Having read eldavojohn's post that summarizes the article, it appears that the reason to pick out Linux specifically is because that is the OS that the writers of the paper actually tested. Since Windows uses a different system for keeping track of what various cores are doing it is likely that Windows will run into this problem at a different number of cores. However, until someone conducts a similar test using Windows we will not know if that number is more or less than 48.
yea, no government had ever quartered troops in houses before without the consent of the owners, or declared a national religion or driven out people who preferred their own religion, or silenced people who said things they disagreed with.
Unthinkable!
You misunderstand what the poster was saying. He wasn't saying that the argument was correct, just that a significant number of the Framers of the Constitution (and others) made that argument. The fact that the argument was made at the time tells us a lot about what the articles in the Bill of Rights mean. Many of the Framers felt that the things in the Bill of Rights naturally followed. Since no where in the Constitution without the Bill of Rights was Congress given the authority to do any of the things that the Amendments in Bill of Rights forbid them from doing, the argument was that there was no need to forbid them from doing it.
No, freedom of speech alone would not be sufficient because then the government would be allowed to regulate what you write. The idea that freedom of speech covers things like flag burning would horrify the men who wrote the Constitution (although I think it is a logical extension of a clause that includes freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion--possibly wrong, but nevertheless logical). The other problem with your logic is that at the time of the writing of the Constitution most (if not all) newspapers were published by entrepreneurs, not corporations.
The FCC already has the information. The question is whether or not they may/must release the information under a Freedom of Information request. I would tend to agree with the poster you replied to, as a publicly traded company this is information that investors should have access to in order to make an informed decision about how much to invest in the company. However, I can imagine circumstances under which information which a publicly traded company gave to a regulatory agency would be protected under privacy rights. This does not appear to be such a case, but there isn't enough information in the article for me to be sure.
So what you're saying is it's better to let the problem happen (and *then* punish the driver) than to prevent it? Great, thanks a lot. When I get hit and killed by a car because some idiot is texting and not watching the road, I'll be sure to haunt you.
How do you propose preventing the problem without unduly penalizing those who are not contributors to the problem?
The OPs suggestion is a negative reinforcement scheme, if it is coupled with heavy publication of the names and details of those involved in such incidents it will likely help as well.
My impression of Debkafile is that they have sources for just about everything they report, but that they are often used by various individuals and groups to get stories out there that are not true. On the other hand, every now and again, they break some story that every other news organization has ignored/missed because there are no solid sources, but once the story breaks, solid sources turn up. What that means is that if you see something on Debkafile, look around for other sources before you take it as true (although this may take some time).
And google has the gaul to climb on a soap box about censorship...
What is the connection between the people who lived in Western Europe and were conquered by Julius Caesar have to do with Goolge climbing on a soap box? Or did you mean "gall" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gall, third entry " Outrageous insolence; effrontery"?
We have gone off the gold standard and selling gold to the public was ilegal. However, it is now legal to sell gold to the public. These are not really gold dispensing ATMs, these are gold dispensing vending machines that accept credit cards (and possibly debit cards).
Most other "two party" consent states (actually, I believe Maryland is the last such state to have such a ruling) already have had similar rulings by their Supreme Courts (or whatever they call their highest state court, in at least one state the state Supreme Court is not the highest court for that state).
In most dual consent states, informing the other party that you are going to record the conversation counts as them giving permission if they continue the conversation. That is why many customer service phone lines have a recording that you hear that says, "This conversation may be recorded for...". So, no, they cannot require you to turn the device off. All they can do is refuse to have a conversation with you while the recording device is turned on.
This was not an activist judge. A clear reading of the law says that this was the correct decision. An activist judge is one who overturns a clearly written law on the basis of his, or her, interpretation of a vague phrase in the Constitution (either state or federal), or even worse based on something they find in the "penumbra" of the Constitution.
I'm not sure in what way the Segway brings any improvements over pre-existing transportation devices. Other than in a few niche usages, the Segway is inferior to the transportation method it seeks to supplant.
Even you do not put it far enough back. The case could be made that Lincoln was the one who started this slide (although I would argue that his expansions of the Federal government were more in the light of emergency measures than a reflection of personal philosophy of government). The earliest President I come across who expanded federal power as a goal in and of itself was Woodrow Wilson. In addition, he appears to have consciously done it in a manner to make it easier for his successors to expand that power even further.
It just kills me that the voting public is so abjectly stupid when electing the POTUS.
