* what you were wearing; * where you were; * what your current physiological state is (drunk, high, etc); * who you were with * what your current mental state is (happy, sad, etc);
All of this and more can be gleaned from these photos.
You may not object to this, but then people can start using this to tie together where people were at certain times. For example, you could have your photo from a party added to a database of other people at the same party, tied together not only by the photo album, but the photo date/time, the photo GPS location, shared information about where other people in the photo were, information gleaned from the background of the photo.. soon you're tracking where people are, what people are doing and who they associate with, all from a set of loosely-tied together photos tagged with face identification.
It's going on now. It's not affecting you, because you're likely a white dude in the united states. When its being publicly used by governments wishing to oppress people - then you may stand up and pay attention. When people start uploading photoshopped versions of photos to "establish" someone was at a certain location, thus tainting them in a way that gets said oppressive government to nab them.. who's to say this hasn't yet happened?
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 2
One of the benefits of social security (and I'm in Australia, we have similar country-wide setups) is that if you simply paid the employee all that money instead of enforcing putting it away, the cost of everything would go up to match. That's the market for you.
So by deferring some of it, you're (in theory) helping stifle increases in the price of living whilst also providing capital to use in long-term investments.
The problem isn't social security in its many forms. The problem includes a wider-scale issue of large-scale cheap credit across the board and these periods of economic hyper-expansion followed by adjustment/contraction. Those playing "the game" will come out ahead; those looking after social security.. don't. (ie, social security and 401k investments end up being among those who fail.)
Sometimes I think Americans miss the point of large-scale government-run social programmes and why they began in the first place. Here's a tip - most people aren't long-term aware enough to be able to plan for their financial future, health future, education future. The problem y'all are facing is that enough people have found a way to make money from this - and that money is being taken away from the programmes and thus those who would benefit from it (the general public.) That has to be fixed.
And you're the know-it-all guy who prematurely called it.
Figuring out Lion/NiMH cell charging by analog methods is actually quite difficult to do when you're charging the battery at stupidly high current, which is what's going on here. The NiCD way of measuring the voltage drop/resistance doesn't work as well - the change is too sharp. There's not one charging rate (fast and trickle), there's a "curve" to maximise battery life and minimise damage/risk of explosion. It changes over the life of the battery, so you can't just "assume" a common curve. You may have a fully-charged battery, so you have to know how much charge is in there before you start charging it at full current.
These laptop battery cells can double as exploding timebombs if you're not careful. Hence yes, there's a microcontroller in them to keep track of exactly what's going on.
No, you're not old fashioned. It's that a lot of physicists have been stuck in the realm of physical philosophy for a while, waiting for funding and techniques to catch up to actually do the experiments they're dreaming up.
It does seem that the core ideas of science are again being confused with philosophy and religious dogma. Oh, how the old is new again..
So science and philosophy will need to be extended a little bit. I only see benefits there. I can't begin to construct some ways of testing this; but that in no way indicates we can't.
.. right, right until you discover when you do this that your "consciousness information" is transferred, and as far as you're aware, you actually experience a seamless transition.
You know that pesky thing about science, right? Where stuff is more strange and wonderful in the future than we can currently comprehend today?
The only way to know is to build it and come up with some experiments to establish what's going on.
Unless you're smart and you limit your P2P to the kinds of "cell" organisations used in shady groups.
That way the only nodes you can get are the few you immediately know about.
Add some logic to ensure that all your nodes are cross-jurisdiction and throw in some random time delays and random connections to nodes that aren't infected (ie, law enforcement honeypots) and.. well, you've just increased the paperwork level 100 fold.
Wow, and that likely completely underestimates the scale of this kind of project.
Chances are there's lots of systems all tied together, feeding data in and out. There may not be a "small scale implementation". This may be a pain in the ass to integrate into lots of these inter-operating system.
So maybe the system-as-a-whole is flawed, sure, but redesigning that to be less of a clusterfuck is likely not within the scope of your "$50k and 6 months."
Then there's keeping everything in sync. You end up having lots of changes coming through at lots of times from lots of places. If you have backup datacentres, they also have to have copies of this data, kept in real time. If you flip to the backup, the master can't retake being master until it's brought into sync.
