In my US congressional district, two Democrats have held the seat for over 30 years -- one for about 24, and the "new" one is about to win his 4th race.
The Republican who contests this seat is ALWAYS a rank amateur or a crank; they are so weak in this district that the state party doesn't even try to contest the seat, and literally anyone with a suit has at chance at running in the general election as a Republican. I think one year a college student ran.
In contrast, at least the past two cycles, a credible alternative to the incumbent has come out on the Democratic side. But against an incumbent they never get any momentum in the party because of the power of the incumbent and a party nominating process that leans towards the incumbent.
Sure, the challenger is still a Democrat, but he's been a more appealing Democrat and would outpoll ANY Republican by 3:1 in this district.
I just want turnover in the seat. Once the incumbent gets to about his 5th-6th term, he might as well sell his house and move to DC permanently and pick out his gravestone, he'll be there forever due to the seniority system in congress. He'll literally be too important to the party at a national level to ever be challenged in his own party.
This kind of situation, due to fucked up gerrymandering, is way too common. A wide-open primary where the top two vote getters contest the general election would at least allow some kind of alternative to have a chance at winning.
Partly I would have expected them to impose more standardized packaging on their vendors to make it easier to pick product via robot. A lot of stuff still seems to come in stupid retail clamshell packaging.
Peter, Paul, Mary, Beth, Steve and Saul are all shareholders of a corporation. The management of the corporation does something wrong, causing financial losses for the corporation and the stock price declines as a result of the losses.
Saul is a wealthy shareholder and the only one who can afford to sue the corporation for his losses. His suit is successful, and he obtains a settlement of $12 (just making the math easier for me), or $2 per shareholder.
His shareholder liability is just $2, so he nets an additional $10 which is effectively a reduction in value for the other five shareholders. They are in effect paying the damages.
They may all be equally entitled to damages, but only one shareholder has the resources to go after them. I'd guess in real life, "Saul" has already sold his shares and realized the loss, so any settlement isn't really coming from him as he has already sold his shares.
And I'd guess that a shareholder suit like this is about as cynical as it sounds -- a race to the bank to be the first to grab value and to outmuscle shareholders who cannot themselves muster a lawsuit on their own.
Have you ever been in a editing suite? They often have keyboards with custom keycaps that have functions printed on them along with the standard letter, usually color-grouped as well for like functions. It allows they keyboard to be easily used as a control plane without the usual CTRL/OPTION modifier to access functions.
I would imagine addressable display keycaps would be useful for heavy Photoshop users or any other function-heavy application where actual typing would be a minority of the activity. Auto switching to a typographic keyboard would happen when you switched apps or to a text field in a function-enabled application.
I have to admit, I've often wondered if it would be possible to have keycaps have little displays in them for remapping the keyboard or showing custom keybindings. Plus it allows you to automate keybindings programmatically depending on tool or more selected.
But I always figured such a keyboard would be both expensive/complicated and be most useful if it had a standard programming interface that applications could address directly vs. some kind of manual setup or macro functionality.
We used to call them "limousine liberals" -- well-off people who supported liberal politics, but otherwise were insulated from its effects, whether it was higher taxation or social upheaval.
Much has been written this campaign season with regard to Hillary during her primary "fight" with Bernie about how disconnected she is. There is a class of urban and suburban liberals with a couple of generations of Ivy League educations, secure professional positions and high disposable incomes who completely insulated from the social changes they support. They no longer need economic mobility, as they have ensconced themselves in pricey suburbs with good schools and their connections ensure their children will have an easy path to the remaining high-wage white collar jobs.
They really are the old "country club Republicans" but now embrace the faddish liberal values they learned as undergrads. I literally see this at an "old money" country club when moms get out of $100,000 luxury SUVs with "Namaste" bumper stickers.
I think that would be an improvement because it would undermine the power of party cronies, especially in places where one party is dominant and you end up with a crusty incumbent who has to get caught deleting emails or something to not get the nomination from party hacks.
And in many of those places, the runner up in the dominant party is a far better candidate than the weak party's candidate. The weak party barely challenges in some of those races and pretty much any numbnuts who can get on the ballot ends up winning the primary, leaving you with a crooked incumbent or some flake.
Well, it demonstrates the bandwidth is there for *some* customers. We don't know about the customers who heed warning texts and self-throttle.
I'd be curious to know what percentage of customers who pay overages do so repeatedly (more often than not having them imposed) without doing anything about it, either moving to a higher tier plan or self-limiting their usage.
