearly a dozen times.

Disclaimer: I'm the project lead for HekaFS, which is based on GlusterFS.

If you're concerned about data protection, you'll want to worry about node as well as disk failures. Some distributed filesystems, including Lustre and PVFS*, take a rather old-school "use RAID and implement your own heartbeat/failover between server pairs" approach, and that just sucks. GlusterFS and Ceph don't have that wart; neither do MooseFS or XtreemFS, which I would consider the other alternatives. They all have their own forms of replication built into the filesystem, so you don't need to set up and maintain another layer for them. Unfortunately, neither MooseFS nor Ceph survived even simple tests - write a few files in parallel, flush caches, read them back in parallel - when I ran those tests on the same hardware as GlusterFS and XtreemFS which did fine. That was a while ago, though, so take that with a grain of salt. Ceph in particular has a lot of awesome technology and has a very bright future IMO, but it's taking a while for it to realize that potential.

Out of GlusterFS and XtreemFS, the choice has a lot to do with your exact use case. XtreemFS has a pretty strong focus on wide-area replication, so if that's part of your need now or likely to be in the future then it's probably a bit stronger. GlusterFS does have some wide-area replication, but I consider it rather weak. Within a single data center, I'd give GlusterFS the edge. It has better local performance than XtreemFS in my tests, and it has what I consider by far the best setup/management interface.

The one caveat I'd offer is that all of the filesystem I've mentioned excel for sequential access for large files. For random access, and especially for metadata-heavy workloads, they all suck to some degree. As others have mentioned, you might very well be better off with a simple NFS server pair with cheap shared storage and heartbeat/failover to ensure availability.

Look them up. They already allow you to attach arbitrary metadata to a file. Most modern filesystems and user-level utilities support them already. They're even used as the underpinnings for security mechanisms such as POSIX ACLs and SELinux. Sure, there are issues with performance when you have *lots* of xattrs on a file, and that's a fruitful area of research, but we sure don't need some brand-new Microsoft-invented thing to deal with metadata.

That's because Drudge does not link to some guy running a web server on vintage Timex Sinclair and such.

The charts ARE a backup system. Navigation these days is done using the Flight Management System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_management_system

The aircraft already has the critical information needed in it's Flight Management System ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_management_system ) which includes position locating systems (through GPS and/or radio triangulation) and a database of airports, runways, radio frequencies, waypoints, and much other information. As long as the FMS works, the charts are simply backup.

Most pilots will take a look at the approach plates in the charts, just because they are so nicely done and are more visually understandable, but they are not really necessary any more.

Doing something for 7857 files and doing it for 10 billion are very different situations. 7857 files, including metadata, can easily be sucked into memory in one big chunk and unpacked/examined from there. That simply doesn't work for datasets larger than memory. At the higher scale, modern filesystems do tend to fall apart, badly, so different approaches are needed. Comparing your paper airplane to an F-22 doesn't make it look like you know anything about writing software properly. Quite the opposite.

No kidding. These threads are just one post after another of people pulling stuff out of their ass that they have a hunch is correct, and stating it as fact.

Place has gone downhill in a big way.

...when people in the community, instead of setting a good example, fetishize the act of trolling itself. When high technical contribution is combined with presentations full of pornographic images/metaphors and Twitter streams full of laughter at others' consternation, such childish behavior becomes the New Conformity. It's just as cliquish and pointless as the Old Conformity these rebels without a clue pretend to reject, but whenever aspiring programmers see that opinions presented in one set of clothes get a quicker/more friendly hearing than the same opinions presented in a different set of clothes it's totally predictable how they'll respond. They'll imitate all the off-color and trollish behavior that they see, and some of them will end up stepping over lines that actually matter. It's all good fun until promising projects and startups fail because would-be users and collaborators get turned off by the hipster posing. What kind of sociopath would make a decision where the only possible upside is a few laughs and the potential downside is colleagues losing their jobs? It doesn't matter if you feel your own job is secure, or if you feel that people shouldn't react as they do; anybody who pulls this kind of stunt doesn't deserve a job or funding or anything else but our contempt.