If the software versions are out of date and they behave slightly differently, then you end up with fantastic and hilarious subtle issues. For example, if the software makes slightly different decisions about "stuff", then when you flip to the backup system, a whole lot of small, subtle changes in selection could snowball into much larger-scale problems down the track. Since a lot of "engineered" solutions go through periods of "design", "implementation", 10: "shit it didn't work as intended - take real life case A, B, C and implement workarounds", "workaround", "GOTO 10", you may find that these kinds of subtle issues are never really totally understood. They're worked around. Who knows what the problems are. So you flip to a backup system that has an impact on real, tangible things (such as say, luggage routing), a small change in decision making can go a freaking long way in affecting the physical world around you - and once you've started down the path of a physical-world clusterfuck, you don't always get to simply fix it with a software patch.
Hm, what else can I think of off the top of my head. Oh right - what if the crash is because of the software + database contents? What if the crash is because the system overloaded because of some periodic job say, sweeping the database clean, or recalculating better routing rules. Chances are your backup sites will also fail - they're running the same hardware and software, with the same data? So you then say "run the backup software with an X minute delay, so if issues creep up in the primary we can stop the backups from failing the same way." The larger X is, the greater your chance of identifying problems - but the more useless it becomes when flipping over to become master. Stuff that has already been calculated by the (now failed) master hasn't been processed by the slave. So you have to integrate that data in, or design the system to cancel out the already-calculated stuff and re-issue things. Not so good if you have to cancel some real world event (eg fueling a plane) if the calculated values differ. So you choose to run primary and backups on different software versions, or revisions, or heck even independently designed systems. See paragraph 2 for the potential hilarity.
This is why it's more difficult than $50k of junk and 6 months of goon time.
You know what sucks? Trying to figure out whether their mind is really gone, or whether they're trapped in there but without the ability to "connect the dots" and interact with the real world.
(My Grandmother died much the same way. I remember playing piano for her a few days before she died. She cried, apparently for the first time in the few years she had been living with my aunty (her daughter) who was taking care of her.)
You know what's really going to suck? If we develop a treatment that can actually reverse it, and we get patients saying that was actually the case.
I'm not sure if you've ever really sent an anonymous "your shit is broken" message to a site, but I bet the level of positive response would be inversely related to how big the company is.
No-one wants their management to find out their stuff is insecure. They'd be looking for a new job. So they likely bottle it and pretend it ain't happening.
I hate to say it, but I think Lulzsec is doing a disturbing but necessary deed. When no-one wants to improve the state of security, are quite happy accepting budget increases for "more security hardware" instead of doing it right the first time and externalise all security issues as vendor problems, there's no real motivation to actually pursue securely developed options. Lulzsec is outing that practice.
I only hope that somehow this crap makes its way to pointing out inherent security flaws in OSes that make it tangible enough to lawmakers to suddenly care. Not "care" as in "pursue legal options rather than fix", not "care" as in "buy more layers of badly managed and ineffective security theatre", but "care" as in "we need to hire people who know what they're doing, then keep them around and include security in all stages of planning, development and operations."
The operating system only knows more about the state of the entire system. It can't know what the application is doing. It can't know that paging A to disk is going to hurt more than B. This is the kind of silly crap that goes on when you work on such enormously complicated bits of software that assumes that memory access is always going to be uniform, that threads never block for more than a few microseconds unless you want them to. Even the smallest bit of paging just so the OS can make room for application B to do some work suddenly makes things seem more unresponsive. The answer was always "buy more RAM." The original article seems to be developers.. figuring out they can't do that any more.
The operating system can't see what's going on inside the application. It can't judge what to swap out. The memory allocator doesn't know this kind of stuff either. Allocators end up being written that get tuned for the average cases that applications are doing now. Seeing memory allocators written to reduce thrashing and memory use for -just mysql- is plain silly.
Please, sit down with a system that's actually -heavily swapping-, that doesn't come back afterwards and figure out why it's so unresponsive. Then when you're wondering why the heck this is relevant for a discussion on mozilla, try running mozilla on anything that doesn't have a god ton of RAM. It doesn't just start chugging a little bit, it starts chugging a lot. For all the reasons above.
Except if memory is managed quite a bit better, and you make higher up decisions about what you need and don't need (eg by keeping stuff truely on disk until you need it, and tossing it when you don't), then you can reduce your overall memory use and thus change how "worse case" your worst case behaviour is.
