The best system that's been done is called SOCIALISM. It combines the best and most useful aspects of communism with the best and most useful aspects of capitalism. Straight capitalism, like what the right and far right in the US want (and are largely starting to get under their God-Emperor Trump, unfortunately) ultimately leads to fascism and assholitry. See "anarcho-capitalism". The end result will be some system akin to slavery, even if it has a different name, just like has happened in the past. See "sharecropping", "Russian serfdom", and "feudalism". The end result of Socialism taken to its logical conclusion, on the other hand, is basically Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Before you say "No True Scotsman", see "the Scandinavian Economy, Post World War II". We've seen what Communism brings when you turn it on like a switch, and when you take it to an extreme, and it sucks donkey. See "Maoist China" and "the USSR, post-World War II".

Freenet is also based on middle-out compression.

No. Trying to push 30TB into Freenet will be interpreted as an attack on the network by other peers and they'll disconnect from your peer.

Freenet is better viewed as a communication medium than a storage medium. Data is prioritized according to demand, somewhat like an LRU cache. You can't upload 30TB and expect the network to preserve it for you.

On liability, running a Freenet peer is more like running network infrastructure that automatically routes and caches other people's traffic than intentionally publishing it. US law explicitly recognizes this distinction in the DMCA's provisions for transitory network communications and system caching. We discuss this in more detail in the FAQ.

You obviously haven't tried Freenet. You can join our room on River and you'll see no spam, no fraud, no hate speech, none of that.

Decentralized doesn't mean unmoderated. Systems built on Freenet can be moderated however their creators and communities want. River is moderated.

The difference is that nobody running one service gets to decide what everyone else is allowed to run.

I forgot about /proc and I think there's also another filesystem that's relevant, /sysfs. The original idea was to make a central /etc, but, yeah, the Registry is a bit more general than I made it sound.

What's wrong with the Registry? Its original intent was to be a database of all system settings. Linux and Unix has had the same thing from the start, except that the Unix/Linux solution is a directory containing a bunch of files (that is, /etc). They both even have system wide settings trees and individual user settings trees. (On Linux, this would be the dotfiles in your user directory. On Windows, it's just a second root tree in the Registry. HKEY_LOCAL_USER\, if I remember correctly.)

Now, I'll grant you that most program settings today aren't stored in the Registry anymore, but system-wide settings still are. This is similar on Linux where a lot of configuration stuff is stored within containers like flatpaks.

Rep. Curt Weldon : Thank you. Let me see if I can liven things up here in the last couple of minutes of the luncheon. First of all, I apologize for being late. And I thank Bob and the members of the caucus for inviting me here.
...
But the point is that when John Hamre briefed me, and gave me the three key points of this change, there are a lot of unanswered questions. He assured me that in discussions that he had had with people like Bill Gates and Gerstner from IBM that there would be, kind of a, I don't know whether it's a, unstated ability to get access to systems if we needed it., Now, I want to know if that is part of the policy, or is that just something that we are being assured of, that needs to be spoke. Because, if there is some kind of a tacit understanding, I would like to know what it is. Because that is going to be subjected to future administrations, if it is not written down in a clear policy way. I want to know more about this end use certificate. In fact, sitting on the Cox Committee as I did, I saw the fallacy of our end use certificate that we were supposedly getting for HPCs going into China, which didn't work. So, I would like to know what the policies are. So, I guess what I would say is, I am happy that there seems to be a coming together. In fact, when I first got involved with NSA and DOD and CIS, and why can't you sit down with industry, and work this out. In fact, I called Gerstner, and I said, can't you IBM people, and can't you software people get together and find the middle ground, instead of us having to do legislation.

Fixed-point decimals and scaled integers are fundamentally the same thing. The only real difference is that decimal data types use base-10 at the representation level (aka binary-coded decimal, or even straight ASCII numerals. You can do math directly on both using techniques that are practically identical, save a few differing constants.). Of course, I doubt you meant actual decimal data types. Fixed-point binary and scaled integers are exactly the same thing.

Historically, money was computed using only BCD representations, largely because that's what COBOL used. BCD representations are fixed-point by nature. Most COBOL implementations used packed BCD (2 digits per byte), although modern implementations often use either integer types with a scaling factor or straight ASCII numbers. Using integer types is WAY more efficient, both cycles- and storage-wise, but using ASCII is convenient. Other languages with a native Decimal type do the same.