I can see an argument where it's cheaper to pay an overage 1-2 times per year vs paying for a higher tier you wouldn't consistently need, but it doesn't seem to make much sense people would routinely pay overage costs without doing something to avoid them.
In fact, I would generally expect most consumers to be risk averse and buy into higher tiers they don't need routinely to avoid overages. That was kind of what they did with text messages when it was a case of paying a lot for unlimited texts or buying a small amount and then paying per text when you exceeded your small allocation, even though the math said that unless you went over your allocation by a lot routinely, you were better off paying for small overages than for paying for a high tier you didn't use.
The groupthink is to support a set of universal "human rights", with an emphasis on groups at the most disadvantaged end of the scale. This emphasis on universalism has removed any emphasis on the rights of local populations if their rights status is judged "higher" than other groups.
And the calculus of judging rights status of groups is kind of weighted, which is why you see groups who at face seem oppressed (ie, white poor, unemployed Appalachian coal miners) judged as "privileged" by universalists who weight some criteria (like race) as privilege status above others (economic power).
Regional disadvantages are disregarded because privilege and power are aggregated and its presumed that all regional members share these. If the US is a rich country, then all US citizens are presumed to actually possess these privileges, even if specific members of the US don't share any of these.
She's 50% of Silicon Valley's home state senate team. Expecting her to take a position anywhere remotely opposed to H1B seems as likely as a NY Senator opposing Wall Street.
But any array rebuild is inherently bound by the speed of a replaced disk as the remaining members can provide the data needed to reconstitute the replaced disk far faster than the disk itself can write it. The performance of the card in calculating parity info to do this hasn't been a significant issue that I can remember since the days of 5 x 1GB RAID 5 arrays some 20 years ago, in fact most cards have options to reduce rebuild rates below 100% to reduce performance drags on ongoing access. The drag isn't so much CPU bound but tied to random access thrashing on rotational media as rebuild reads aren't correlated with normal access patterns.
With the advent of virtualization, nobody really builds out single server storage anyway -- it all migrated to FC or iSCSI SAN years ago. Where single-server RAID gets used is purpose built systems which combine some aspect of compute (backup, DB, etc) and there is a need for redundant storage independent of SAN.
Although in-server storage is seeing something of a renaissance with the advent of hyper-converged storage, but this is all software and depending on the vendor often variable redundancy (ie, given LUNs can have specific redundancies, mirror, single or dual parity) with the added complexity of node level redundancy requirements (ie, what does double parity storage mean when you have single node redundancy?)
I'm split on market uptake for this, as compute and storage scale differently and most hyperconverged solutions end up with excessive compute for needed storage and require compute and storage to be scaled in lockstep. I think compute platforms will need to get thinner (single CPU x multiple disk) to scale storage without the compute side making it absurdly costly (hardware, licensing, switching) when storage expansion is what's called for.
But we're now seeing the cost of flash and 10/40gbe getting cheap enough where these distributed storage nodes can actually work and still deliver high quality I/O across distributed nodes.
Obama is 55 and frankly I don't think his policies have really demonstrated a significant generational transformation. Despite the ideological sameness, Hillary may end up being a slight step backwards in terms of generational values, having been born in '47. Despite her liberal credentials, she too internalized a lot of 1950s values, and worse, the 1950s morals imposed on women.
I'd like to believe her "1960s" years and a self-awareness to overcome an upper-middle-class upbringing in that era, but I'm skeptical people really are able to transcend the programming of those early years. Plus I think people grow more conservative in many ways as they age, and 68 year olds are generally pretty set in their ways.
I don't think we'll really feel the post-boomer generational shift until maybe the mid-2020s when Gen-Xers are in their late 50s and have largely replaced boomers in the higher levels of leadership.
For all of its reported problems, it's worked fine for me across two laptops, a NUC and a VM.
One of the laptops is an Asus Zenbook which replaced an iPad as my couch computer and IMHO, at least, it's been pretty much as simple to use as the iPad was, with good battery life and actually reliable sleep/hibernate.
I know I'm supposed to get on the anti-Win 10 bus, but with the right settings I don't get Win10 ads or annoyances and I've mostly managed to live with the Win10 start menu without getting too worked up about the changes.
My biggest complaint about it would be the updating environment. I haven't had any problems with updates, but I wish when manually updating a system you were able to pull ALL the updates to the current build level. It seems like the updating, even on a new install, has its own agenda and dribbles updates out.
Does public flogging even accomplish anything anymore?
Really, about the only "public flogging" I've seen accomplish anything in recent memory might have been Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic rants and Trump's pussy grabbing comments (but ONLY the pussy grabbing).
