The real way to look at it is that there was a successful terrorist attack a year into Bush's responsibility. And since then, Bush has achieved so many more terrorist goals than any little terrorist could on their own that there's little need. Including killing thousands more Americans, destroying our military, bankrupting our treasury and our morals. And most especially destroying our freedoms and sense of security by sowing massive terror every time Bush shows his face in public.
If there had been another planebomb, you'd use that to justify Bush getting even tougher. Just like you're surely cheerleading Bush's current escalation in Iraq. You zombie Republicans are so predictable.
No one believes that gibberish about fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. Except maybe you, Anonymous Dick Cheney Coward.
Besides, with cyberattacks on both US government and civilian targets raging for years without either the FBI or military doing anything effective to protect us, they're bound to show nothing but improvement, right?
Minors don't have the maturity to decide whether giving someone naked pictures of themselves as children is a bad risk. Unless their parents decide they do, which is a very iffy judgement.
And FWIW, disagreeing with the article's described behavior by disagreeing with me in terms that agree with me when I disagree with the behavior is stupid.
When Dell recalled its Inspiron power supplies last year (or the year before?) I found that I had two that matched model#/serial# ranges. I used the Dell web for getting an RMA for each one. I never heard anything more from Dell, certainly nothing to return them.
But then, I don't live in a 130 year old farmhouse. Maybe that means I'm still covered by the warranty, so they're not replacing mine.
No, your problem is that you're ignoring the distinction between child and adult responsibility that absolutely obviously exists both in fact, as any reasonable adult (and most any reasonable child) knows, as well as the law which defines various kinds of responsibility that adults have which children don't.
Other than mere denial, where are you getting your certainty that is totally counter to common sense?
And even a child should receive the appropriate discipline.
And you don't find it at all odd that in this case, the law says that the children are responsible enough to decide for themselves whether to have sexual relations -- something that could result in anything from bringing a new life into the world to prematurely ending their own as a result of an STD -- but not to decide whether to let a friend simply photograph them?
In fact I think that "children" (in terms of responsibility, not puberty) are more trustworthy with having sex with each other than with exchanging naked pictures. Teenage sex has thousands, millions of years of experience mitigating its risks. Sharing pictures has a few generations. The damage might not be as great with the pictures, but the probability of any damage is higher. That's why putting available parents, rather than unenforceable state presence, in charge of this discipline makes sense. Because parental discipline is more available, and more appropriate in its response.
I don't see how you could read my post about how the parents are responsible and somehow decide I'm saying that the courts are responsible.
This entire thread is about the courts (and by association, the prosecutors and related administration officials) deciding they are more responsible than the kids in question.
So people are responding to the article when rebutting me, not responding to me though I rebutted the article? That's not worth arguing with.
What kind of nonsense is encoded in your sarcasm? Of course parental responsibility is more complex than merely ordering childen to act. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
No, because adults are different from kids. You are creating a vacuum in which to analyze my statement that exists only in your mind. There are all kinds of other valid assumptions, like "adults are responsible for their actions, kids parents are responsible for the kids".
The point of the distinction is how to treat the kids. Because adults are not as able to be corrected by an authority figure disciplining them as are kids.
And you know, every murdering drug dealer (or whatever other bogeyman you're afraid of) certainly does have a bad parent to blame for failing to raise them right. Certainly every one I've ever known or known of in my direct experience. What makes you so sure that your blanket statement is correct?
Baby Boomers all came of age together. Without the continuum of older siblings/cousins/uncles of previous generations. Their parents, scared of the Depression, the Nazis, then the nuclear Cold War, let them get away with murder, while keeping them in line with fear - though the kids had cars, money, and places to go like movie theaters and rock concerts.
So Boomers raised their own kids all too willing to both spoil them and let other authorities do the dirty work, so they wouldn't be "uncool parents" like their own.
What I said is that parents, not the law, are responsible for disciplining kids. How come so many people in this thread think I said exactly the opposite?
But each person with a piece has to pay only a tenth. Or a thousandth, with a thousand people. Or what they're willing to pay, until their capacity is consumed. What is so hard to understand about sharing the cost across volunteer mirrors?
It's up to the parents. It's up to them whether to let the kid off the hook because they're grown up before the law says they're an "adult" by the average definition. And even a child should receive the appropriate discipline. After that, it's up to other people in private transactions, and the state in public ones, to enforce order.
I don't see how you could read my post about how the parents are responsible and somehow decide I'm saying that the courts are responsible. Unless you've got your own agenda which blinds you to what I did say.
