Build it. We have cars that fly. They are called airplanes. J. Random Citizen cannot just buy a plane and fly it. In the early days of aviation they could. But it quickly became clear that some form of training and licensing was required. If it is anything like your analogy, sure -- not everyone will be qualified. And they may put other people in danger. But we have laws to protect us from the most egregious idiocy and the regulatory framework, if needed, will be put in place quickly enough. (I say that and yet believe that we should have already instituted a "port 25" license, a "port 80" license, an "amateur internet operator license", and a "white hat security" license.)

Politically?? My Dear Sir, we do not limit our corruption to just government and politics in this fine city. What do you take us for? Amateurs?

Of course he is! http://wikiality.wikia.com/Dr._Stephen_T._Colbert,_D.F.A.

That's the only thing about this story that caught my attention.

It helps the lawyers. Anyone on SCOTUS not a J.D.? They have a somewhat biased view of the world.

Yep. It took a while, but Rupert Murdoch has been a boon to the Democrats in the long run. The lefties are no longer outraged at Fox News. Instead they now get a chuckle from every sham news story they broadcast.

Why would an infinite number of quark-antiquark pairs not have infinite mass? Do antiquarks have negative mass?

It keeps the riff-raff away.

Trickle-down, baby. Trickle-down.

Work smarter, not harder. That's the way it has been going for thousands of years of civilization and social advancement. We still need low-skilled work, but those will be fewer and lower paying the more people compete for those jobs. And skilled jobs will grow and wages will increase as employers compete for those skills. The intelligence and education required to stay in the middle class will continue to increase.

There will be incentive to create tools and technology to use those lower-skilled, less expensive workers just as there are today. You don't need a comp sci degree to work on an automotive computer system to repair cars. The same gear-heads (I use that term affectionately) that worked on cars in the '70s do so today. Tools will make today's high-tech jobs require less skill to do more advanced work.

Who would have thought in 1970 that, 40 years later, functional literacy would require understanding of how to use computers? Or that we would all carry those computers in our pockets. In 40 years, who knows what "functional literacy" will look like? Everyone able to program a computer? Probably, but "programming" won't look much like it does today. The only thing that matters in the end is how fast an individual can learn and adapt to a changing world.

zfsonlinux has less testing than Btrfs? Really?

I think you mean *THE LINUX SHIM* has less testing. However, there's this *HUGE* portion of the code, as a wild ass guess I'd say 80%, which is the internal algorithms, data structures, and other internal parts of the file-system that are shared by the Linux and Solaris versions and those have been quite seriously tested for ZFS.

My experience with ZFS under Linux via FUSE was that there were some bugs in the integration layer, but they tended to be fairly shallow and never lead to data loss. This is over around 3 years of ZFS+FUSE on Linux serious use (~30TB of backup storage, home storage server). I tested the heck out of ZFS+FUSE before we deployed it, found some issues, worked with the developers (who were amazing!), and eventually got to a point where the stress test I was running on it was more stable than it was under our OpenSolaris systems a few years prior (and the reason I built the stress test).

Based on my experience with ZFS, ZFS+FUSE, and btrfs, I'd personally trust ZFSonLinux over btrfs. My experimentation with btrfs the last few years has been that it still needs a lot of work.