It sure seems like everyone else just gets away with whatever they did. Puny fines, some half-hearted yelling by a congressional committee, and no prosecutions of any kind. Whether it's Hillary or big corporations like Wells Fargo, they do what they do and nothing seems to happen. Nobody faces any personal accountability, what punishments happen seem to be largely trivial and never seem to detract from general misbehavior.
Current SAS-12 LSI cards have a dual core 1.2Ghz CPU, which leads me to believe the bottleneck may have been eased and for conventional in-server applications probably isn't a real bottleneck.
Mind you, I'm not disagreeing that there's more value in software raid, especially as disk counts go high, but for many in-server storage setups, especially spinning rust, you're going to exhaust disk throughput way before you exhaust the controller throughput.
I'd guess Samsung isn't exiting the phablet market but has some serious design flaw in this particular phablet that requires an engineering overhaul greater than can be accomplished with just tweaks.
Once they figure out what it is, they will probably release a new model that is basically the old one with the changes. We don't yet know what the actual problem is, but its likely the Note 8 or whatever they will call it will still tap the same component supply chain for the most part -- displays, flash, cameras, batteries, chipsets and so on.
And it's not like the market for those components is shrinking, some vendors may simply divert planned production to other vendors or Samsung may have told them to stockpile them as when they do come up with a revised model that fixes the fire problem they will not want a massive supply chain delay.
I wonder if its explicit corruption or merely a kind of demographic and ideological alignment between Clinton and mainstream journalists. They all share a kind of contemporary liberal arts, professional background to some degree.
I generally agree that software RAID is fine, but will counter that even on generic Dell boxes with PERC RAID-6 controllers and SATA disks in RAID6, it's pretty easy to see writes do 250 MB/sec.
The reality is your disks are off the PCIe bus no matter what.
I don't think that it's controller performance per se that's the limitation anymore, it's that software defined RAID usually has a much richer feature set, whether its SSD caching, tiering or block level striping or the ability to serve storage off the network. The limitation of RAID cards simply seems to be software size.
High end cards can do SSD caching, but AFAIK that's about the end of it past RAID sets.
On the plus side for RAID cards is battery-backed write caches and freeing the OS from a certain level of overhead -- you can just unload your write on the card in very few cycles and let it deal with sorting out the parity and actually managing disk writes.
You also get the advantage of a redundant OS boot LUN. I also find that software RAID tends to require more disks in the end -- you can have double parity with 4x disks that includes your OS and data.
The sweet spot is probably RAID cards that support a subset of disks for redundancy and the rest in JBOD for OS-defined storage environments. We've done a couple of MS Storage Spaces installs -- 2x SATA hardware mirrored for boot, 2x SSD and 6X SATA in a tiered space.
However I would be more sympathetic to the pot movement in general if they were at least demonstrably more honest than the people who want to keep it outlawed.
I agree that some in the marijuana legalization camp are prone to over-promoting the medical value of marijuana, which is little understood and could vary between being moderately useful to extremely beneficial but is best categorized honestly as "don't really know because prohibitionists won't even let us run studies". But the real intellectual dishonesty in marijuana legalization comes from opponents who make a false safety argument -- basically, because marijuana isn't as neutral as purified water, it is unsafe and should remain criminalized.
The safety of marijuana is, IMHO, really beyond questioning at this point. We've had 50-odd years (since the 1960s, at least) of widespread public use of marijuana and almost no evidence of overdoses or acute risks. In fact, we have more evidence of long-term widespread use being neutral or at worst mildly negative for a subset of the population who are prone to compulsive behavior. Millions of adults have been long-term recreational marijuana users with no ill effects.
And even if marijuana had a larger risk profile, the other implied dishonesty is that the criminalization of marijuana is an effective public policy. As far as anyone can tell, it's been an unmitigated disaster -- trillions spent over the decades with absolutely no positive effects, millions of people jailed and constitutional rights like search and seizure systematically undermined by decades of assault by law enforcement.
Marijuana legalization advocates may overstate revenue or medical benefits, but these aren't the principal reason for legalizing it. The principal reason for legalizing it is that marijuana prohibition is a completely ineffective and wasteful public policy with extremely negative side effects, like the corrosion of civil rights, enabling criminal enterprises and the corruption of law enforcement.
Have you ever tried "wild" marijuana? It's truly only useful as a fiber source.
A friend has a wild marijuana plant in his back yard that comes up every year -- he does nothing to cultivate it, it just reseeds itself every year. One year I tried what looked like the best part of it and it was awful. Not even remotely stoned. It can be relatively easy to grow moderately good marijuana, but it requires active cultivation -- you can't dump the seeds in the ground and come back 3 months later and expect anything useful for smoking.