If a 15 year old starts skipping class class and shoplifting candy bars, that's not the parents' fault
Why not? The parent raised the kid, is responsible for their actions.
Skipping class and shoplifting candy bars is certainly no cause for charging the kid with a crime (absent some bigger picture of criminality, and even that is wrong when the acts are better corrected with psych or other counseling). Those petty "crimes" are exactly the kind of misbehavior that parents should correct, not the state. However, if parents do not correct them, if parents have produced a "bad kid" who damages someone else, then of course the parents contributed to the damage.
Your idea of "using the legal system to scare the bejeezus out of the kid" is the wrong way to grow kids up. It's inappropriate use of the legal system, and damages the kid further.
Yeah, you're missing the other sentence in my post which says that parents should discipline kids, not the courts. I explicitly did not say these kids should go to jail - to the contrary.
Relatively harmless as it is, letting another child keep a picture of you naked is irresponsible. As we can tell with this story, the pictures are likely to be seen by other people than just the kid who first got it. Parents should prevent their kids from doing that, and discipline them when they find out. Letting your kids exchange naked pictures of themselves is irresponsible parenting.
There is a real difference between the damage caused to a person when pictures of them in private situations, expecially sexual, are published. It's worse for kids.
And there is a difference between the damage done by showing the pictures, if any, and the damage done by being photographed, if any, and the damage done, if any, by being in the situation itself.
America's hypocritical (is there any other kind?) puritanism prevents its laws from recognizing these distinctions. With children increasingly able to photograph and publish, like anyone else, we will have increasing damage done by the laws that don't reflect what's right and how wrong.
The laws are to protect children from exploitation, whether by adults, other children, other children acting for adults, or whoever. It's not a "gotcha" for adults, it's protection of children.
However, parents are to protect children. Disciplining children by the law is a total failure of the parents. While that happens, it must always be the last resort. And always include legal charges against the parents.
Except that multiple mirrors behind a DNS redirect load balance could reduce the operational costs (HW, bandwidth, personnel) to a fraction proportional to the people helping out.
Nested paging tables is a per-core feature that will light the afterburners on x86 hardware virtualization. A paging table holds the map that translates virtual memory addresses to physical memory addresses, and each CPU core has only one. Virtual machines have to load and store their page tables as they get and lose their slice of the CPU. AMD solved the problem with nested paging tables. Simplified, each VM maintains its own paging table that stays fixed in place. Instead of loading and saving paging tables as your system flips from VM to VM, your system just supplies Barcelona with the ID of the virtual machine being activated. The CPU core flips page tables automatically and transparently. This is another feature that's implemented for each core.
Context-switching has long been the weakest design point for x86 in "PCs", especially servers. x86 arch is rooted in single-user, single-threaded, single-context apps. The in-core registers that CPU operations execute directly against have to be swapped out for each context switch. In *nix, that means every time a different process gets a timeslice, it's got to execute two slow copies between registers and at best cache RAM, at worst offchip RAM (over some offchip bus). If the register count is larger than the bus width (even onchip), that's another multiple on that slow cycle. That context-switch overhead can be larger than the timeslice allocated to each process's "turn" in the schedule for lower-latency / higher-response (lower "nice") processes, approaching realtime.
Unix was designed for multiusers, context-switching from the beginning. The chips it's run on coevolved with it. Linux arrived when x86 CPUs ran fast enough that context-switching was OK, but still a big waste compared with, say, MicroVAX multiple register sets. Windows architecture is rooted in the x86 architecture that DOS was designed for, though perhaps Vista has finally lost all of the old design baggage originated in the 8088/8086, but its long history of UI multitasking means it's context-switching all the time, which will gain in speed. The MacOS switch to BSD means it's got lots of power bound up in the context switches that could be released with Barcelona.
So while low-level benchmarks might show something like 80% FPU improvement, the high level (application) performance could improve quite a lot more. Recompiling apps to machine code that exploits more registers without the context-switching penalties could find multiples, especially apps with realtime multimedia that run concurrently with other apps. Intel's hyperthreading already gets past some of these bottlenecks in distributing tasks among multiple cores, but the Barcelona paging tables go even deeper, for likely extra performance (on top of Barcelona's own hyperthreading and new L3 cache).
Aside from the marketing "vapormarks" we'll surely see out of AMD (and their sockpuppets) before it's actually released "midyear", I'm looking forward to seeing how this thing really runs in multitasking apps. I'm expecting "like a greased snake across a griddle".