For example, if I implemented a disk based memory cache tree, that leveraged the VM to cache stuff rather than an in-memory only database which leveraging the VM for "paging out stuff to swapspace", I can pick and choose how I handle locking that data structure. I can ensure that when accessed concurrently, the best and worse case behaviours are known. I can design that my API allows synchronous and asynchronous access where appropriate, and that consumers of said API know that synchronous access is that - synchronous - and program execution is going to stop in that thread until it's done. If that's unacceptable, they use the async method, and get a callback/message/etc when complete. Suddenly my performance worst-case is less than if the OS has swapped out part of my large in-memory database of "stuff", because who knows what the heck those threads have locked or their access patterns.
What's the worst case? How can I express that in some kind of model? If things start going to hell in a handbasket, does it cause further paging IO? How much paging IO is tolerable before the application slows down? What threads are affected if a particular thing starts paging? What threads does that effect? Is the system naturally recoverable (eg, if threads start to page, less work gets done but it doesn't negatively affect the entire application), or does that cause work-queues to back up, which cause more threads to be spawned, adding more memory pressure. (Threads have stacks too, and you may find every new thread you're spawning to handle some asynchronous task because things are taking too long takes up 1 or more megabytes of RAM.)
The OS can see what's going on, but it can't magically make an application behave better when it's in the situation of memory paging IO causing things to spiral -downward-.
Ah, the sounds of someone spewing the 80's virtual memory rhetoric.
There's more to it then that. I could go into it, but I'm supposed to be studying for a psychology exam, so I'll be brief.
You assume that the OS will make sensible paging decisions. You assume you can hint to the OS that you're going to make sensible paging decisions. You hope the application, which is likely big, multithreaded and such, is doing the sensible thing of not wrapping large accesses to "memory things" (eg big trees of data, as an example, or image caches, or whatever takes up more than a small bit of RAM) in mutexes. You assume that your application is using memory in a sensible fashion, and not simply using a few bytes here and there in each allocated chunk.
The trouble is, application writers have been taught from an "early" age that hey, memory is cheap, the OS will handle paging out unused bits, so please go right ahead and use it without caring about how it's used. This is how you end up with application behaviours which include, but aren't limited to:
* walking a tree requires a page in (ie, a random disk read) for each tree node touched. Because each node is malloc()'ed, and although on modern implementations small objects are packed into pages, your 10,000 tree node is going to likely be spread across multiple pages based on when and how often you allocated them ('temporal location'); * this also means your memory use versus memory allocation isn't terribly efficient ('fragmentation'); * your mutex protected data structures are suddenly now mutex'ing _page disk access_, so whilst the OS is busy paging in your data, all other threads currently trying to do stuff that requires that mutex (which may even not require paging in) suddenly has to stop and wait for your page-in to complete.
It's a real shame that memory management has really stopped progressing since virtual memory systems were made. They're convenient, but they hide the worst case behaviours from unknowing coders. Then those worse case behaviours become _very_ worse case behaviours which can't be changed without a fundamental rearchitecture of your software. Likely what people are realising here.
I weighed ~110kg to ~120kg beforehand, and now I weigh 85kg.
I don't get out of breath anymore. I enjoy the fact that I -can- jog for 30-60 minutes whilst just getting slightly sore. None of this makes me feel better about life. I'm a musical type; creative problem solver and a tinkerer, that's what I get pleasure out of.
As I said in other posts - I wasn't intending to lose weight. I just stopped eating junk food and snacking on carbs, and started jogging a bit. The rest took care of itself.
I thought it was as easy as that. It turns out its much more difficult.:)
I've stopped losing weight, thankfully, and am hovering around the 85kg mark. Yes, I've been upping the amount of food i'm eating. Part of that difficulty in eating more is mental (holy crap, I'm almost 30 and developing an eating disorder!) but part of it is just having a lack of appetite. The appetite has been returning though.
The interesting bit here is that I ate -what I felt like I needed to- whilst I was losing weight. I wasn't intentionally starving myself. I simply ate when I was hungry and didn't eat junk.
It certainly has been an interesting trip.
