It should be up to the woman? Since when? Why shouldn't it be up to the father? Both?
What it boils down to in this context is that no particular "she" should have more "rights" AKA opportunities, AKA choices than any particular "he".
IOW, if she should have the choice to abort (here "abort" means dumping parental responsibilities whether that means killing the kid or signing a contract with an adoption agency doesn't really matter), then so should he. As it stands, once the man decides to plug his pecker into her, he's screwed himself, completely. He doesn't even have the option of keeping the child if she doesn't want it. Though if she wants the kid, he does get to keep all the responsibilities whether he wants the kid or not. She can opt out at anytime, before or even after birth.
The man gets to sit there and grieve over his lost child or pay medical bills and child support for a kid he doesn't want.
The situation is definitely not consistent with principles.
...It happened to me last year. I had just received a nice shiny new ATM card from my bank. Everything was fine until I went travelling on business. Upon arrival, all the ATM machines that I tried told me that my card had expired(Exp. date: March '01). Upon return, my card worked as before. Subsequently, during another visit to the same customer, the ATMs(at least the first one I tried) worked properly.
Their drives are *quiet*. I have three with scsi interfaces and two with ide. None make enough noise to hear activity unless you put your ear right next to the box. None have failed and two of the scsi drives are 3+ years old.
A couple of weeks ago I went and bought a 17G with ide for $170 for the sole purpose of storing mp3s. After 275 tracks of cdparanoia and lame it is 9% full...
> So now that some folks have figured out how to STEAL DvD data, what next?
I, and many others, figured out how to STEAL dvds a long time ago. All you do is walk up to your local video store with a sledgehammer, break the glass, walk in and grab an armfull, and then run.
What these guys have done is taken the first step that will allow me to play dvds on my box.
I am happy. I am not stupid. I won't be wasting my valuable time copying and distributing dvds. It's MUCH easier and less expensive if you include the cost of your personal time to just go to the store and buy another disk rather than buy blanks, copy something onto them, find customers that will be willing to buy at a discounted price, sell, make sure that I'm not going to get stung by the law enforcers, etc. etc. etc.
To put it simply, pirating dvds will not be profitable for a long, long time.
The "old fashioned" method I described above is much more profitable than disk copying and a much greater risk to, and currently a greater drag on, the profits of the "dvd industry".
And that is a good explanation of the concept. Although I'd have to say "small" and very fast hash table implemented in hardware.;-) The hashing algorithm is usually pretty simple. A direct mapped cache is usually working directly from the upper memory address bits that are used to split the address space into pages that are each the size of the cache. So...Page 1, address X is cached in cache line X. So is Page 2, address X, etc. A two way associative cache has to have an additional set of bits that contain the page address and each time a location is accessed a "freshness" bit is set for that location and cleared for the alternate location so that it is tagged as "older". A 4 way cache has two freshness bits, etc. As you might imagine, the lookup gets harder as you "add more ways". Each access has to match the memory location and the page and find the freshest line now that the memory can be cached in more than one location in the cache...
I just bought a 19 inch monitor on the savings I got from buying the slowest proc I could find(350MHz for crying out loud!) instead of the fastest...I remember when PPro 200s were the fastest you could find. Sheesh!
...has to do with how many memory different places in the cache each memory address can reside. This is not a measure of size, rather a measure of versatility. That is, in a direct mapped cache each memory address can be cached in one and only one cache line. This obviously leads to an overlap since main memory is alwasys larger than the cache. So, if a particular memory location is cached in a particular line, and another memory location that must be mapped to the same line in the cache is accessed, then the first must be flushed no matter how "fresh" it is.
A two way set associative cache allows any memory address to be placed in one of two locations in the cache. A four way cache has four spots where each memory address can be cached, etc. Again this is not a matter of size, rather a measure of how flexible the cache is.
The more "ways" the cache has the more flexible it is and this results in fewer flushes and overall more "fresh" data in the cache. This is what a cache is all about. That is, keeping the data that is needed right now, right here close to the CPU.
These "X ways set associations" are expensive in terms of logic and chip space. Ideally, a cache would be fully associative and allow any memory address to be cached anywhere in the cache memory. Because this stuff is expensive, it is usually reserved only for the highest performance parts, that is, the level 1 cache which is the closest to the processor core and usually the smaller one. AFAIK, all mainboard caches are direct mapped. They compensate by usually being bigger and even thoough they are slower, they are still a good bit faster than main memory, but nowhere near as fast as a level 1 cache or register access.