The problem is that voters have come to view the POTUS election as the "important" one and all the others as "yeah, whoever". If people would give more attention to who they vote for for Congress, state offices and local elections who the POTUS is would be less significant. Actually, who the POTUS is is less significant than most people think, although it is becoming more significant with each election.
Both major parties want to invade your personal life:
Democrats want you to smoke weed, but not tobacco (flip for Republicans)
Not quite mirror image positions, but close enough for inclusion in a list to make the point you are trying to make.
Democrats want to censure you from saying "hurtful" words, but want flag burning (flip for Repubs)
Same as above
Democrats want to control what you eat, no more fast food for you (I'm sure Repubs don't want you to eat something)
I am unaware of any Republican push to legislate against any food.
Democrats don't want you to drink soda, but alcohol is a-okay (flip for Repubs).
Actually, the anti-alcohol campaigners appear to be Democrats as well as the anti-soda campaigners. While many teetotalers are Republicans, none of them I am aware of are trying to force that on others
Democrats want you to speak out against the government [unless they're in power] (same for the Repubs)
This would be an interesting one to do an analysis of the actual rhetoric and how it switches depending on which party is in power. I suspect that you would find a greater contrast between the rhetoric of Democrats (by the same individuals) when they are out of power versus in power on this subject than that of Republicans but I am not sure.
The list can go on. Thinking that the Democrats are for personal freedom is outdated thinking. Both major parties are led by totalitarian control freaks.
The idea that the Democrats are for personal freedom is not "outdated thinking", it has always been wrong. The Democrats have been led by totalitarian control freaks since at least Woodrow Wilson.
The main point of this law was to eliminate light bulbs which are not covered by a current patent. This will allow GE, Phillips and others to charge more for their "energy efficient" bulbs that no one else can duplicate without paying one or more of the main players a licensing fee.
Additionally, there have been several breakthroughs in treating Alzheimer's in the last year or so that make it likely that medical science will allow him to delay the onset of dementia (and possibly avoid it altogether).
Well, the thing is, hunters will pay for the privilege of thinning the herd for you as opposed to having to pay someone to do it. In several states in the U.S. the government department that manages the conservation of wild life gets most of its budget from the sale of hunting permits and fishing licenses. Recently, a city near me hired an expensive sharp shooter to cull the deer hard in one of its city parks. They could have raised the amount they paid the guy, or more, by selling hunting permits. They could have even forced people to pass a marksmanship test that you would have had to pay to take. If you passed the test, you would then be allowed to buy a permit to hunt deer in the park on a particular day (or days).
Oregon is composed of two areas, Portland (or Los Angeles North, they are even basing their transportation system on that model of efficiency Los Angeles) and rural area (think Appalachia, except with very good farmland).
Except that the violent crime rate is higher in the UK than in the U.S. http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf
According to these links, the violent crime rate in 2003 was 475.8 per 100,000 in the U.S. and 6,650 per 100,000 in England and Wales The source I got the links from said that the overall violence rate for the UK was 4,100 per 100,000, but I was unable to find where in the Home Office report they got that).
I'm confused as to how reducing the intensity of this exploit would make it more sinister. If anybody can give me an idea of how that would work, I would appreciate it.
Now on the other hand if this attack were to mutate I could see it easily becoming something that might be very disruptive for twits (those who use Twitter).
I have a fear of heights. I also have a very strong will (I know that will come as a shock to those of you who have read my other posts on here). Some years back, I was considering using my will to overcome my fear of heights. At about that time I heard a person I knew who had worked as an Outward Bound counselor (or whatever they call their staff). He was talking about how he had to be careful to remember to connect his safety gear properly because he had no fear of heights (right after climbing out on a cliff face to help someone rapel down it without hooking up his safety gear). I decided that I would not attempt to diminish my fear of heights, since I am already capable of functioning in such circumstances when necessary. Yes, I could get the job done faster when in a precarious position at height if I did not have a fear of heights, but the odds of me not accurately assessing the risks of working in that situation would also go up.
The problem is that they don't have to tell the site owner in advance of going to court to get the order. They get a court order to shut your site down. Your site is shut down. Now you get to go to court and ask the judge to lift the order and put your site back up. You don't get to defend yourself before you are shut down. This means that you have fewer resources to defend yourself.
Well the trick is to convince other people to also work at it. You are assuming that you have to convince all of those people all by yourself. Of course if your idea is not really a good idea, that makes it a lot harder.