Slashdot Mirror
The real way to look at it is that there was a successful terrorist attack a year into Bush's responsibility. And since then, Bush has achieved so many more terrorist goals than any little terrorist could on their own that there's little need. Including killing thousands more Americans, destroying our military, bankrupting our treasury and our morals. And most especially destroying our freedoms and sense of security by sowing massive terror every time Bush shows his face in public.
If there had been another planebomb, you'd use that to justify Bush getting even tougher. Just like you're surely cheerleading Bush's current escalation in Iraq. You zombie Republicans are so predictable.
No one believes that gibberish about fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. Except maybe you, Anonymous Dick Cheney Coward.
I can't wait for Bush and his Pentagon to protect us from cyberwar. After all, the Bush doctrine of using one attack on us to justify attacking someone who hadn't attacked us, distracting us from the original attacker, is really paying off.
Besides, with cyberattacks on both US government and civilian targets raging for years without either the FBI or military doing anything effective to protect us, they're bound to show nothing but improvement, right?
Minors don't have the maturity to decide whether giving someone naked pictures of themselves as children is a bad risk. Unless their parents decide they do, which is a very iffy judgement.
And FWIW, disagreeing with the article's described behavior by disagreeing with me in terms that agree with me when I disagree with the behavior is stupid.
When Dell recalled its Inspiron power supplies last year (or the year before?) I found that I had two that matched model#/serial# ranges. I used the Dell web for getting an RMA for each one. I never heard anything more from Dell, certainly nothing to return them.
But then, I don't live in a 130 year old farmhouse. Maybe that means I'm still covered by the warranty, so they're not replacing mine.
No, your problem is that you're ignoring the distinction between child and adult responsibility that absolutely obviously exists both in fact, as any reasonable adult (and most any reasonable child) knows, as well as the law which defines various kinds of responsibility that adults have which children don't.
Other than mere denial, where are you getting your certainty that is totally counter to common sense?
In fact I think that "children" (in terms of responsibility, not puberty) are more trustworthy with having sex with each other than with exchanging naked pictures. Teenage sex has thousands, millions of years of experience mitigating its risks. Sharing pictures has a few generations. The damage might not be as great with the pictures, but the probability of any damage is higher. That's why putting available parents, rather than unenforceable state presence, in charge of this discipline makes sense. Because parental discipline is more available, and more appropriate in its response.
So people are responding to the article when rebutting me, not responding to me though I rebutted the article? That's not worth arguing with.
What kind of nonsense is encoded in your sarcasm? Of course parental responsibility is more complex than merely ordering childen to act. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
No, because adults are different from kids. You are creating a vacuum in which to analyze my statement that exists only in your mind. There are all kinds of other valid assumptions, like "adults are responsible for their actions, kids parents are responsible for the kids".
The point of the distinction is how to treat the kids. Because adults are not as able to be corrected by an authority figure disciplining them as are kids.
And you know, every murdering drug dealer (or whatever other bogeyman you're afraid of) certainly does have a bad parent to blame for failing to raise them right. Certainly every one I've ever known or known of in my direct experience. What makes you so sure that your blanket statement is correct?
Baby Boomers all came of age together. Without the continuum of older siblings/cousins/uncles of previous generations. Their parents, scared of the Depression, the Nazis, then the nuclear Cold War, let them get away with murder, while keeping them in line with fear - though the kids had cars, money, and places to go like movie theaters and rock concerts.
So Boomers raised their own kids all too willing to both spoil them and let other authorities do the dirty work, so they wouldn't be "uncool parents" like their own.
What I said is that parents, not the law, are responsible for disciplining kids. How come so many people in this thread think I said exactly the opposite?
But each person with a piece has to pay only a tenth. Or a thousandth, with a thousand people. Or what they're willing to pay, until their capacity is consumed. What is so hard to understand about sharing the cost across volunteer mirrors?
In other words, Europeans will use wind power to cool large existing refrigerators instead of some fraction of the power currently keeping them cool.
How is this "ingenious"? Even "cool" would be just a lame pun.
Is there some kind of problem you're having distinguishing between children not responsible for their actions, and adults who are?
It's up to the parents. It's up to them whether to let the kid off the hook because they're grown up before the law says they're an "adult" by the average definition. And even a child should receive the appropriate discipline. After that, it's up to other people in private transactions, and the state in public ones, to enforce order.