And in terms of tax revenue, you have to remember the best government spending benefit of marijuana is from not enforcing marijuana prohibition. Billions of dollars are spent specifically on marijuana enforcement, especially in places with widespread outdoor cultivation.
Every dollar *not* spent on marijuana enforcement has a benefit greater than the equivalent tax increase resulting in an addition of a dollar of revenue. For one, there's zero economic penalty from repurposing existing tax revenue -- a tax increase has an additional drag on the economy greater than the additional revenue raised. It's like suddenly not having to pay your utilities anymore -- you didn't get a raise or incur the costs of taking a more demanding job, but you suddenly have more money to spend without working any harder to do it.
Look at Denver -- $29 million in tax revenue from marijuana -- positive revenue that they would have never collected in addition to the significant amount of tax revenue they would already collect that they no longer need to spend on marijuana prohibition enforcement.
I hope someone is working hard on actually quantifying the cost savings from not enforcing marijuana prohibition, although I suspect law enforcement probably doesn't want it known. If it was a *really* large number, they look bad for opposing legalization and essentially wasting money on a hopeless cause. Even a semi-large number could invite people to ask questions about law enforcement effectiveness. If your boss removed 5 hours of work from your responsibilities per week but your net productivity on other tasks didn't improve, it could prove embarrassing.
Criminalizing marijuana actually *contributes* to the gateway phenomenon by creating a false equivalence between marijuana and other drugs. People end up using marijuana relatively harmlessly and then discount the dire warnings given in equal measure to marijuana and all other drugs.
Since almost no single drug used casually for the first time results in catastrophe, they then begin to believe that occasional use of other drugs which have a greater intrinsic risk profile are equally harmless. They lied to me about the dangers or pot, why would I believe they're telling me the truth about methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin or anything else?
In an ideal world, we'd have honest, accurate and widely understood studies about the actual risk profiles of all common mind altering drugs, including alcohol, nicotine and caffeine, and we'd come up with a way to teach people about them and the real-world risks of immediate harm (overdose, extreme side effects, long-term effects, etc).
My sense is that for the general public, this really isn't that practical, and the best public health benefit would be to remove marijuana from the more dangerous drugs category completely.
I think the Republicans got scared 15 or so years ago when the original "tea party" began to appear during Bush's first term. They co-opted the movement in order to capitalize on the populist energy and divert anti-bank and anti-immigrant sentiments, but between its momentum and the traditionalist country club Republicans being subsumed by greed, populism took over the party.
All that's left of the Republican party seems to be either rabid populists or the paid shills of big business and banking who have the kind of car dealer new money greed about them, rather than the blue blood, family dynasty about them that seemed to be reflected in the older, Nelson Rockefeller version of the Republicans.
The academic base of economists, lawyers and academics who used to provide intellectual legitimacy to the Republican party seem to have disappeared. This group, as a broader diaspora featuring other well-educated professionals (literally country club personalities) has been captured by the Democratic party.
This new establishment is what provides the intellectual legitimacy for globalist economics and the broader top-down management of world affairs, providing the data, studies and "fact"-based rationales for a dominant policy that pays lip service to left wing social agendas while actually implementing a transnational capitalist agenda. Hillary is a perfect example of this.
Without an intellectual base to counter the weight of the Democrats' armies of degreed professionals, academics and professionals, the populism of the Republicans merely sounds like shrill paranoia. The solid control of the academy by the left largely assures that the Republicans will remain intellectually rudderless, unable to develop a coherent ideological stance that isn't warped by its single issue fanatics, be they anti-abortion evangelicals, greedy businessmen or others.
Allen's comedy isn't slapstick or a comedy of errors, it's intellectual nature allows it to kind of transcend a strict genre label.
He's done pictures like "Interiors" which were strict dramas, but most of his films had at least a strong comic element to them even if the underlying dramatic element was strong enough that they could also be considered dramas.
I think what makes it harder for girls is that they seem to be more socially aware than boys, making the social cues and pressures to fit in with group dynamics stronger and make deviating from dominant group dynamics harder.
There's also an argument that says that a lot of technology (for a broad definition of technology, everything from tools to computers) was designed by men and carries a subtle cognitive bias towards men. It's an interesting (if flawed) argument, but it might describe why programming doesn't carry as much innate appeal to women that would attract them in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
In my US congressional district, two Democrats have held the seat for over 30 years -- one for about 24, and the "new" one is about to win his 4th race.