Slashdot Mirror
Having read eldavojohn's post that summarizes the article, it appears that the reason to pick out Linux specifically is because that is the OS that the writers of the paper actually tested. Since Windows uses a different system for keeping track of what various cores are doing it is likely that Windows will run into this problem at a different number of cores. However, until someone conducts a similar test using Windows we will not know if that number is more or less than 48.
yea, no government had ever quartered troops in houses before without the consent of the owners, or declared a national religion or driven out people who preferred their own religion, or silenced people who said things they disagreed with.
Unthinkable!
You misunderstand what the poster was saying. He wasn't saying that the argument was correct, just that a significant number of the Framers of the Constitution (and others) made that argument. The fact that the argument was made at the time tells us a lot about what the articles in the Bill of Rights mean. Many of the Framers felt that the things in the Bill of Rights naturally followed. Since no where in the Constitution without the Bill of Rights was Congress given the authority to do any of the things that the Amendments in Bill of Rights forbid them from doing, the argument was that there was no need to forbid them from doing it.
No, freedom of speech alone would not be sufficient because then the government would be allowed to regulate what you write. The idea that freedom of speech covers things like flag burning would horrify the men who wrote the Constitution (although I think it is a logical extension of a clause that includes freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion--possibly wrong, but nevertheless logical). The other problem with your logic is that at the time of the writing of the Constitution most (if not all) newspapers were published by entrepreneurs, not corporations.
The FCC already has the information. The question is whether or not they may/must release the information under a Freedom of Information request. I would tend to agree with the poster you replied to, as a publicly traded company this is information that investors should have access to in order to make an informed decision about how much to invest in the company. However, I can imagine circumstances under which information which a publicly traded company gave to a regulatory agency would be protected under privacy rights. This does not appear to be such a case, but there isn't enough information in the article for me to be sure.
So what you're saying is it's better to let the problem happen (and *then* punish the driver) than to prevent it? Great, thanks a lot. When I get hit and killed by a car because some idiot is texting and not watching the road, I'll be sure to haunt you.
How do you propose preventing the problem without unduly penalizing those who are not contributors to the problem?
The OPs suggestion is a negative reinforcement scheme, if it is coupled with heavy publication of the names and details of those involved in such incidents it will likely help as well.
My impression of Debkafile is that they have sources for just about everything they report, but that they are often used by various individuals and groups to get stories out there that are not true. On the other hand, every now and again, they break some story that every other news organization has ignored/missed because there are no solid sources, but once the story breaks, solid sources turn up. What that means is that if you see something on Debkafile, look around for other sources before you take it as true (although this may take some time).
And google has the gaul to climb on a soap box about censorship...
What is the connection between the people who lived in Western Europe and were conquered by Julius Caesar have to do with Goolge climbing on a soap box? Or did you mean "gall" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gall, third entry " Outrageous insolence; effrontery"?
We have gone off the gold standard and selling gold to the public was ilegal. However, it is now legal to sell gold to the public. These are not really gold dispensing ATMs, these are gold dispensing vending machines that accept credit cards (and possibly debit cards).
Most other "two party" consent states (actually, I believe Maryland is the last such state to have such a ruling) already have had similar rulings by their Supreme Courts (or whatever they call their highest state court, in at least one state the state Supreme Court is not the highest court for that state).
In most dual consent states, informing the other party that you are going to record the conversation counts as them giving permission if they continue the conversation. That is why many customer service phone lines have a recording that you hear that says, "This conversation may be recorded for ...". So, no, they cannot require you to turn the device off. All they can do is refuse to have a conversation with you while the recording device is turned on.
This was not an activist judge. A clear reading of the law says that this was the correct decision. An activist judge is one who overturns a clearly written law on the basis of his, or her, interpretation of a vague phrase in the Constitution (either state or federal), or even worse based on something they find in the "penumbra" of the Constitution.
I'm not sure in what way the Segway brings any improvements over pre-existing transportation devices. Other than in a few niche usages, the Segway is inferior to the transportation method it seeks to supplant.
Even you do not put it far enough back. The case could be made that Lincoln was the one who started this slide (although I would argue that his expansions of the Federal government were more in the light of emergency measures than a reflection of personal philosophy of government). The earliest President I come across who expanded federal power as a goal in and of itself was Woodrow Wilson. In addition, he appears to have consciously done it in a manner to make it easier for his successors to expand that power even further.
It just kills me that the voting public is so abjectly stupid when electing the POTUS.