According to the previous poster, Tom got the two caches backwards. I don't have a data book on the new chip, but I'd really be surprised if they actually made an 8 way set associative cache that is 256K in size. No biggie, but it's an obvious error to those of us that know something of what the h*ll he's talking about.
As far as his comment on the benchmarks goes, I have no idea where he's coming from on that one.
...for the writer anyway. I stopped reading when I came upon this:
> CDs - a digital recording technology - sometimes > sound a little cold to the ear because, > subconsciously anyway, we can hear the tiny > spaces between the recorded samples of music.
If you can't do that, then spend some time examining the principles behind libertarian thought. At least then you won't make a fool of yourself with comments like:
> Probably the same people who think that > limiting the basic freedoms of people you > disagree with is funny too.
> Oh, I get it. When I fuck up and sell you the results, it's your fault, not mine.
You bet it is. If I'm foolish enough to buy your fucked up product, well, I'm fucked, not my neighbor, not the society as a whole.
> I can drive my car through your living room, > and it's your fault for not anticipating my > actions and building your house elsewhere
Sorry, that's a really poor analogy. You fucked up this time and I didn't buy it. Your fault. If OTOH, I didn't have any insurance and couldn't extract the damages from you then that's my problem, not my neighbor's, not my town's, not my state's, not my gov's. If you committed some crime, assuming reckless driving or DUI is a crime in this libertarian fantasy world, then the gov does have a responsibility to prosecute you. As it stands the state today, here, now in the USA does not have any responsibility to protect me from the likes of you. The police and the criminal courts are there to enforce the law at the whim of the state, not to protect us.
> Libertarians tend to be young and naive
Ha ha, this is a laugh. The most libertarian people I know are really *old*. They remember how nice it was 60-90 years ago when they were really free. Since the Depression the gov has been fucking with them all they way. They've bought the Rep/Dem party line one time or another and have now realized that what both of those parties want is for the state to have more control and the people to have less. They have seen "programs" for this, that, and the other thing and what they have realized is that the state doesn't help people at all. It only works to perpetuate itself. People can and do help people and more would if only the fucking state would get out of their way.
Those old people can look back and calculate: what if I had had the opportunity to save/invest all those thousands of dollars that I had to pay to Social Security? Well, their retirement checks from SS are pretty pitiful compared to what they could have made with even a simple savings account. Think about how that program for helping people has actually fucked them royally.
Anything that increases the flow of information and the general level of education and literacy of the population will help to reduce the "need" for government, whether it is a perceived need or real one.
So: > In what ways can OSS be an enabling technology > for advancing libertarianism?
OSS can enable the flow of information, that is: information conduits become less expensive and thus available to more.
> Do OSS business models teach us anything about > being better libertarians?
OSS business models do not include "blame" for failure. YOU must be responsible for your own decisions, successes and failures. There are no scapegoats available.
> Can OSS be a factor in reducing the size and > power of government?
OSS directly costs less. That in itself can facilitate a less expensive, AKA smaller gov.
> How can we non-coercively ensure that RMS never > sings again?
I installed it this weekend on my toy box which simply could not/would not swallow Caldera Open Linux and it's lauded graphical installer. For the record, that toy box has run w95, os2, FreeBSD, Slackware, RH, and now SuSE. The default desktop setup is KDE which I am just now learning about. The setup tool for X that they call sax took in my Matrox M2-G200 without a hitch. I think I'm sold on SuSE.
Why? They chose to live there then. They choose to live there today. They get to live with the results of their decisions just like the rest of us. Fools they might be, but that in no way entitles them to respect from me.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be up to the woman? Since when? Why shouldn't it be up to the father? Both?
What it boils down to in this context is that no particular "she" should have more "rights" AKA opportunities, AKA choices than any particular "he".
IOW, if she should have the choice to abort (here "abort" means dumping parental responsibilities whether that means killing the kid or signing a contract with an adoption agency doesn't really matter), then so should he. As it stands, once the man decides to plug his pecker into her, he's screwed himself, completely. He doesn't even have the option of keeping the child if she doesn't want it. Though if she wants the kid, he does get to keep all the responsibilities whether he wants the kid or not. She can opt out at anytime, before or even after birth.