The Republican who contests this seat is ALWAYS a rank amateur or a crank; they are so weak in this district that the state party doesn't even try to contest the seat, and literally anyone with a suit has at chance at running in the general election as a Republican. I think one year a college student ran.
In contrast, at least the past two cycles, a credible alternative to the incumbent has come out on the Democratic side. But against an incumbent they never get any momentum in the party because of the power of the incumbent and a party nominating process that leans towards the incumbent.
Sure, the challenger is still a Democrat, but he's been a more appealing Democrat and would outpoll ANY Republican by 3:1 in this district.
I just want turnover in the seat. Once the incumbent gets to about his 5th-6th term, he might as well sell his house and move to DC permanently and pick out his gravestone, he'll be there forever due to the seniority system in congress. He'll literally be too important to the party at a national level to ever be challenged in his own party.
This kind of situation, due to fucked up gerrymandering, is way too common. A wide-open primary where the top two vote getters contest the general election would at least allow some kind of alternative to have a chance at winning.
I'm surprised they're not closer than that now.
Partly I would have expected them to impose more standardized packaging on their vendors to make it easier to pick product via robot. A lot of stuff still seems to come in stupid retail clamshell packaging.
Peter, Paul, Mary, Beth, Steve and Saul are all shareholders of a corporation. The management of the corporation does something wrong, causing financial losses for the corporation and the stock price declines as a result of the losses.
Saul is a wealthy shareholder and the only one who can afford to sue the corporation for his losses. His suit is successful, and he obtains a settlement of $12 (just making the math easier for me), or $2 per shareholder.
His shareholder liability is just $2, so he nets an additional $10 which is effectively a reduction in value for the other five shareholders. They are in effect paying the damages.
They may all be equally entitled to damages, but only one shareholder has the resources to go after them. I'd guess in real life, "Saul" has already sold his shares and realized the loss, so any settlement isn't really coming from him as he has already sold his shares.
And I'd guess that a shareholder suit like this is about as cynical as it sounds -- a race to the bank to be the first to grab value and to outmuscle shareholders who cannot themselves muster a lawsuit on their own.
Have you ever been in a editing suite? They often have keyboards with custom keycaps that have functions printed on them along with the standard letter, usually color-grouped as well for like functions. It allows they keyboard to be easily used as a control plane without the usual CTRL/OPTION modifier to access functions.
I would imagine addressable display keycaps would be useful for heavy Photoshop users or any other function-heavy application where actual typing would be a minority of the activity. Auto switching to a typographic keyboard would happen when you switched apps or to a text field in a function-enabled application.
I have to admit, I've often wondered if it would be possible to have keycaps have little displays in them for remapping the keyboard or showing custom keybindings. Plus it allows you to automate keybindings programmatically depending on tool or more selected.
But I always figured such a keyboard would be both expensive/complicated and be most useful if it had a standard programming interface that applications could address directly vs. some kind of manual setup or macro functionality.
We used to call them "limousine liberals" -- well-off people who supported liberal politics, but otherwise were insulated from its effects, whether it was higher taxation or social upheaval.
Much has been written this campaign season with regard to Hillary during her primary "fight" with Bernie about how disconnected she is. There is a class of urban and suburban liberals with a couple of generations of Ivy League educations, secure professional positions and high disposable incomes who completely insulated from the social changes they support. They no longer need economic mobility, as they have ensconced themselves in pricey suburbs with good schools and their connections ensure their children will have an easy path to the remaining high-wage white collar jobs.
They really are the old "country club Republicans" but now embrace the faddish liberal values they learned as undergrads. I literally see this at an "old money" country club when moms get out of $100,000 luxury SUVs with "Namaste" bumper stickers.
I think that would be an improvement because it would undermine the power of party cronies, especially in places where one party is dominant and you end up with a crusty incumbent who has to get caught deleting emails or something to not get the nomination from party hacks.
And in many of those places, the runner up in the dominant party is a far better candidate than the weak party's candidate. The weak party barely challenges in some of those races and pretty much any numbnuts who can get on the ballot ends up winning the primary, leaving you with a crooked incumbent or some flake.
Well, it demonstrates the bandwidth is there for *some* customers. We don't know about the customers who heed warning texts and self-throttle.
I'd be curious to know what percentage of customers who pay overages do so repeatedly (more often than not having them imposed) without doing anything about it, either moving to a higher tier plan or self-limiting their usage.
I can see an argument where it's cheaper to pay an overage 1-2 times per year vs paying for a higher tier you wouldn't consistently need, but it doesn't seem to make much sense people would routinely pay overage costs without doing something to avoid them.
