A 3U 4-socket T5 machine had about 128 full hardware threads (really: cores) the last time I looked seriously at it. The performance was a bit less than a 32-socket, 4-core-per -socket M9000, the machines I mostly worked with. In those days, I was a capacity planner and performance engineer at Sun Canada.
Okay, but it's not a one-for-one comparison. A hardware thread in one of those machines lies somewhere between an x-86 "core" and a GPU "core" in capability.
Granted, they were powerful machines. But a 128-thread SPARC machine has nowhere near the capability of a modern x86 machine with 128 cores.
You do not post a tangentially related article and say there are some sources here. I am not going to go find sources to back up your claims, that is your job if you wish to convince anyone that your viewpoint is correct. Oh, and bloggers or articles that rely upon anecdotal evidence need not apply.
Although I have seen this stated on Slashdot many times before, your argument does not hold water.
Slashdot is not a peer-reviewed science journal. Other people here are not your under- or un-paid research assistants. Or chimpanzees for that matter.
When you are spoon-fed relevant material and shown where you can find much more VERY EASILY, it's time to quitcherbitchin'. Nobody is being paid to shovel the information down your throat, just because you're too lazy to do it. You don't get to claim it's not there just because you won't look at it.
There is far too much speculation and not enough actual research in this area. "Girls don't program because they were discriminated against starting in the 80s!" Really? "Girls just don't want to code!" Is that a guess? "All we need to do is spend more money and girls will become programmers!" How about you spend some of that money on researching why girls don't want to become programmers?
There has been "research in this area" for 40 years! It's anything BUT speculation.
When other factors were accounted for, females simply did not CHOOSE to go into STEM fields, in general. Further, then tended to make that decision relatively early: in middle or high school.
You can say all you want about "indoctrination at a young age" etc., but that's a different issue than the one under discussion. You don't solve discrimination by institutionalizing discrimination. And you sure as hell don't solve it by discriminating long AFTER minds have already been made up.
In other words: at its lowest point, does it clear the planet or crash into it?
Almost.
I mean, that IS the basic idea. But it's just a bit too simplistic.
If your gravitational body has an atmosphere, the lowest point has to be high enough to not create significant drag. Or else sooner or later it very definitely WILL crash.
The US just decided it wasn't something that should belong to tbe government alone, so they privatized space travel to give everyone a shot at it. SpaceX and Boeing are both finishing up crew vehicles. Just because the government is done with space travel doesn't mean that it stops: it means the real progress is just beginning.
Nonsense. Certain people realized that NASA+government bureaucracy was failing the space program and the people, repeatedly, and that we sorely needed alternatives.
If that were not so, we would not have needed Russian boosters for our own rockets or Russian launches to supply ISS, while the private companies ramped up. But we did indeed need them, without which our manned space program would indeed have failed, pretty much completely.
Lack of good intelligence helped start the nuclear arms race. We took Kruschev at his word regarding his missile program without understanding the full implications of the blusterous comments he was making.
For the most part I disagree. Russia's nuclear program DID become the second most capable (some even say the most capable) in the world. Not necessarily technologically, but definitely in numbers. It was therefore a real and credible threat.
Kruschev probably meant his bluster to be more of an economic threat that technology-military, but I think we can all agree that's all THAT was: bluster. Though even he might not have realized it at the time. Their real problem was that they could not keep up economically, and the nature of their economic system did not fund their science well.
But don't ever think they are stupid, or only blustering.
fish waffle did not say that the odds of winning are insignificant, they said that the odds of wining are not significantly reduced by not buying.
If you would like to argue that a 1 in 175 chance of something happening is insignificant, go right ahead. But please do not pretend that either of the two people above you were claiming otherwise.
fish waffle said the difference between buying a ticket and not buying a ticket was insignificant. His argument is based on the odds of winning. So if 2 + 2 = 4, then yes fish waffle was saying it was insignificant. And I agreed.
On the other hand, GrandCow's first word was: "Incorrect." Which means he (she?) disagreed. You can't have it both ways. If GrandCow said incorrect, then GrandCow said the first ticket (described by fish waffle) is NOT insignificant.
In fact GrandCow elaborated, and claimed the first ticket is significant, it is only the second ticket that is insignificant.
While to some degree they may have been saying something different, GrandCow DID say that fish waffle was "incorrect", and that the first ticket is "worth it" (implying significance). While although fish waffle did not mention the chance of winning, it was pretty clear it is what his statement was based on. Why else make it?