(Should I mention I did this whilst holidaying in the USA?:)
As a nerd who has just lost 35kg (thats > 70lb for you americans); I'd just like point out that the resultant physical changes from weight loss and exercise are not unencumbered.
I'm now angrier; I'm now constantly hungry. I have no energy. I can't focus. I'm not getting the stupidly large amount of calories that my body is used to and there's nothing I seem to be able to do to compensate at the moment besides eating more cheap calories. My work and personal life are suffering all because I decided to put the food down and start jogging.
And yes, I'm scheduling time to see a doctor and all of those specialists which I'm sure I'll be referred to. The fact still remains - I may look better, but I feel like shit.
In the online games I used to play, there would be griefers such as this who made lives a misery for many players (including myself.)
Of course, the only time there was significant growth in the dynamics of the game and -any- reason for people to improve themselves was when there was a common cause. Griefers were a common cause.
His research, and the acts of griefers in these sorts of games, is a very interesting study into various dynamic human systems. Try scratching the surface of pain and suffering, see what you find. Hint: it isn't more pain and suffering.
Luckily, it is people like this who are the reason why laws change.
The RIAA have their low-risk win adding to their warchest of successfully run litigation if she settles. Now they -have- to engage the courts as much as they can to win. They -have- to publicly lobby, they -have- to look the bad guy to ${PUBLIC}. They may win - and it'd be a big win - but they may lose, and losing at such a high level is quite a setback.
At the end of the day, she could've settled, but she's chosen to stand and fight. Would you do the same, given the circumstances?
The question is how many people in the population / sample have undiagnosed asthma.
Your hypothesis is easy to test.
Of course, the real interesting bit from that is whether it works out better in the long term for that kid to go out and do -some- exercise, and what impact it'd have on their asthma.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not just the "likeness", it also includes:
* what you were wearing;
* where you were;
* what your current physiological state is (drunk, high, etc);
* who you were with
* what your current mental state is (happy, sad, etc);
All of this and more can be gleaned from these photos.
You may not object to this, but then people can start using this to tie together where people were at certain times. For example, you could have your photo from a party added to a database of other people at the same party, tied together not only by the photo album, but the photo date/time, the photo GPS location, shared information about where other people in the photo were, information gleaned from the background of the photo.. soon you're tracking where people are, what people are doing and who they associate with, all from a set of loosely-tied together photos tagged with face identification.
It's going on now. It's not affecting you, because you're likely a white dude in the united states. When its being publicly used by governments wishing to oppress people - then you may stand up and pay attention. When people start uploading photoshopped versions of photos to "establish" someone was at a certain location, thus tainting them in a way that gets said oppressive government to nab them .. who's to say this hasn't yet happened?
One of the benefits of social security (and I'm in Australia, we have similar country-wide setups) is that if you simply paid the employee all that money instead of enforcing putting it away, the cost of everything would go up to match. That's the market for you.
So by deferring some of it, you're (in theory) helping stifle increases in the price of living whilst also providing capital to use in long-term investments.
The problem isn't social security in its many forms. The problem includes a wider-scale issue of large-scale cheap credit across the board and these periods of economic hyper-expansion followed by adjustment/contraction. Those playing "the game" will come out ahead; those looking after social security .. don't. (ie, social security and 401k investments end up being among those who fail.)
Sometimes I think Americans miss the point of large-scale government-run social programmes and why they began in the first place. Here's a tip - most people aren't long-term aware enough to be able to plan for their financial future, health future, education future. The problem y'all are facing is that enough people have found a way to make money from this - and that money is being taken away from the programmes and thus those who would benefit from it (the general public.) That has to be fixed.
thankje for the clue drop.
And you're the know-it-all guy who prematurely called it.
Figuring out Lion/NiMH cell charging by analog methods is actually quite difficult to do when you're charging the battery at stupidly high current, which is what's going on here. The NiCD way of measuring the voltage drop/resistance doesn't work as well - the change is too sharp. There's not one charging rate (fast and trickle), there's a "curve" to maximise battery life and minimise damage/risk of explosion. It changes over the life of the battery, so you can't just "assume" a common curve. You may have a fully-charged battery, so you have to know how much charge is in there before you start charging it at full current.
These laptop battery cells can double as exploding timebombs if you're not careful. Hence yes, there's a microcontroller in them to keep track of exactly what's going on.