In fact, I would generally expect most consumers to be risk averse and buy into higher tiers they don't need routinely to avoid overages. That was kind of what they did with text messages when it was a case of paying a lot for unlimited texts or buying a small amount and then paying per text when you exceeded your small allocation, even though the math said that unless you went over your allocation by a lot routinely, you were better off paying for small overages than for paying for a high tier you didn't use.
The groupthink is to support a set of universal "human rights", with an emphasis on groups at the most disadvantaged end of the scale. This emphasis on universalism has removed any emphasis on the rights of local populations if their rights status is judged "higher" than other groups.
And the calculus of judging rights status of groups is kind of weighted, which is why you see groups who at face seem oppressed (ie, white poor, unemployed Appalachian coal miners) judged as "privileged" by universalists who weight some criteria (like race) as privilege status above others (economic power).
Regional disadvantages are disregarded because privilege and power are aggregated and its presumed that all regional members share these. If the US is a rich country, then all US citizens are presumed to actually possess these privileges, even if specific members of the US don't share any of these.
She's 50% of Silicon Valley's home state senate team. Expecting her to take a position anywhere remotely opposed to H1B seems as likely as a NY Senator opposing Wall Street.
It hits too close to home.
But any array rebuild is inherently bound by the speed of a replaced disk as the remaining members can provide the data needed to reconstitute the replaced disk far faster than the disk itself can write it. The performance of the card in calculating parity info to do this hasn't been a significant issue that I can remember since the days of 5 x 1GB RAID 5 arrays some 20 years ago, in fact most cards have options to reduce rebuild rates below 100% to reduce performance drags on ongoing access. The drag isn't so much CPU bound but tied to random access thrashing on rotational media as rebuild reads aren't correlated with normal access patterns.
With the advent of virtualization, nobody really builds out single server storage anyway -- it all migrated to FC or iSCSI SAN years ago. Where single-server RAID gets used is purpose built systems which combine some aspect of compute (backup, DB, etc) and there is a need for redundant storage independent of SAN.
Although in-server storage is seeing something of a renaissance with the advent of hyper-converged storage, but this is all software and depending on the vendor often variable redundancy (ie, given LUNs can have specific redundancies, mirror, single or dual parity) with the added complexity of node level redundancy requirements (ie, what does double parity storage mean when you have single node redundancy?)
I'm split on market uptake for this, as compute and storage scale differently and most hyperconverged solutions end up with excessive compute for needed storage and require compute and storage to be scaled in lockstep. I think compute platforms will need to get thinner (single CPU x multiple disk) to scale storage without the compute side making it absurdly costly (hardware, licensing, switching) when storage expansion is what's called for.
But we're now seeing the cost of flash and 10/40gbe getting cheap enough where these distributed storage nodes can actually work and still deliver high quality I/O across distributed nodes.
Obama is 55 and frankly I don't think his policies have really demonstrated a significant generational transformation. Despite the ideological sameness, Hillary may end up being a slight step backwards in terms of generational values, having been born in '47. Despite her liberal credentials, she too internalized a lot of 1950s values, and worse, the 1950s morals imposed on women.
I'd like to believe her "1960s" years and a self-awareness to overcome an upper-middle-class upbringing in that era, but I'm skeptical people really are able to transcend the programming of those early years. Plus I think people grow more conservative in many ways as they age, and 68 year olds are generally pretty set in their ways.
I don't think we'll really feel the post-boomer generational shift until maybe the mid-2020s when Gen-Xers are in their late 50s and have largely replaced boomers in the higher levels of leadership.
For all of its reported problems, it's worked fine for me across two laptops, a NUC and a VM.
One of the laptops is an Asus Zenbook which replaced an iPad as my couch computer and IMHO, at least, it's been pretty much as simple to use as the iPad was, with good battery life and actually reliable sleep/hibernate.
I know I'm supposed to get on the anti-Win 10 bus, but with the right settings I don't get Win10 ads or annoyances and I've mostly managed to live with the Win10 start menu without getting too worked up about the changes.
My biggest complaint about it would be the updating environment. I haven't had any problems with updates, but I wish when manually updating a system you were able to pull ALL the updates to the current build level. It seems like the updating, even on a new install, has its own agenda and dribbles updates out.
Does public flogging even accomplish anything anymore?
Really, about the only "public flogging" I've seen accomplish anything in recent memory might have been Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic rants and Trump's pussy grabbing comments (but ONLY the pussy grabbing).
