the vast majority of the "conservatives" voted for Bush twice and were eerily silent while Bush was expanding federal and executive power in the name of war. they have zero credibility to argue the position you take up. moreover, electing a Republican, which would be the outcome of "conservative" pragmatism assures that your stated goals are unreachable. and those who did fit in the category "paleo-conservative" that i used in my post you replied to in order to so differentiate them from the neocons. Name me one "conservative" aside from Ron Paul in elected federal office whose behavior comports with your stated beliefs.
China demonizes itself well enough on its own with its actions. it doesn't need my help. and if you look at my posting history, you'll find that i castigate the US government when it deserves it too. but oh, no. that doesn't fit with your straw man image of me.
as to the rest of your post, just because the US is throwing rights out the window does not imply that China is the new hotness on the human rights front. if i felt the US was unfixable on the rights front i'd probably move to New Zealand. China is still lower on my list of places to live than the US by a lot. Is it better than it was? Yes. Do i trust it to keep getting better? only so long as there is external pressure, and even then there will be incidents.
and what long-term good are bank notes in a command economy? when the economy crashes there (as it has to eventually given all the hyperbolic speculation) i don't trust the Chinese government to be terribly humane in its treatment of the surplus workers it has imported. Similar to the US, but worse is what i'd expect.
yeah, it was wrong in that it wasn't purely a distillation of the article, but rather a synthesis with my own experiences. i should have accurately represented it as such.
i was terse because i was miffed at his hubris to assume that no one's been working in filesystem, swap, and application IO tuning for the last 40 years or so, something i've actually done (but of course, not for 40 years).
everyone makes choices on which abstractions to use and which to discard for performance/cost purposes. the author is merely asserting (without actually stating it) that enough people have the same use case of 16:300 ram:disk that it is worth discarding the abstraction that says that the application should just assume that everything it writes to/reads from is ram. OK, but this is hardly revolutionary. Nor is it universally correct for all cost/performance tradeoff decisions.
Mmap isn't always the correct choice either. In fact, using mmap is the thing that provides the abstraction that your disk is memory for you, so you can hardly blame application programmers for using the abstraction naively, especially when they may have no idea what hardware decisions have been made. maybe using raw file IO and keeping your accesses to multiples of the system IO size would be better. Of course if you do that you might also want to pay attention to stripe sizes if you're striping your jbod scratch. make them an even multiple (or better, a power of 2 multiple) of your system IO size as well.
yeah, apparently the Chinese learned that Mao's purges of intellectuals were counterproductive. And because they make the government look bad it's really hard to find information on their history.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Article 9... No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
care to poison the well some more?
you're half right. but without the 16th amendment the progressive income tax would be impossible. which is the only reason the left likes it in the first place. how about trying a progressive sales tax?
i'd far rather see a progressive sales tax than an income tax of any sort. (food staples, diapers, etc. = no tax, food luxuries = some tax,..., yachts, etc. = huge tax) both because of the civil liberties implications and because of the unproductive economic drain of all that redundant effort to calculate tax. businesses are set up to collect sales tax. most can accommodate variances in what gets taxed at what rate. also, sales taxes encourage savings which had we been doing, the current depression would have been more bearable and shorter. who knows, since it was caused by rampant debt, were we a culture of savers it might not have happened at all.
umm... the "conservatives" played plenty fast and loose with the constitution over the past decade. See for reference the Bush administration, specifically John Yoo's memos "justifying" torture, denial of Habeas, warantless domestic wiretapping, etc.
Oh, you meant the paleo-conservatives. my bad. but no one listens to them anymore.
so to recap:
the left thinks the constitution says whatever they want it to.
the right thinks the constitution says whatever they want it to.
except that there are plenty of laws abridging the right to free speech. some are not trivial like the "fire in a crowded theater" laws.
and you conveniently ignore what militia meant when the document was written. militia was you, me, and everyone with a torch, pitchfork, or flintlock. since that part hasn't been amended since then, the meaning of the words at the time it was written should prevail and indeed has prevailed. or are you arguing against private ownership of firearms at the time of the revolution too? do you think we ought to return ourselves to British rule?