The problem is that voters have come to view the POTUS election as the "important" one and all the others as "yeah, whoever". If people would give more attention to who they vote for for Congress, state offices and local elections who the POTUS is would be less significant. Actually, who the POTUS is is less significant than most people think, although it is becoming more significant with each election.
Both major parties want to invade your personal life:
Not quite mirror image positions, but close enough for inclusion in a list to make the point you are trying to make.
Democrats want to censure you from saying "hurtful" words, but want flag burning (flip for Repubs)
Same as above
Democrats want to control what you eat, no more fast food for you (I'm sure Repubs don't want you to eat something)
I am unaware of any Republican push to legislate against any food.
Democrats don't want you to drink soda, but alcohol is a-okay (flip for Repubs).
Actually, the anti-alcohol campaigners appear to be Democrats as well as the anti-soda campaigners. While many teetotalers are Republicans, none of them I am aware of are trying to force that on others
Democrats want you to speak out against the government [unless they're in power] (same for the Repubs)
This would be an interesting one to do an analysis of the actual rhetoric and how it switches depending on which party is in power. I suspect that you would find a greater contrast between the rhetoric of Democrats (by the same individuals) when they are out of power versus in power on this subject than that of Republicans but I am not sure.
The list can go on. Thinking that the Democrats are for personal freedom is outdated thinking. Both major parties are led by totalitarian control freaks.
The idea that the Democrats are for personal freedom is not "outdated thinking", it has always been wrong. The Democrats have been led by totalitarian control freaks since at least Woodrow Wilson.
The main point of this law was to eliminate light bulbs which are not covered by a current patent. This will allow GE, Phillips and others to charge more for their "energy efficient" bulbs that no one else can duplicate without paying one or more of the main players a licensing fee.
Additionally, there have been several breakthroughs in treating Alzheimer's in the last year or so that make it likely that medical science will allow him to delay the onset of dementia (and possibly avoid it altogether).
Well, the thing is, hunters will pay for the privilege of thinning the herd for you as opposed to having to pay someone to do it. In several states in the U.S. the government department that manages the conservation of wild life gets most of its budget from the sale of hunting permits and fishing licenses. Recently, a city near me hired an expensive sharp shooter to cull the deer hard in one of its city parks. They could have raised the amount they paid the guy, or more, by selling hunting permits. They could have even forced people to pass a marksmanship test that you would have had to pay to take. If you passed the test, you would then be allowed to buy a permit to hunt deer in the park on a particular day (or days).
Oregon is composed of two areas, Portland (or Los Angeles North, they are even basing their transportation system on that model of efficiency Los Angeles) and rural area (think Appalachia, except with very good farmland).
Except that the violent crime rate is higher in the UK than in the U.S.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr1804.pdf
According to these links, the violent crime rate in 2003 was 475.8 per 100,000 in the U.S. and 6,650 per 100,000 in England and Wales The source I got the links from said that the overall violence rate for the UK was 4,100 per 100,000, but I was unable to find where in the Home Office report they got that).
I'm confused as to how reducing the intensity of this exploit would make it more sinister. If anybody can give me an idea of how that would work, I would appreciate it.
Now on the other hand if this attack were to mutate I could see it easily becoming something that might be very disruptive for twits (those who use Twitter).
I have a fear of heights. I also have a very strong will (I know that will come as a shock to those of you who have read my other posts on here). Some years back, I was considering using my will to overcome my fear of heights. At about that time I heard a person I knew who had worked as an Outward Bound counselor (or whatever they call their staff). He was talking about how he had to be careful to remember to connect his safety gear properly because he had no fear of heights (right after climbing out on a cliff face to help someone rapel down it without hooking up his safety gear). I decided that I would not attempt to diminish my fear of heights, since I am already capable of functioning in such circumstances when necessary. Yes, I could get the job done faster when in a precarious position at height if I did not have a fear of heights, but the odds of me not accurately assessing the risks of working in that situation would also go up.
The problem is that they don't have to tell the site owner in advance of going to court to get the order. They get a court order to shut your site down. Your site is shut down. Now you get to go to court and ask the judge to lift the order and put your site back up. You don't get to defend yourself before you are shut down. This means that you have fewer resources to defend yourself.
Thatcher, Bush, Reagan - not pretty.
Brown, Obama, Carter - that's just downright ugly.
Well the trick is to convince other people to also work at it. You are assuming that you have to convince all of those people all by yourself. Of course if your idea is not really a good idea, that makes it a lot harder.