The man gets to sit there and grieve over his lost child or pay medical bills and child support for a kid he doesn't want.
The situation is definitely not consistent with principles.
...It happened to me last year. I had just received a nice shiny new ATM card from my bank. Everything was fine until I went travelling on business. Upon arrival, all the ATM machines that I tried told me that my card had expired(Exp. date: March '01). Upon return, my card worked as before. Subsequently, during another visit to the same customer, the ATMs(at least the first one I tried) worked properly.
And I doubt that the images are 256x256x1 as per your calculations...x8, x16, anybody know?
that's all
the probe didn't crash along with the servers.
They've been hosed since about 1.30 CST.
At least until I've had a chance to upgrade my SuSe install to KDE 2.0 and exercise it a bit. Then I'd be able to ask some good questions.
Their drives are *quiet*. I have three with scsi interfaces and two with ide. None make enough noise to hear activity unless you put your ear right next to the box. None have failed and two of the scsi drives are 3+ years old.
A couple of weeks ago I went and bought a 17G with ide for $170 for the sole purpose of storing mp3s. After 275 tracks of cdparanoia and lame it is 9% full...
> So now that some folks have figured out how to STEAL DvD data, what next?
I, and many others, figured out how to STEAL dvds a long time ago. All you do is walk up to your local video store with a sledgehammer, break the glass, walk in and grab an armfull, and then run.
What these guys have done is taken the first step that will allow me to play dvds on my box.
I am happy. I am not stupid. I won't be wasting my valuable time copying and distributing dvds. It's MUCH easier and less expensive if you include the cost of your personal time to just go to the store and buy another disk rather than buy blanks, copy something onto them, find customers that will be willing to buy at a discounted price, sell, make sure that I'm not going to get stung by the law enforcers, etc. etc. etc.
To put it simply, pirating dvds will not be profitable for a long, long time.
The "old fashioned" method I described above is much more profitable than disk copying and a much greater risk to, and currently a greater drag on, the profits of the "dvd industry".
Sounds like you are volunteering to give up a large portion of your paycheck to your new customer.
Are you?
If not, how do you expect him to pay for all the up(down?)grade costs?
...say this:
That's a fine followup post. It's pertinent, clear, concise, and cool. Thanks.
And that is a good explanation of the concept. Although I'd have to say "small" and very fast hash table implemented in hardware. ;-) The hashing algorithm is usually pretty simple. A direct mapped cache is usually working directly from the upper memory address bits that are used to split the address space into pages that are each the size of the cache. So...Page 1, address X is cached in cache line X. So is Page 2, address X, etc. A two way associative cache has to have an additional set of bits that contain the page address and each time a location is accessed a "freshness" bit is set for that location and cleared for the alternate location so that it is tagged as "older". A 4 way cache has two freshness bits, etc. As you might imagine, the lookup gets harder as you "add more ways". Each access has to match the memory location and the page and find the freshest line now that the memory can be cached in more than one location in the cache...
I just bought a 19 inch monitor on the savings I got from buying the slowest proc I could find(350MHz for crying out loud!) instead of the fastest...I remember when PPro 200s were the fastest you could find. Sheesh!
You took the bait.
...have been a "feature" of Tom's since the beginning. They are nowhere near as frequent now as they were a while back.
...has to do with how many memory different places in the cache each memory address can reside. This is not a measure of size, rather a measure of versatility. That is, in a direct mapped cache each memory address can be cached in one and only one cache line. This obviously leads to an overlap since main memory is alwasys larger than the cache. So, if a particular memory location is cached in a particular line, and another memory location that must be mapped to the same line in the cache is accessed, then the first must be flushed no matter how "fresh" it is.
A two way set associative cache allows any memory address to be placed in one of two locations in the cache. A four way cache has four spots where each memory address can be cached, etc. Again this is not a matter of size, rather a measure of how flexible the cache is.
The more "ways" the cache has the more flexible it is and this results in fewer flushes and overall more "fresh" data in the cache. This is what a cache is all about. That is, keeping the data that is needed right now, right here close to the CPU.