See the part of the Declaration of Independence:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Clearly we have a functional tradition of armed rebellion when appropriate. what ethical grounds do you claim to remove the ability to do so? are you so naive as to think that our current (not Obama, think a bit more medium term, please) government won't eventually slide into tyranny and need overthrown?
meaning they would prefer to repeal the amendment that enabled it. given the big brother thing you might want to start considering that reducing federal cognizance of individuals might be for the best.
or put another way, i don't hold the idiotic statements of some members of the left against the left's valid arguments. e.g. those claiming that the healthcare bill wasn't a giant gift to the very corporations that the left blame (and to a large extent justifiably) for the problems in our system. the honest people on the left acknowledge that the Democrat party got subverted by the very special interests Obama claimed he would not allow to dictate policy when he was campaigning.
and that was amended out. it's kept in the text for context. you know kinda like a changelog from svn. it helps you not repeat mistakes. something about learning the lessons of history. i forget.
no, actually, when i say it I mean that no one section should hold primacy over the rest. So for example, Bush had legitimate Article II power to run the military and defend the country but he overreached when he claimed it enabled him to annul Habeas and the 4th amendment. See how that works there? Each part of the constitution is as important as each other part.
Pol pot, Mao, and Stalin certainly didn't need any stinkin' bible to commit genocide. Plain human greed and sociopathy work just fine on their own. One might even reasonably think that hatred of religion qua religion is a red herring.
you're a retard who only sees what he wants. yes there are tea-partiers who are too trusting of their local police. however, most are mistrusting of any government power.
1. An established nation uses biological warfare. In response the US sends the carriers, the marines, the tanks and kicks 7 kinds of living crap out of them. No nation on this planet can go up against the current US armed forces 1v1.
2. A total fucking nutcase in a cave somewhere uses biological warfare. What good is a nuke going to do?
then there's the part about falling...
... victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: "Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line"! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
yeah. i count two land wars in asia ongoing atm with two more imminent given that the factor distinguishing Obama's foreign policy from Bush's is "we won't use nukes if you don't already have them." But we'll still invade you to "liberate" your people and reduce the "threat" you pose us all the way on the other side of the globe. Just like the Bushies would have done.
More change plox Obama. The current amount is insufficient.
Oh, and i wonder how many more countries we can invade that neighbor China before they get rightfully paranoid. It's not like they don't have a history of being colonized by Europeans or anything. Something about the Boxer Rebellion. I can't remember. Neither can our current foreign policy wonks.
Yeah... Those governments ran their countries just fine. (For values of "just fine" corresponding to "give the unions whatever the hell they want in the short term to get elected regardless of the capacity to pay for it in the long run") Of course, the US is pretty far down that path as is, so we're really following Europe's example pretty well.
yeah, tech support that is only necessary because of all the bloatware "features", ease of exploitation (shoddy product), and DRM / product licensing headaches. and like another poster pointed out, support cost is eaten by the hardware OEM most of the time, since so few people buy boxed copies of windows. My next copy (since I play certain games which only function on windows) will, however, be boxed because of how terribad OEM "system restore" CDs are. And i'll never need the "support".
or those people with bad connections will be made members of a new middle-underclass, creating a tiered "digital divide" as government policy wonks call it.
Slashdot Mirror
the vast majority of the "conservatives" voted for Bush twice and were eerily silent while Bush was expanding federal and executive power in the name of war. they have zero credibility to argue the position you take up. moreover, electing a Republican, which would be the outcome of "conservative" pragmatism assures that your stated goals are unreachable. and those who did fit in the category "paleo-conservative" that i used in my post you replied to in order to so differentiate them from the neocons. Name me one "conservative" aside from Ron Paul in elected federal office whose behavior comports with your stated beliefs.