Search eBay for "bluetooth remote". Buy it now and sort by price. You'll find a cheapo little $1.82 (SHIPPED!) "selfie remote". This is easy integrated into any number of things that can listen for a bluetooth signal. Done and done. $5, geez, what are you, rich?:-P
You still have to get the remote to interface with your computer. A bluetooth remote won't send you an SMS when you're away from home.
I might have misunderstood, but it was my understanding that this guy is away from the house for significant periods.
Still, you make a good point. If you can find a good way to interface it, it would work fine.
By the way: I just went on Ebay to find the big red USB switch that I have myself. The price has gone up to $38. That seems pretty outrageous for what it is. They still have USB foot-switches for about $10 though.
Incorrect. Buying a *single* ticket is worth it, since it puts you on the playing field at least. It's buying 2+ tickets that aren't worth the money,
No, it's not incorrect. Labeling 1 in 175 million "insignificant" is appropriate. You have a higher chance -- literally -- of dying from a lightning strike. Even higher of slipping in the bathtub and killing yourself.
Statisticians and actuaries who study gambling, and professional gamblers themselves, have a figure they call the "expected return" for a wager. If the odds are 1 in 175 million, then the pot would have to be worth more than $175 million dollars in order for a $1 wager to have a positive expected return. Same with a $1 bet on 1 in 10 odds. In order to break even over say 1000 of such bets, the pot would have to average $10.
So, unless the jackpot is AT LEAST $175 million or more, the expected return on a $1 ticket would be negative. Very few gamblers who could reasonably be called successful would make such a bet. But the actual ticket, I guess, is $2, so in fact it would have to be over $350 million to have an expected positive return. On average, that is. But they do indeed go by those averages.
But here's the kicker... as someone already mentioned, because duplicate tickets are possible, once they sell 175 million tickets on average the odds are that more than one person will win. (Average again: if they sell 245 million tickets, an average of 1.4 people will win.) And you have to split the winnings with them. So in fact your expected return is NEVER positive. At best it's a break-even game. In the long run.
You can do this on a Mac easily enough, even easier on Windows. Let's presume Windows:
Buy a USB "big red button" on Ebay for a few bucks. Not the "easy" kind, just the plain button. Plug it in to your computer, install the software that lets you script what the button does.
Subscribe to one of those services that will send an SMS from your PC.
Do a few minutes of scripting to get the button to send an SMS to your phone.
Program your phone -- also pretty easy -- to blast an alarm when it gets that particular SMS.
+1 And some hate that all the conversations are lost due to alcohool and therefore don't like to socialize with drunken idiots.
Not everybody who is drunk is an idiot.
Would you call Winston Churchill an idiot? Or Isaac Asimov, or Richard Feynman? They were all notorious drinkers. (In fact Churchill was said to finish at least a fifth of whiskey a day.)
There are lots of possible health effects, including temporary reduction of stress. Even if that's a purely psychological effect directly, it can have serious physiological effects in the long term.
I am skeptical of this study. Too many other papers have reported health benefits of moderate drinking, and not all of them were sponsored or promoted by "industry". I do not dispute that special interests may have promoted many of them afterward, but when so much research on one "side" of the question comes to one conclusion, and the conclusion of a single report is 180 degrees opposed, I think there is a lot of valid questioning to be done.
Alcohol is poision, there's really no argument about that, the questions are how much can you consume, what are the trade offs and is there any other aspect of it that improves ones health enough to make up for the fact that it's a toxic substance.
Drinking too much water will kill you. Yes, really.
Oxygen is poisonous as hell at too high of a concentration.
Yet you'll die if you go without either one for any length of time.
In almost all cases, "poison" is a relative concept. Absolute statements like "any amount are poisonous" is pretty meaningless.
In the UK they drank beer because the alcohol helped to sterilize it.
No, they didn't. Beer (even real beer, still generally no more than about 12% alcohol) doesn't have enough alcohol in it to "sterilize" much of anything. Beer was safer because it had been brewed (i.e. boiled), and afterward the yeast helped to keep out harmful microbes.
So... close, but not quite.
There was no concept of microbial disease back then. So they didn't really know why beer didn't make them sick but the water did. They just noticed it and took advantage of it.
So no, it doesn't really make you do things you normally wouldn't do. It just gives you an excuse - one your surroundings believe in, and one you probably believe in yourself.
Overstated.