Using floating-point of any kind for monetary values is a VERY bad idea. When numbers get large, you silently lose precision. When you get big enough, you can no longer store cents. You also get issues with not being able to represent cents exactly unless you scale the numbers anyway.

With apologies to Dr "Suse", to the tune of "Green Eggs and Ham".

Linux can. Linux can .Use Linux

That Linux can! That Linux can! I do not like that Linux can!

Do you like open sourcing plan?

I do not like that Linux can. I do not like the open sourcing plan.

Would you like to free source share?

I would not like to free source share. I would not like it anywhere. I do not like open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.

Would you like it very stable? Would you like it to enable?

I do not like it very stable. I do not like it to enable. I do not like to free source share. I do not like it anywhere. I do not like the open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.

Would you use it in a X-Box? Would you use it if it ROCKS?

Not on X-box. Not if it rocks. Not if very stable. Not to enable. I would not let them free source share. I would not let them anywhere. I would not allow open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.

Would you? Could you? In your biz? Use it! Use it! Here it is.

I would not, could not, in our biz.

You may like it. You will see. You may like it if it's free!

I would not, could not if it's free. Not in our biz! It should never be!

I do not like it on the X-box. I do not like it that it rocks. I do not like it amongst our biz. I do not like it that it is. I do not like they free source share. I do not like that anywhere. I do not like that Linux can. I do not like you Linux man!

service! service! service! service! Could you, would you, as a service?

Not as a service! Not if it's free! Not in my biz! Man! Let not it be! I would not, could not, on a X-box. I could not, would not, if it rocks. I will not use it if its stable. I will not use it even to enable. I will not let them free source share. I will not let them anywhere. I do not like open sourcing plan. I do not like that Linux can.

Say! if in copyleft? always free copyleft! Would you, could you, copyleft?

I would not, could not, in copyleft.

Would you, could you, why so nervous?

I would not, could not, I'm NOT nervous. Not as copyleft. Not as a service. Not in my biz. Not if it's free. I do not like that it can, you see. Not if it's stable. Not on X-box. Not to enable. Not if it rocks. I will not let them free source share. I do not like it anywhere!

You do not like open sourcing plan?

I do not like that Linux can.

Could you, would you use what we wrote?

I would not, could not, use what you wrote!

Would you, could you, to avoid your bloat?

I could not, would not, avoid bloat. I will not, will not, use what you wrote. I will not compete with them as a service. I will not because it makes us nervous. Not in our biz! Not if it's free! Not if it is! You let me be! I do not like it on the X-Box. I do not like it that it Rocks. I will not use it if it's stable. I do not like that it does enable. I do not like they free source share. I do not like it ANYWHERE I do not like open sourcing plan!I do not like that, Linux can.

You do not like it. So you say. Try it! Try it! And you may. Try it and you may, I say.

Man! If you will let me be, I will try it. You will see.

Say! I like open sourcing plan! I do! I like that, Linux can! And I would use it because it's stable. And I could use it to enable... And I could charge for providing a service. And I could copyleft without being nervous. And in my biz. And still source free. For you can still charge for a service fee!

So I will use it on the networked X-box. And I will promote it because it ROCKS. And I will use it because it's stable. And I will use it to enable.

And I will use it here and there. Say! I can use it ANYWHERE!

I do so like open sourcing plan! Thank you! Thank you, Linux man!

By The Cat with the Red Hat

No, the 4GiB file limit is part of the filesystem itself. Changing that would be a breaking change. That's why, when they changed it, they also changed the name to ExFAT, along with a number of other fixes and updates. The 32GiB limit was just an artificial limitation of the GUI formatting tool. IIRC, the command line tools have never had such a limitation, and the drivers can access larger filesystems just fine. The 2TiB limit is a hard limit of the filesystem spec and going higher would be a breaking change. Again with the ExFAT fixing that problem.

We do have HUGE stockpiles of food. It's just not at grocery stores anymore, which can be a bit of a problem in times of crisis, for sure. Stockpiles of other shit: not so much. The reason we have huge stockpiles of food is because food is produced in seasonal patterns but consumed year-round. If you harvest apples twice per year, once in the southern hemisphere and once in the northern hemisphere, but you want to have apples available year-round, you'll need to stockpile them. And, with apples, they aren't grown much in the southern hemisphere, so we stockpile like a year's worth at basically all times. This is true of many crops, like potatoes, grains, corn, nuts, basically anything that can be dried out or chilled and stored gets stored. We COULD grow that stuff like we do for vegetables, which is in greenhouses on a constant cycle to always have fresh available, but it's pretty difficult to do that for plants like apple trees, and high-bulk crops like grains, onions, and potatoes, so we don't.