It sure seems like everyone else just gets away with whatever they did. Puny fines, some half-hearted yelling by a congressional committee, and no prosecutions of any kind. Whether it's Hillary or big corporations like Wells Fargo, they do what they do and nothing seems to happen. Nobody faces any personal accountability, what punishments happen seem to be largely trivial and never seem to detract from general misbehavior.
Current SAS-12 LSI cards have a dual core 1.2Ghz CPU, which leads me to believe the bottleneck may have been eased and for conventional in-server applications probably isn't a real bottleneck.
Mind you, I'm not disagreeing that there's more value in software raid, especially as disk counts go high, but for many in-server storage setups, especially spinning rust, you're going to exhaust disk throughput way before you exhaust the controller throughput.
I'd guess Samsung isn't exiting the phablet market but has some serious design flaw in this particular phablet that requires an engineering overhaul greater than can be accomplished with just tweaks.
Once they figure out what it is, they will probably release a new model that is basically the old one with the changes. We don't yet know what the actual problem is, but its likely the Note 8 or whatever they will call it will still tap the same component supply chain for the most part -- displays, flash, cameras, batteries, chipsets and so on.
And it's not like the market for those components is shrinking, some vendors may simply divert planned production to other vendors or Samsung may have told them to stockpile them as when they do come up with a revised model that fixes the fire problem they will not want a massive supply chain delay.
I wonder if its explicit corruption or merely a kind of demographic and ideological alignment between Clinton and mainstream journalists. They all share a kind of contemporary liberal arts, professional background to some degree.
I generally agree that software RAID is fine, but will counter that even on generic Dell boxes with PERC RAID-6 controllers and SATA disks in RAID6, it's pretty easy to see writes do 250 MB/sec.
The reality is your disks are off the PCIe bus no matter what.
I don't think that it's controller performance per se that's the limitation anymore, it's that software defined RAID usually has a much richer feature set, whether its SSD caching, tiering or block level striping or the ability to serve storage off the network. The limitation of RAID cards simply seems to be software size.
High end cards can do SSD caching, but AFAIK that's about the end of it past RAID sets.
On the plus side for RAID cards is battery-backed write caches and freeing the OS from a certain level of overhead -- you can just unload your write on the card in very few cycles and let it deal with sorting out the parity and actually managing disk writes.
You also get the advantage of a redundant OS boot LUN. I also find that software RAID tends to require more disks in the end -- you can have double parity with 4x disks that includes your OS and data.
The sweet spot is probably RAID cards that support a subset of disks for redundancy and the rest in JBOD for OS-defined storage environments. We've done a couple of MS Storage Spaces installs -- 2x SATA hardware mirrored for boot, 2x SSD and 6X SATA in a tiered space.
Trump: I will build a wall and make Mexico pay for it
May: I will build a new nuclear submarine fleet and make China pay for it
However I would be more sympathetic to the pot movement in general if they were at least demonstrably more honest than the people who want to keep it outlawed.
I agree that some in the marijuana legalization camp are prone to over-promoting the medical value of marijuana, which is little understood and could vary between being moderately useful to extremely beneficial but is best categorized honestly as "don't really know because prohibitionists won't even let us run studies". But the real intellectual dishonesty in marijuana legalization comes from opponents who make a false safety argument -- basically, because marijuana isn't as neutral as purified water, it is unsafe and should remain criminalized.
The safety of marijuana is, IMHO, really beyond questioning at this point. We've had 50-odd years (since the 1960s, at least) of widespread public use of marijuana and almost no evidence of overdoses or acute risks. In fact, we have more evidence of long-term widespread use being neutral or at worst mildly negative for a subset of the population who are prone to compulsive behavior. Millions of adults have been long-term recreational marijuana users with no ill effects.
And even if marijuana had a larger risk profile, the other implied dishonesty is that the criminalization of marijuana is an effective public policy. As far as anyone can tell, it's been an unmitigated disaster -- trillions spent over the decades with absolutely no positive effects, millions of people jailed and constitutional rights like search and seizure systematically undermined by decades of assault by law enforcement.
Marijuana legalization advocates may overstate revenue or medical benefits, but these aren't the principal reason for legalizing it. The principal reason for legalizing it is that marijuana prohibition is a completely ineffective and wasteful public policy with extremely negative side effects, like the corrosion of civil rights, enabling criminal enterprises and the corruption of law enforcement.
Have you ever tried "wild" marijuana? It's truly only useful as a fiber source.
A friend has a wild marijuana plant in his back yard that comes up every year -- he does nothing to cultivate it, it just reseeds itself every year. One year I tried what looked like the best part of it and it was awful. Not even remotely stoned. It can be relatively easy to grow moderately good marijuana, but it requires active cultivation -- you can't dump the seeds in the ground and come back 3 months later and expect anything useful for smoking.