It can indeed make you do things you would not normally do, by effecting your judgement. In turn by depressing parts of the brain that control higher-order function.
Whether it helps socialization may be disputed, but lapses of judgment during overuse is a pretty solidly established, objective fact.
I warned about this when HDMI was still just a plan in the works. People should never have accepted it as a standard. That's like inviting the foreign troops to live in your homes, then only complaining about it later when it becomes unbearable.
Of course, DVI supports HDCP too, which is what I'm really talking about here. Allowing others to control the content you watch was always a bad idea, and you only had to look at who were pushing the standard (the copyright trolls), to know what would come of it. People should have balked at buying THEN.
But people bought into it anyway. Now if you want to get control of your hardware back, you have to modify it, which not only voids the warranty, but is now illegal in the U.S. I hate to say "I told you so", but I told you so.
Consumers should demand full control of the hardware they own. Nothing else is acceptable. We have been seeing the abuses that are possible over the last 10 years, regardless of whether some of them were mistakes.
Do you really want to continue down that same road?
Actually, there are some that are intent on doing just that despite being labeled "haters" even though their motivations have nothing to do with "hate". Disagreement does not mean hatred. So long as the Linux kernel does not require specific user space software or versions, those of us who prefer a more traditional approach will be fine.
A lot of them just want to get the hell away from systemd. Talk about violation of "do one thing and do it well"!
I think it is quite possible to have comprehensive system security without one monstrous "Big Brother" to rule them all... especially since that's not what it was originally designed for.
Not all plot holes are the same. Captain America has plot holes because it relies on technology that doesn't exist, or didn't exist in the 1940s. I can live with that. Thor has plot holes that rely on magic. They don't belong in the same movie.
A distinction so arbitrary as to not really exist:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Here is a link directly to the prosecutor's statement. They claim the penalty for possessing a firearm while trafficking drugs is "5 years to life". Either way, he has already accepted a plea bargain, so it is likely in the low end of that range.
That is just reinforcement of my general point. In recent years the Federal government has been notoriously dishonest, and prosecutors have famously lied to judges all over the place. There are at least a few cases of judges getting really pissed off about this, and imposing sanctions on the offending prosecutors. But such cases have been too rare, in my opinion.
I say that in part because we had a local government prosecutor who basically refused to prosecute cops for any reason, except in a few exceptional cases in which he really had no choice. Thank goodness he is now gone.
Bahahaha yeah, back to the good ol' days of slavery and child labour!
Go kill yourself, libertarian filth. Capitilista scumbags can't be trusted to operate ethically, what you propose is a regression to slavery. People like you should be rounded up and placed into camps.
What a bizarre, delusional world you must live in. Clear evidence of what I stated is all over the history books. Have you ever read one?
But then the quality of your reply speaks volumes, all by itself. There is little I could say that would make it look any worse.
Actually, most Post Offices are owned by private individuals and leased back to the Government for use. As such, the building itself is legally exempt of the Federal Building restrictions and regarded much the same as any other private establishment. There have in fact been court cases regarding this, especially those regarding people getting injured at the property and the actual owners being liable rather than the USPS, establishing precedent. Brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner in a public location or threatening a federal employee is another matter, and carries with it quite severe penalties though.
Regardless of ownership, a Post Office is still usually considered Federal territory, exempt from State law. The liability question sounds like typical Government hypocrisy: "we claim authority but no liability".
Brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner in a public location or threatening a federal employee is another matter, and carries with it quite severe penalties though.
EXCEPT on Federal territory, laws governing this are entirely State matters and vary from State to State. Laws about Federal employees are yet another matter, and activities that the Feds claim are illegal are in fact explicitly LEGAL in some States. For example: a few states have passed laws saying it is ILLEGAL for a Federal employee to attempt to enforce certain Federal laws which the State considers unconstitutional, within that State. And before you scoff, that is 100% true and a Federal agent was just arrested a couple of months ago.
The Federal government is NOT "supreme" in all things. It is subject to State law.
A capital offense is one for which you CAN get the death penalty. Not necessarily for which you DID. People getting out in less than 10 years on good behavior has been depressingly common. Gotta make room for all those pot smokers, don't you know.
Slashdot Mirror
A 3U 4-socket T5 machine had about 128 full hardware threads (really: cores) the last time I looked seriously at it. The performance was a bit less than a 32-socket, 4-core-per -socket M9000, the machines I mostly worked with. In those days, I was a capacity planner and performance engineer at Sun Canada.