These "X ways set associations" are expensive in terms of logic and chip space. Ideally, a cache would be fully associative and allow any memory address to be cached anywhere in the cache memory. Because this stuff is expensive, it is usually reserved only for the highest performance parts, that is, the level 1 cache which is the closest to the processor core and usually the smaller one. AFAIK, all mainboard caches are direct mapped. They compensate by usually being bigger and even thoough they are slower, they are still a good bit faster than main memory, but nowhere near as fast as a level 1 cache or register access.
According to the previous poster, Tom got the two caches backwards. I don't have a data book on the new chip, but I'd really be surprised if they actually made an 8 way set associative cache that is 256K in size. No biggie, but it's an obvious error to those of us that know something of what the h*ll he's talking about.
As far as his comment on the benchmarks goes, I have no idea where he's coming from on that one.
Read the posting, then make suggestions.
...for the writer anyway. I stopped reading when I came upon this:
> CDs - a digital recording technology - sometimes
> sound a little cold to the ear because,
> subconsciously anyway, we can hear the tiny
> spaces between the recorded samples of music.
His credibility is toast.
> Do unto others what has been done to you
Then laugh.
If you can't do that, then spend some time examining the principles behind libertarian thought. At least then you won't make a fool of yourself with comments like:
> Probably the same people who think that
> limiting the basic freedoms of people you
> disagree with is funny too.
That's all....
> ...he'll get even shriller and more annoying.
;-)
"Even shriller" ?!?!? That hurts my eyes!
> Oh, I get it. When I fuck up and sell you the results, it's your fault, not mine.
You bet it is. If I'm foolish enough to buy your fucked up product, well, I'm fucked, not my neighbor, not the society as a whole.
> I can drive my car through your living room,
> and it's your fault for not anticipating my
> actions and building your house elsewhere
Sorry, that's a really poor analogy. You fucked up this time and I didn't buy it. Your fault. If OTOH, I didn't have any insurance and couldn't extract the damages from you then that's my problem, not my neighbor's, not my town's, not my state's, not my gov's. If you committed some crime, assuming reckless driving or DUI is a crime in this libertarian fantasy world, then the gov does have a responsibility to prosecute you. As it stands the state today, here, now in the USA does not have any responsibility to protect me from the likes of you. The police and the criminal courts are there to enforce the law at the whim of the state, not to protect us.
> Libertarians tend to be young and naive
Ha ha, this is a laugh. The most libertarian people I know are really *old*. They remember how nice it was 60-90 years ago when they were really free. Since the Depression the gov has been fucking with them all they way. They've bought the Rep/Dem party line one time or another and have now realized that what both of those parties want is for the state to have more control and the people to have less. They have seen "programs" for this, that, and the other thing and what they have realized is that the state doesn't help people at all. It only works to perpetuate itself. People can and do help people and more would if only the fucking state would get out of their way.
Those old people can look back and calculate: what if I had had the opportunity to save/invest all those thousands of dollars that I had to pay to Social Security? Well, their retirement checks from SS are pretty pitiful compared to what they could have made with even a simple savings account. Think about how that program for helping people has actually fucked them royally.
...for someone without a sense of humor, or the ability to interpret a ;-)
...the answers are:
;-)
Anything that increases the flow of information and the general level of education and literacy of the population will help to reduce the "need" for government, whether it is a perceived need or real one.
So:
> In what ways can OSS be an enabling technology
> for advancing libertarianism?
OSS can enable the flow of information, that is: information conduits become less expensive and thus available to more.
> Do OSS business models teach us anything about
> being better libertarians?
OSS business models do not include "blame" for failure. YOU must be responsible for your own decisions, successes and failures. There are no scapegoats available.
> Can OSS be a factor in reducing the size and
> power of government?
OSS directly costs less. That in itself can facilitate a less expensive, AKA smaller gov.
> How can we non-coercively ensure that RMS never
> sings again?
Murder is not coercion.
I installed it this weekend on my toy box which simply could not/would not swallow Caldera Open Linux and it's lauded graphical installer. For the record, that toy box has run w95, os2, FreeBSD, Slackware, RH, and now SuSE. The default desktop setup is KDE which I am just now learning about. The setup tool for X that they call sax took in my Matrox M2-G200 without a hitch. I think I'm sold on SuSE.
Why? They chose to live there then. They choose to live there today. They get to live with the results of their decisions just like the rest of us. Fools they might be, but that in no way entitles them to respect from me.