No, you're not old fashioned. It's that a lot of physicists have been stuck in the realm of physical philosophy for a while, waiting for funding and techniques to catch up to actually do the experiments they're dreaming up.
It does seem that the core ideas of science are again being confused with philosophy and religious dogma. Oh, how the old is new again..
So science and philosophy will need to be extended a little bit. I only see benefits there. I can't begin to construct some ways of testing this; but that in no way indicates we can't.
.. right, right until you discover when you do this that your "consciousness information" is transferred, and as far as you're aware, you actually experience a seamless transition.
You know that pesky thing about science, right? Where stuff is more strange and wonderful in the future than we can currently comprehend today?
The only way to know is to build it and come up with some experiments to establish what's going on.
Sigh.
Unless you're smart and you limit your P2P to the kinds of "cell" organisations used in shady groups.
That way the only nodes you can get are the few you immediately know about.
Add some logic to ensure that all your nodes are cross-jurisdiction and throw in some random time delays and random connections to nodes that aren't infected (ie, law enforcement honeypots) and .. well, you've just increased the paperwork level 100 fold.
I'm glad I'm not a blackhat.
Wow, and that likely completely underestimates the scale of this kind of project.
Chances are there's lots of systems all tied together, feeding data in and out. There may not be a "small scale implementation". This may be a pain in the ass to integrate into lots of these inter-operating system.
So maybe the system-as-a-whole is flawed, sure, but redesigning that to be less of a clusterfuck is likely not within the scope of your "$50k and 6 months."
Then there's keeping everything in sync. You end up having lots of changes coming through at lots of times from lots of places. If you have backup datacentres, they also have to have copies of this data, kept in real time. If you flip to the backup, the master can't retake being master until it's brought into sync.
If the software versions are out of date and they behave slightly differently, then you end up with fantastic and hilarious subtle issues. For example, if the software makes slightly different decisions about "stuff", then when you flip to the backup system, a whole lot of small, subtle changes in selection could snowball into much larger-scale problems down the track. Since a lot of "engineered" solutions go through periods of "design", "implementation", 10: "shit it didn't work as intended - take real life case A, B, C and implement workarounds", "workaround", "GOTO 10", you may find that these kinds of subtle issues are never really totally understood. They're worked around. Who knows what the problems are. So you flip to a backup system that has an impact on real, tangible things (such as say, luggage routing), a small change in decision making can go a freaking long way in affecting the physical world around you - and once you've started down the path of a physical-world clusterfuck, you don't always get to simply fix it with a software patch.
Hm, what else can I think of off the top of my head. Oh right - what if the crash is because of the software + database contents? What if the crash is because the system overloaded because of some periodic job say, sweeping the database clean, or recalculating better routing rules. Chances are your backup sites will also fail - they're running the same hardware and software, with the same data? So you then say "run the backup software with an X minute delay, so if issues creep up in the primary we can stop the backups from failing the same way." The larger X is, the greater your chance of identifying problems - but the more useless it becomes when flipping over to become master. Stuff that has already been calculated by the (now failed) master hasn't been processed by the slave. So you have to integrate that data in, or design the system to cancel out the already-calculated stuff and re-issue things. Not so good if you have to cancel some real world event (eg fueling a plane) if the calculated values differ. So you choose to run primary and backups on different software versions, or revisions, or heck even independently designed systems. See paragraph 2 for the potential hilarity.
This is why it's more difficult than $50k of junk and 6 months of goon time.
You know what sucks? Trying to figure out whether their mind is really gone, or whether they're trapped in there but without the ability to "connect the dots" and interact with the real world.
(My Grandmother died much the same way. I remember playing piano for her a few days before she died. She cried, apparently for the first time in the few years she had been living with my aunty (her daughter) who was taking care of her.)
You know what's really going to suck? If we develop a treatment that can actually reverse it, and we get patients saying that was actually the case.
I'm not sure if you've ever really sent an anonymous "your shit is broken" message to a site, but I bet the level of positive response would be inversely related to how big the company is.
No-one wants their management to find out their stuff is insecure. They'd be looking for a new job. So they likely bottle it and pretend it ain't happening.