Okay, but it's not a one-for-one comparison. A hardware thread in one of those machines lies somewhere between an x-86 "core" and a GPU "core" in capability.
Granted, they were powerful machines. But a 128-thread SPARC machine has nowhere near the capability of a modern x86 machine with 128 cores.
Also, depending on the language, using goto to break out of nested loops can lead to stack overflow.
You do not post a tangentially related article and say there are some sources here. I am not going to go find sources to back up your claims, that is your job if you wish to convince anyone that your viewpoint is correct. Oh, and bloggers or articles that rely upon anecdotal evidence need not apply.
Although I have seen this stated on Slashdot many times before, your argument does not hold water.
Slashdot is not a peer-reviewed science journal. Other people here are not your under- or un-paid research assistants. Or chimpanzees for that matter.
When you are spoon-fed relevant material and shown where you can find much more VERY EASILY, it's time to quitcherbitchin'. Nobody is being paid to shovel the information down your throat, just because you're too lazy to do it. You don't get to claim it's not there just because you won't look at it.
There is far too much speculation and not enough actual research in this area. "Girls don't program because they were discriminated against starting in the 80s!" Really? "Girls just don't want to code!" Is that a guess? "All we need to do is spend more money and girls will become programmers!" How about you spend some of that money on researching why girls don't want to become programmers?
There has been "research in this area" for 40 years! It's anything BUT speculation.
When other factors were accounted for, females simply did not CHOOSE to go into STEM fields, in general. Further, then tended to make that decision relatively early: in middle or high school.
You can say all you want about "indoctrination at a young age" etc., but that's a different issue than the one under discussion. You don't solve discrimination by institutionalizing discrimination. And you sure as hell don't solve it by discriminating long AFTER minds have already been made up.
In other words: at its lowest point, does it clear the planet or crash into it?
Almost.
I mean, that IS the basic idea. But it's just a bit too simplistic.
If your gravitational body has an atmosphere, the lowest point has to be high enough to not create significant drag. Or else sooner or later it very definitely WILL crash.
The US just decided it wasn't something that should belong to tbe government alone, so they privatized space travel to give everyone a shot at it. SpaceX and Boeing are both finishing up crew vehicles. Just because the government is done with space travel doesn't mean that it stops: it means the real progress is just beginning.
Nonsense. Certain people realized that NASA+government bureaucracy was failing the space program and the people, repeatedly, and that we sorely needed alternatives.
If that were not so, we would not have needed Russian boosters for our own rockets or Russian launches to supply ISS, while the private companies ramped up. But we did indeed need them, without which our manned space program would indeed have failed, pretty much completely.
Lack of good intelligence helped start the nuclear arms race. We took Kruschev at his word regarding his missile program without understanding the full implications of the blusterous comments he was making.
For the most part I disagree. Russia's nuclear program DID become the second most capable (some even say the most capable) in the world. Not necessarily technologically, but definitely in numbers. It was therefore a real and credible threat.
Kruschev probably meant his bluster to be more of an economic threat that technology-military, but I think we can all agree that's all THAT was: bluster. Though even he might not have realized it at the time. Their real problem was that they could not keep up economically, and the nature of their economic system did not fund their science well.
But don't ever think they are stupid, or only blustering.
In context, your post is incorrect.
No, it isn't.
fish waffle did not say that the odds of winning are insignificant, they said that the odds of wining are not significantly reduced by not buying.
If you would like to argue that a 1 in 175 chance of something happening is insignificant, go right ahead. But please do not pretend that either of the two people above you were claiming otherwise.
fish waffle said the difference between buying a ticket and not buying a ticket was insignificant. His argument is based on the odds of winning. So if 2 + 2 = 4, then yes fish waffle was saying it was insignificant. And I agreed.
On the other hand, GrandCow's first word was: "Incorrect." Which means he (she?) disagreed. You can't have it both ways. If GrandCow said incorrect, then GrandCow said the first ticket (described by fish waffle) is NOT insignificant.
In fact GrandCow elaborated, and claimed the first ticket is significant, it is only the second ticket that is insignificant.
While to some degree they may have been saying something different, GrandCow DID say that fish waffle was "incorrect", and that the first ticket is "worth it" (implying significance). While although fish waffle did not mention the chance of winning, it was pretty clear it is what his statement was based on. Why else make it?