And in terms of tax revenue, you have to remember the best government spending benefit of marijuana is from not enforcing marijuana prohibition. Billions of dollars are spent specifically on marijuana enforcement, especially in places with widespread outdoor cultivation.
Every dollar *not* spent on marijuana enforcement has a benefit greater than the equivalent tax increase resulting in an addition of a dollar of revenue. For one, there's zero economic penalty from repurposing existing tax revenue -- a tax increase has an additional drag on the economy greater than the additional revenue raised. It's like suddenly not having to pay your utilities anymore -- you didn't get a raise or incur the costs of taking a more demanding job, but you suddenly have more money to spend without working any harder to do it.
Look at Denver -- $29 million in tax revenue from marijuana -- positive revenue that they would have never collected in addition to the significant amount of tax revenue they would already collect that they no longer need to spend on marijuana prohibition enforcement.
I hope someone is working hard on actually quantifying the cost savings from not enforcing marijuana prohibition, although I suspect law enforcement probably doesn't want it known. If it was a *really* large number, they look bad for opposing legalization and essentially wasting money on a hopeless cause. Even a semi-large number could invite people to ask questions about law enforcement effectiveness. If your boss removed 5 hours of work from your responsibilities per week but your net productivity on other tasks didn't improve, it could prove embarrassing.
Criminalizing marijuana actually *contributes* to the gateway phenomenon by creating a false equivalence between marijuana and other drugs. People end up using marijuana relatively harmlessly and then discount the dire warnings given in equal measure to marijuana and all other drugs.
Since almost no single drug used casually for the first time results in catastrophe, they then begin to believe that occasional use of other drugs which have a greater intrinsic risk profile are equally harmless. They lied to me about the dangers or pot, why would I believe they're telling me the truth about methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin or anything else?
In an ideal world, we'd have honest, accurate and widely understood studies about the actual risk profiles of all common mind altering drugs, including alcohol, nicotine and caffeine, and we'd come up with a way to teach people about them and the real-world risks of immediate harm (overdose, extreme side effects, long-term effects, etc).
My sense is that for the general public, this really isn't that practical, and the best public health benefit would be to remove marijuana from the more dangerous drugs category completely.
I think the Republicans got scared 15 or so years ago when the original "tea party" began to appear during Bush's first term. They co-opted the movement in order to capitalize on the populist energy and divert anti-bank and anti-immigrant sentiments, but between its momentum and the traditionalist country club Republicans being subsumed by greed, populism took over the party.
All that's left of the Republican party seems to be either rabid populists or the paid shills of big business and banking who have the kind of car dealer new money greed about them, rather than the blue blood, family dynasty about them that seemed to be reflected in the older, Nelson Rockefeller version of the Republicans.
The academic base of economists, lawyers and academics who used to provide intellectual legitimacy to the Republican party seem to have disappeared. This group, as a broader diaspora featuring other well-educated professionals (literally country club personalities) has been captured by the Democratic party.
This new establishment is what provides the intellectual legitimacy for globalist economics and the broader top-down management of world affairs, providing the data, studies and "fact"-based rationales for a dominant policy that pays lip service to left wing social agendas while actually implementing a transnational capitalist agenda. Hillary is a perfect example of this.
Without an intellectual base to counter the weight of the Democrats' armies of degreed professionals, academics and professionals, the populism of the Republicans merely sounds like shrill paranoia. The solid control of the academy by the left largely assures that the Republicans will remain intellectually rudderless, unable to develop a coherent ideological stance that isn't warped by its single issue fanatics, be they anti-abortion evangelicals, greedy businessmen or others.
Allen's comedy isn't slapstick or a comedy of errors, it's intellectual nature allows it to kind of transcend a strict genre label.
He's done pictures like "Interiors" which were strict dramas, but most of his films had at least a strong comic element to them even if the underlying dramatic element was strong enough that they could also be considered dramas.
Will they be banning the import of used ICE cars, with odometers run forward on rollers or with faked forward readings that are essentially new?
I think what makes it harder for girls is that they seem to be more socially aware than boys, making the social cues and pressures to fit in with group dynamics stronger and make deviating from dominant group dynamics harder.
There's also an argument that says that a lot of technology (for a broad definition of technology, everything from tools to computers) was designed by men and carries a subtle cognitive bias towards men. It's an interesting (if flawed) argument, but it might describe why programming doesn't carry as much innate appeal to women that would attract them in the first place.