China demonizes itself well enough on its own with its actions. it doesn't need my help. and if you look at my posting history, you'll find that i castigate the US government when it deserves it too. but oh, no. that doesn't fit with your straw man image of me.
as to the rest of your post, just because the US is throwing rights out the window does not imply that China is the new hotness on the human rights front. if i felt the US was unfixable on the rights front i'd probably move to New Zealand. China is still lower on my list of places to live than the US by a lot. Is it better than it was? Yes. Do i trust it to keep getting better? only so long as there is external pressure, and even then there will be incidents.
and what long-term good are bank notes in a command economy? when the economy crashes there (as it has to eventually given all the hyperbolic speculation) i don't trust the Chinese government to be terribly humane in its treatment of the surplus workers it has imported. Similar to the US, but worse is what i'd expect.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/06/stephen-roach-says-chinas-housing-boom.html
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/05/china-equities-sink-5-down-22-for-year.html
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/06/china-denies-speculation-about.html
yeah, it was wrong in that it wasn't purely a distillation of the article, but rather a synthesis with my own experiences. i should have accurately represented it as such.
i was terse because i was miffed at his hubris to assume that no one's been working in filesystem, swap, and application IO tuning for the last 40 years or so, something i've actually done (but of course, not for 40 years).
everyone makes choices on which abstractions to use and which to discard for performance/cost purposes. the author is merely asserting (without actually stating it) that enough people have the same use case of 16:300 ram:disk that it is worth discarding the abstraction that says that the application should just assume that everything it writes to/reads from is ram. OK, but this is hardly revolutionary. Nor is it universally correct for all cost/performance tradeoff decisions.
Mmap isn't always the correct choice either. In fact, using mmap is the thing that provides the abstraction that your disk is memory for you, so you can hardly blame application programmers for using the abstraction naively, especially when they may have no idea what hardware decisions have been made. maybe using raw file IO and keeping your accesses to multiples of the system IO size would be better. Of course if you do that you might also want to pay attention to stripe sizes if you're striping your jbod scratch. make them an even multiple (or better, a power of 2 multiple) of your system IO size as well.
also, xdd's pretty fly for benchmarking i hear.
http://www.ioperformance.com/
And personally i prefer to maximize RAM size and IO bandwidth over processor speed for most applications.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010200302+1072521815&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configurator=&Subcategory=302&description=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=
article summary:
"disk is slower than RAM. some doofs don't realize their system is swapping. ergo algorithm is bad."
throw in 'Knuth is wrong' to generate page hits.
???
profit.
non-sensationalized takeaway: "remember swap is slow; try not to use it."
I don't know. Possibly when combined with Tienanmen it might make a pretty grisly trend.
And sure, past performance is no guarantee of future returns, just like in finance, but i'm sure there's some likelihood you're conveniently ignoring.
yeah, apparently the Chinese learned that Mao's purges of intellectuals were counterproductive. And because they make the government look bad it's really hard to find information on their history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution#Persecution
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090420120327AA9Yzfe
Oh, and don't forget Tienanmen Square in 1989.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989
So, uh, basically no reason. no reason at all. China is clearly a haven for persecuted scientists.
Some context that presaged this trend independent of the current depression in the larger economy:
http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/joalet.pdf
http://stlq.info/2004/05/commentary_the_crisis_in_schol.html
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxvi
care to poison the well some more?
you're half right. but without the 16th amendment the progressive income tax would be impossible. which is the only reason the left likes it in the first place. how about trying a progressive sales tax?
i'd far rather see a progressive sales tax than an income tax of any sort. (food staples, diapers, etc. = no tax, food luxuries = some tax, ..., yachts, etc. = huge tax) both because of the civil liberties implications and because of the unproductive economic drain of all that redundant effort to calculate tax. businesses are set up to collect sales tax. most can accommodate variances in what gets taxed at what rate. also, sales taxes encourage savings which had we been doing, the current depression would have been more bearable and shorter. who knows, since it was caused by rampant debt, were we a culture of savers it might not have happened at all.
umm... the "conservatives" played plenty fast and loose with the constitution over the past decade. See for reference the Bush administration, specifically John Yoo's memos "justifying" torture, denial of Habeas, warantless domestic wiretapping, etc.