I hate to say it, but I think Lulzsec is doing a disturbing but necessary deed. When no-one wants to improve the state of security, are quite happy accepting budget increases for "more security hardware" instead of doing it right the first time and externalise all security issues as vendor problems, there's no real motivation to actually pursue securely developed options. Lulzsec is outing that practice.
I only hope that somehow this crap makes its way to pointing out inherent security flaws in OSes that make it tangible enough to lawmakers to suddenly care. Not "care" as in "pursue legal options rather than fix", not "care" as in "buy more layers of badly managed and ineffective security theatre", but "care" as in "we need to hire people who know what they're doing, then keep them around and include security in all stages of planning, development and operations."
The operating system only knows more about the state of the entire system. It can't know what the application is doing. It can't know that paging A to disk is going to hurt more than B. This is the kind of silly crap that goes on when you work on such enormously complicated bits of software that assumes that memory access is always going to be uniform, that threads never block for more than a few microseconds unless you want them to. Even the smallest bit of paging just so the OS can make room for application B to do some work suddenly makes things seem more unresponsive. The answer was always "buy more RAM." The original article seems to be developers .. figuring out they can't do that any more.
The operating system can't see what's going on inside the application. It can't judge what to swap out. The memory allocator doesn't know this kind of stuff either. Allocators end up being written that get tuned for the average cases that applications are doing now. Seeing memory allocators written to reduce thrashing and memory use for -just mysql- is plain silly.
Please, sit down with a system that's actually -heavily swapping-, that doesn't come back afterwards and figure out why it's so unresponsive. Then when you're wondering why the heck this is relevant for a discussion on mozilla, try running mozilla on anything that doesn't have a god ton of RAM. It doesn't just start chugging a little bit, it starts chugging a lot. For all the reasons above.
Except if memory is managed quite a bit better, and you make higher up decisions about what you need and don't need (eg by keeping stuff truely on disk until you need it, and tossing it when you don't), then you can reduce your overall memory use and thus change how "worse case" your worst case behaviour is.
For example, if I implemented a disk based memory cache tree, that leveraged the VM to cache stuff rather than an in-memory only database which leveraging the VM for "paging out stuff to swapspace", I can pick and choose how I handle locking that data structure. I can ensure that when accessed concurrently, the best and worse case behaviours are known. I can design that my API allows synchronous and asynchronous access where appropriate, and that consumers of said API know that synchronous access is that - synchronous - and program execution is going to stop in that thread until it's done. If that's unacceptable, they use the async method, and get a callback/message/etc when complete. Suddenly my performance worst-case is less than if the OS has swapped out part of my large in-memory database of "stuff", because who knows what the heck those threads have locked or their access patterns.
What's the worst case? How can I express that in some kind of model? If things start going to hell in a handbasket, does it cause further paging IO? How much paging IO is tolerable before the application slows down? What threads are affected if a particular thing starts paging? What threads does that effect? Is the system naturally recoverable (eg, if threads start to page, less work gets done but it doesn't negatively affect the entire application), or does that cause work-queues to back up, which cause more threads to be spawned, adding more memory pressure. (Threads have stacks too, and you may find every new thread you're spawning to handle some asynchronous task because things are taking too long takes up 1 or more megabytes of RAM.)
The OS can see what's going on, but it can't magically make an application behave better when it's in the situation of memory paging IO causing things to spiral -downward-.
Ah, the sounds of someone spewing the 80's virtual memory rhetoric.
There's more to it then that. I could go into it, but I'm supposed to be studying for a psychology exam, so I'll be brief.
You assume that the OS will make sensible paging decisions. You assume you can hint to the OS that you're going to make sensible paging decisions. You hope the application, which is likely big, multithreaded and such, is doing the sensible thing of not wrapping large accesses to "memory things" (eg big trees of data, as an example, or image caches, or whatever takes up more than a small bit of RAM) in mutexes. You assume that your application is using memory in a sensible fashion, and not simply using a few bytes here and there in each allocated chunk.