Search eBay for "bluetooth remote". Buy it now and sort by price. You'll find a cheapo little $1.82 (SHIPPED!) "selfie remote". This is easy integrated into any number of things that can listen for a bluetooth signal. Done and done. $5, geez, what are you, rich? :-P
You still have to get the remote to interface with your computer. A bluetooth remote won't send you an SMS when you're away from home.
I might have misunderstood, but it was my understanding that this guy is away from the house for significant periods.
Still, you make a good point. If you can find a good way to interface it, it would work fine.
By the way: I just went on Ebay to find the big red USB switch that I have myself. The price has gone up to $38. That seems pretty outrageous for what it is. They still have USB foot-switches for about $10 though.
Incorrect. Buying a *single* ticket is worth it, since it puts you on the playing field at least. It's buying 2+ tickets that aren't worth the money,
No, it's not incorrect. Labeling 1 in 175 million "insignificant" is appropriate. You have a higher chance -- literally -- of dying from a lightning strike. Even higher of slipping in the bathtub and killing yourself.
Statisticians and actuaries who study gambling, and professional gamblers themselves, have a figure they call the "expected return" for a wager. If the odds are 1 in 175 million, then the pot would have to be worth more than $175 million dollars in order for a $1 wager to have a positive expected return. Same with a $1 bet on 1 in 10 odds. In order to break even over say 1000 of such bets, the pot would have to average $10.
So, unless the jackpot is AT LEAST $175 million or more, the expected return on a $1 ticket would be negative. Very few gamblers who could reasonably be called successful would make such a bet. But the actual ticket, I guess, is $2, so in fact it would have to be over $350 million to have an expected positive return. On average, that is. But they do indeed go by those averages.
But here's the kicker... as someone already mentioned, because duplicate tickets are possible, once they sell 175 million tickets on average the odds are that more than one person will win. (Average again: if they sell 245 million tickets, an average of 1.4 people will win.) And you have to split the winnings with them. So in fact your expected return is NEVER positive. At best it's a break-even game. In the long run.
The math falls apart most the time if two people could win
There's a reason the abbreviation for Expected Rate of Return is ERR.
You can do this on a Mac easily enough, even easier on Windows. Let's presume Windows:
Buy a USB "big red button" on Ebay for a few bucks. Not the "easy" kind, just the plain button. Plug it in to your computer, install the software that lets you script what the button does.
Subscribe to one of those services that will send an SMS from your PC.
Do a few minutes of scripting to get the button to send an SMS to your phone.
Program your phone -- also pretty easy -- to blast an alarm when it gets that particular SMS.
Job done. Cost: maybe $5.
+1 And some hate that all the conversations are lost due to alcohool and therefore don't like to socialize with drunken idiots.
Not everybody who is drunk is an idiot.
Would you call Winston Churchill an idiot? Or Isaac Asimov, or Richard Feynman? They were all notorious drinkers. (In fact Churchill was said to finish at least a fifth of whiskey a day.)
Too simple.
There are lots of possible health effects, including temporary reduction of stress. Even if that's a purely psychological effect directly, it can have serious physiological effects in the long term.
I am skeptical of this study. Too many other papers have reported health benefits of moderate drinking, and not all of them were sponsored or promoted by "industry". I do not dispute that special interests may have promoted many of them afterward, but when so much research on one "side" of the question comes to one conclusion, and the conclusion of a single report is 180 degrees opposed, I think there is a lot of valid questioning to be done.
Alcohol is poision, there's really no argument about that, the questions are how much can you consume, what are the trade offs and is there any other aspect of it that improves ones health enough to make up for the fact that it's a toxic substance.
Drinking too much water will kill you. Yes, really.
Oxygen is poisonous as hell at too high of a concentration.
Yet you'll die if you go without either one for any length of time.
In almost all cases, "poison" is a relative concept. Absolute statements like "any amount are poisonous" is pretty meaningless.
In the UK they drank beer because the alcohol helped to sterilize it.
No, they didn't. Beer (even real beer, still generally no more than about 12% alcohol) doesn't have enough alcohol in it to "sterilize" much of anything. Beer was safer because it had been brewed (i.e. boiled), and afterward the yeast helped to keep out harmful microbes.
So... close, but not quite.
There was no concept of microbial disease back then. So they didn't really know why beer didn't make them sick but the water did. They just noticed it and took advantage of it.
So no, it doesn't really make you do things you normally wouldn't do. It just gives you an excuse - one your surroundings believe in, and one you probably believe in yourself.