Oh, you meant the paleo-conservatives. my bad. but no one listens to them anymore.
so to recap:
the left thinks the constitution says whatever they want it to.
the right thinks the constitution says whatever they want it to.
militia != standing army
read history doof.
cool, but document it and then follow it. oh wait. that's not convenient. my bad.
except that there are plenty of laws abridging the right to free speech. some are not trivial like the "fire in a crowded theater" laws.
and you conveniently ignore what militia meant when the document was written. militia was you, me, and everyone with a torch, pitchfork, or flintlock. since that part hasn't been amended since then, the meaning of the words at the time it was written should prevail and indeed has prevailed. or are you arguing against private ownership of firearms at the time of the revolution too? do you think we ought to return ourselves to British rule?
See the part of the Declaration of Independence:
Clearly we have a functional tradition of armed rebellion when appropriate. what ethical grounds do you claim to remove the ability to do so? are you so naive as to think that our current (not Obama, think a bit more medium term, please) government won't eventually slide into tyranny and need overthrown?
meaning they would prefer to repeal the amendment that enabled it. given the big brother thing you might want to start considering that reducing federal cognizance of individuals might be for the best.
or put another way, i don't hold the idiotic statements of some members of the left against the left's valid arguments. e.g. those claiming that the healthcare bill wasn't a giant gift to the very corporations that the left blame (and to a large extent justifiably) for the problems in our system. the honest people on the left acknowledge that the Democrat party got subverted by the very special interests Obama claimed he would not allow to dictate policy when he was campaigning.
/agree. totally. just like the declaration of war on terrorism. an amendment i'd like to see would prohibit declaring war on nouns.
and that was amended out. it's kept in the text for context. you know kinda like a changelog from svn. it helps you not repeat mistakes. something about learning the lessons of history. i forget.
no, actually, when i say it I mean that no one section should hold primacy over the rest. So for example, Bush had legitimate Article II power to run the military and defend the country but he overreached when he claimed it enabled him to annul Habeas and the 4th amendment. See how that works there? Each part of the constitution is as important as each other part.
Pol pot, Mao, and Stalin certainly didn't need any stinkin' bible to commit genocide. Plain human greed and sociopathy work just fine on their own. One might even reasonably think that hatred of religion qua religion is a red herring.
Communism was just a Red Herring!
you're a retard who only sees what he wants. yes there are tea-partiers who are too trusting of their local police. however, most are mistrusting of any government power.
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/05/kill-them-all-for-god-will-know-his-own.html
there. a "teabagger" who is extremely skeptical of police power.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/
or there, the most prominent tea-party related blog which is across-the-board skeptical of government power. at least they're consistent.
here's a recent one on police:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/58090.html
but noo... only good Democrats are skeptical of police power. Like this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer
give me a break.
but ID is clearly correct in every way. this time. /troll
(ofc the whole story is one giant invitation to trolls of all stripes.)
then there's the part about falling...
yeah. i count two land wars in asia ongoing atm with two more imminent given that the factor distinguishing Obama's foreign policy from Bush's is "we won't use nukes if you don't already have them." But we'll still invade you to "liberate" your people and reduce the "threat" you pose us all the way on the other side of the globe. Just like the Bushies would have done.
More change plox Obama. The current amount is insufficient.
Oh, and i wonder how many more countries we can invade that neighbor China before they get rightfully paranoid. It's not like they don't have a history of being colonized by Europeans or anything. Something about the Boxer Rebellion. I can't remember. Neither can our current foreign policy wonks.
Greece?
Italy?
Spain?
Ireland?
Portugal?
Yeah... Those governments ran their countries just fine. (For values of "just fine" corresponding to "give the unions whatever the hell they want in the short term to get elected regardless of the capacity to pay for it in the long run") Of course, the US is pretty far down that path as is, so we're really following Europe's example pretty well.
yeah, tech support that is only necessary because of all the bloatware "features", ease of exploitation (shoddy product), and DRM / product licensing headaches. and like another poster pointed out, support cost is eaten by the hardware OEM most of the time, since so few people buy boxed copies of windows. My next copy (since I play certain games which only function on windows) will, however, be boxed because of how terribad OEM "system restore" CDs are. And i'll never need the "support".
or those people with bad connections will be made members of a new middle-underclass, creating a tiered "digital divide" as government policy wonks call it.