Speaking of potatoes, as a chef, I can tell you that I know when the first crop of the year comes out. The variety and quality of the potatoes will suddenly change when the first harvest of potatoes of the year comes out. The prior year potatoes become very cheap and generally get turned into fries and dried and frozen potato products (like mashed potato mix, shredded hashbrowns, that kind of thing), and the new, locally produced potatoes become available at lower prices. This, oddly enough, kind of sucks, at least in Michigan. The variety of large sized potatoes grown in Michigan, where I'm from, kind of suck. They tend to explode when boiled. The potatoes available in the winter are usually from Idaho and Eastern Oregon and are of a variety that doesn't fall explode so bad, but they do tend to have hollow-core*, a defect that requires an extra step to remove the nastiness at the very center of the potato. The variety grown in Michigan isn't prone to hollow-core, so that's nice, but is prone to explosions, which sucks. Trade-offs, I guess.

* What is hollow-core? you ask. Hollow-core is a defect that happens when potatoes grow really, really fast. The center of the potato forms a hollow cavity lined with potato skin and filled with grossness. This is easily removed if you cut the potato in half while peeling. An extremely similar (the same?) condition can also be caused by some kind of plant disease, in which case the cavity will be filled with rottenness and evil and often makes the whole potato useless. (Keep in mind that restaurants often peel potatoes after boiling, rather than before boiling. It's much, much faster that way. I highly recommend that you do that when making American Fries (aka Home Fries) at home.)

Anarcho-capitalism isn't really a thing. Or at least, it isn't anarchism. It's essentially end-stage libertarianism. If you want to see what it looks like, Somalia is currently in such a situation. It ends up being less freedom and more feudalism with petty warlords all fighting for dominance. It's not unlike the Crips, Bloods, the Mafia, etc., just with everything instead of just with illegal vices.

This is all to say that this kind of anarchy would not be pleasant. Only teenagers, idiots, and assholes actually want it. Actual anarchism, by the way, is the end-stage of Communism. Totes different things.

There's no way on (or off) Jupiter's Green Earth that you could ever put a terawatt of anything in space. Every one of those watts would have to be radiated into space somehow. Can you imagine how large the heat sinks would have to be? Keep in mind that radiating heat in a vacuum is about the most inefficient way to get rid of heat that one can think of. On Earth, you can use air and water to move heat around and then dump the air or heat into the environment. In space, you only have radiation, which is basically proportional to exterior surface area and temperature. And, that exterior qualifier is important in space. Using some kind of finned radiator like we use in air or water won't work very well, since most of the heat radiated off will just be re-absorbed by other parts of the radiator. This means that in space, the most efficient (in terms of mass and heat loss) is gigantic, quite thin, highly conductive disc of metal. To distribute the heat across the entire disc, you'd probably embed a grid of heat pipes.

And, then, holy space solar panels, Batman. A terawatt is a LOT of solar panels. You could probably make the solar panels double as radiators, but that would only work if you kept them relatively cool. You're still going to also need a bunch of radiator disc. The only way I think that you get possibly get this to work is to make like a sort of triangular prism type of design. Make one side solar panels and face the sun. Make the other two sides radiators. Keep the computers in the middle, connected to the radiators through heat pipes. And then you'd need a satellite dish sticking out one end, or, preferably, both, along with a smattering of thrusters.

Considering the difficulties in dealing with the and the delay added to communications by being in space (even LEO would be bad; roughly half the time the satellites would be on the other side of the planet.), it would be much, much simpler, and cheaper, to put all of that computing power on the ground, preferably nearer to the Poles than the Equator, and preferably near a large body of water, like a lake or ocean. The Great Lakes region in the US and Canada would be great. Solar power isn't super great around The Great Lakes, but wind power is quite feasible, and the cooling potential is off the hook. I mean, there's cold water everywhere. I would think that, in Europe, the fjords of Norway and Sweden would be pretty ideal. Iceland would be pretty good too, so long as you bring in enough cross-oceanic cables from Europe and Canada. The mere fact that you wouldn't have to launch satellites into orbit along would make Iceland seem like a steal compared to space, even with the cables. Hell, even Antarctica would be cheaper and easier than space, and would have similar ping times.