The trouble is, application writers have been taught from an "early" age that hey, memory is cheap, the OS will handle paging out unused bits, so please go right ahead and use it without caring about how it's used. This is how you end up with application behaviours which include, but aren't limited to:
* walking a tree requires a page in (ie, a random disk read) for each tree node touched. Because each node is malloc()'ed, and although on modern implementations small objects are packed into pages, your 10,000 tree node is going to likely be spread across multiple pages based on when and how often you allocated them ('temporal location');
* this also means your memory use versus memory allocation isn't terribly efficient ('fragmentation');
* your mutex protected data structures are suddenly now mutex'ing _page disk access_, so whilst the OS is busy paging in your data, all other threads currently trying to do stuff that requires that mutex (which may even not require paging in) suddenly has to stop and wait for your page-in to complete.
It's a real shame that memory management has really stopped progressing since virtual memory systems were made. They're convenient, but they hide the worst case behaviours from unknowing coders. Then those worse case behaviours become _very_ worse case behaviours which can't be changed without a fundamental rearchitecture of your software. Likely what people are realising here.
Enjoy!
FreeBSD already does this! Installing a package via cpan will create the metadata and register a FreeBSD package.
I weighed ~110kg to ~120kg beforehand, and now I weigh 85kg.
I don't get out of breath anymore. I enjoy the fact that I -can- jog for 30-60 minutes whilst just getting slightly sore. None of this makes me feel better about life. I'm a musical type; creative problem solver and a tinkerer, that's what I get pleasure out of.
As I said in other posts - I wasn't intending to lose weight. I just stopped eating junk food and snacking on carbs, and started jogging a bit. The rest took care of itself.
I thought it was as easy as that. It turns out its much more difficult. :)
I've stopped losing weight, thankfully, and am hovering around the 85kg mark. Yes, I've been upping the amount of food i'm eating. Part of that difficulty in eating more is mental (holy crap, I'm almost 30 and developing an eating disorder!) but part of it is just having a lack of appetite. The appetite has been returning though.
The interesting bit here is that I ate -what I felt like I needed to- whilst I was losing weight. I wasn't intentionally starving myself. I simply ate when I was hungry and didn't eat junk.
It certainly has been an interesting trip.
(Should I mention I did this whilst holidaying in the USA? :)
I should also say I lost 35kg in 4 months.
That is partly why I'm heading to the doctor. There are other possibilities too which I'm happy to entertain.
The point is "It is not as easy as eating right, getting up and going for a run" and the results are not always as positive as people spin it.
Personally, I think this is a whole interesting side of human evolution and adaptability which we're only really recently starting to understand.
As a nerd who has just lost 35kg (thats > 70lb for you americans); I'd just like point out that the resultant physical changes from weight loss and exercise are not unencumbered.
I'm now angrier; I'm now constantly hungry. I have no energy. I can't focus. I'm not getting the stupidly large amount of calories that my body is used to and there's nothing I seem to be able to do to compensate at the moment besides eating more cheap calories. My work and personal life are suffering all because I decided to put the food down and start jogging.
And yes, I'm scheduling time to see a doctor and all of those specialists which I'm sure I'll be referred to. The fact still remains - I may look better, but I feel like shit.
In the online games I used to play, there would be griefers such as this who made lives a misery for many players (including myself.)
Of course, the only time there was significant growth in the dynamics of the game and -any- reason for people to improve themselves was when there was a common cause. Griefers were a common cause.
His research, and the acts of griefers in these sorts of games, is a very interesting study into various dynamic human systems. Try scratching the surface of pain and suffering, see what you find. Hint: it isn't more pain and suffering.
Luckily, it is people like this who are the reason why laws change.
The RIAA have their low-risk win adding to their warchest of successfully run litigation if she settles. Now they -have- to engage the courts as much as they can to win. They -have- to publicly lobby, they -have- to look the bad guy to ${PUBLIC}. They may win - and it'd be a big win - but they may lose, and losing at such a high level is quite a setback.
At the end of the day, she could've settled, but she's chosen to stand and fight. Would you do the same, given the circumstances?
The question is how many people in the population / sample have undiagnosed asthma.
Your hypothesis is easy to test.
Of course, the real interesting bit from that is whether it works out better in the long term for that kid to go out and do -some- exercise, and what impact it'd have on their asthma.
Don't forget Squid, which can also act as a proper reverse proxy/cache, and is the precursor to putting your content on a CDN.
(Ie, once you solve the issues surrounding putting Squid in front of your website, you've mostly solved the CDN related issues.)
(Or, you could try my Squid-2 fork called Lusca, but thats for a different story, and post. :)