Overstated.
It can indeed make you do things you would not normally do, by effecting your judgement. In turn by depressing parts of the brain that control higher-order function.
Whether it helps socialization may be disputed, but lapses of judgment during overuse is a pretty solidly established, objective fact.
I warned about this when HDMI was still just a plan in the works. People should never have accepted it as a standard. That's like inviting the foreign troops to live in your homes, then only complaining about it later when it becomes unbearable.
Of course, DVI supports HDCP too, which is what I'm really talking about here. Allowing others to control the content you watch was always a bad idea, and you only had to look at who were pushing the standard (the copyright trolls), to know what would come of it. People should have balked at buying THEN.
But people bought into it anyway. Now if you want to get control of your hardware back, you have to modify it, which not only voids the warranty, but is now illegal in the U.S. I hate to say "I told you so", but I told you so.
Consumers should demand full control of the hardware they own. Nothing else is acceptable. We have been seeing the abuses that are possible over the last 10 years, regardless of whether some of them were mistakes.
Do you really want to continue down that same road?
Actually, there are some that are intent on doing just that despite being labeled "haters" even though their motivations have nothing to do with "hate". Disagreement does not mean hatred. So long as the Linux kernel does not require specific user space software or versions, those of us who prefer a more traditional approach will be fine.
A lot of them just want to get the hell away from systemd. Talk about violation of "do one thing and do it well"!
I think it is quite possible to have comprehensive system security without one monstrous "Big Brother" to rule them all... especially since that's not what it was originally designed for.
Not all plot holes are the same. Captain America has plot holes because it relies on technology that doesn't exist, or didn't exist in the 1940s. I can live with that. Thor has plot holes that rely on magic. They don't belong in the same movie.
A distinction so arbitrary as to not really exist:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Well, yes, my local area is not an example of Federal corruption. But I've certainly read about plenty of it, happening in a similar manner.
Here is a link directly to the prosecutor's statement. They claim the penalty for possessing a firearm while trafficking drugs is "5 years to life". Either way, he has already accepted a plea bargain, so it is likely in the low end of that range.
That is just reinforcement of my general point. In recent years the Federal government has been notoriously dishonest, and prosecutors have famously lied to judges all over the place. There are at least a few cases of judges getting really pissed off about this, and imposing sanctions on the offending prosecutors. But such cases have been too rare, in my opinion.
I say that in part because we had a local government prosecutor who basically refused to prosecute cops for any reason, except in a few exceptional cases in which he really had no choice. Thank goodness he is now gone.
Bahahaha yeah, back to the good ol' days of slavery and child labour!
Go kill yourself, libertarian filth. Capitilista scumbags can't be trusted to operate ethically, what you propose is a regression to slavery. People like you should be rounded up and placed into camps.
What a bizarre, delusional world you must live in. Clear evidence of what I stated is all over the history books. Have you ever read one?
But then the quality of your reply speaks volumes, all by itself. There is little I could say that would make it look any worse.
Actually, most Post Offices are owned by private individuals and leased back to the Government for use. As such, the building itself is legally exempt of the Federal Building restrictions and regarded much the same as any other private establishment. There have in fact been court cases regarding this, especially those regarding people getting injured at the property and the actual owners being liable rather than the USPS, establishing precedent. Brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner in a public location or threatening a federal employee is another matter, and carries with it quite severe penalties though.
Regardless of ownership, a Post Office is still usually considered Federal territory, exempt from State law. The liability question sounds like typical Government hypocrisy: "we claim authority but no liability".
Brandishing a firearm in a threatening manner in a public location or threatening a federal employee is another matter, and carries with it quite severe penalties though.
EXCEPT on Federal territory, laws governing this are entirely State matters and vary from State to State. Laws about Federal employees are yet another matter, and activities that the Feds claim are illegal are in fact explicitly LEGAL in some States. For example: a few states have passed laws saying it is ILLEGAL for a Federal employee to attempt to enforce certain Federal laws which the State considers unconstitutional, within that State. And before you scoff, that is 100% true and a Federal agent was just arrested a couple of months ago.
The Federal government is NOT "supreme" in all things. It is subject to State law.
Happens all the time.
A capital offense is one for which you CAN get the death penalty. Not necessarily for which you DID. People getting out in less than 10 years on good behavior has been depressingly common. Gotta make room for all those pot smokers, don't you know.