I don't see how you could read my post about how the parents are responsible and somehow decide I'm saying that the courts are responsible. Unless you've got your own agenda which blinds you to what I did say.
Why not? The parent raised the kid, is responsible for their actions.
Skipping class and shoplifting candy bars is certainly no cause for charging the kid with a crime (absent some bigger picture of criminality, and even that is wrong when the acts are better corrected with psych or other counseling). Those petty "crimes" are exactly the kind of misbehavior that parents should correct, not the state. However, if parents do not correct them, if parents have produced a "bad kid" who damages someone else, then of course the parents contributed to the damage.
Your idea of "using the legal system to scare the bejeezus out of the kid" is the wrong way to grow kids up. It's inappropriate use of the legal system, and damages the kid further.
Yeah, you're missing the other sentence in my post which says that parents should discipline kids, not the courts. I explicitly did not say these kids should go to jail - to the contrary.
Relatively harmless as it is, letting another child keep a picture of you naked is irresponsible. As we can tell with this story, the pictures are likely to be seen by other people than just the kid who first got it. Parents should prevent their kids from doing that, and discipline them when they find out. Letting your kids exchange naked pictures of themselves is irresponsible parenting.
There is a real difference between the damage caused to a person when pictures of them in private situations, expecially sexual, are published. It's worse for kids.
And there is a difference between the damage done by showing the pictures, if any, and the damage done by being photographed, if any, and the damage done, if any, by being in the situation itself.
America's hypocritical (is there any other kind?) puritanism prevents its laws from recognizing these distinctions. With children increasingly able to photograph and publish, like anyone else, we will have increasing damage done by the laws that don't reflect what's right and how wrong.
The laws are to protect children from exploitation, whether by adults, other children, other children acting for adults, or whoever. It's not a "gotcha" for adults, it's protection of children.
However, parents are to protect children. Disciplining children by the law is a total failure of the parents. While that happens, it must always be the last resort. And always include legal charges against the parents.
The data is available as XML, but to clone the site you need the MediaWiki app.
Except that multiple mirrors behind a DNS redirect load balance could reduce the operational costs (HW, bandwidth, personnel) to a fraction proportional to the people helping out.
That's real economics on the Internet.
Context-switching has long been the weakest design point for x86 in "PCs", especially servers. x86 arch is rooted in single-user, single-threaded, single-context apps. The in-core registers that CPU operations execute directly against have to be swapped out for each context switch. In *nix, that means every time a different process gets a timeslice, it's got to execute two slow copies between registers and at best cache RAM, at worst offchip RAM (over some offchip bus). If the register count is larger than the bus width (even onchip), that's another multiple on that slow cycle. That context-switch overhead can be larger than the timeslice allocated to each process's "turn" in the schedule for lower-latency / higher-response (lower "nice") processes, approaching realtime.
Unix was designed for multiusers, context-switching from the beginning. The chips it's run on coevolved with it. Linux arrived when x86 CPUs ran fast enough that context-switching was OK, but still a big waste compared with, say, MicroVAX multiple register sets. Windows architecture is rooted in the x86 architecture that DOS was designed for, though perhaps Vista has finally lost all of the old design baggage originated in the 8088/8086, but its long history of UI multitasking means it's context-switching all the time, which will gain in speed. The MacOS switch to BSD means it's got lots of power bound up in the context switches that could be released with Barcelona.
So while low-level benchmarks might show something like 80% FPU improvement, the high level (application) performance could improve quite a lot more. Recompiling apps to machine code that exploits more registers without the context-switching penalties could find multiples, especially apps with realtime multimedia that run concurrently with other apps. Intel's hyperthreading already gets past some of these bottlenecks in distributing tasks among multiple cores, but the Barcelona paging tables go even deeper, for likely extra performance (on top of Barcelona's own hyperthreading and new L3 cache).
Aside from the marketing "vapormarks" we'll surely see out of AMD (and their sockpuppets) before it's actually released "midyear", I'm looking forward to seeing how this thing really runs in multitasking apps. I'm expecting "like a greased snake across a griddle".
They're grounded.
The women who'd be turned on by them as much as would I would make great playmates. Especially in a giant machine that heats up and vibrates.
You need enough cats to last the entire mission, so cat sex is part of the subsystem.
Who needs the overhead of the crew, when the sex slaves can do all the work, and fuck each other?
I think I'm more influenced by Larry Niven and _Barbarella_, and maybe _Play-Mate of the Apes_.