A newspaper is a bad analogy, precisely because the content is edited.
A bulletin board in a supermarket, or a very large one in a public square is a better analogy: anyone who can pay for the paper (content hosting), and find a free spot on the board (bandwidth), can post whatever they want, that is legal for them to post.
The poster has control over what they post and therefore can be held liable for it, if they can be found.
The owner of the bulletin board has the power to remove offending items upon appropriate request but otherwise does not exercise editorial control. In fact if the owner does exercise such control they lose the immunity offered by ignorance of content posted -- "common carrier" status, which is covered by legislation and precedent in many parts of the word. In effect, they provide the medium but not the message.
So, the poster is liable for the message, and the board owner the medium.
The proper way to deal with this is to ensure that who controls the medium does not frustrate identifying the source of offending messages, and is best addressed via laws regarding anonymity.
With regard to the bulleting board analogy, one might have laws requiring such boards to be monitored so posters of offending material can be identified and prosecuted. I'm not suggesting that I'd agree with such a requirement, because I value anonymity (as well as privacy) in a free society.
Such media are immensely valuable to buttress the exchange of information as it has value in commerce as well as in the realm of ideas (which, arguably, can be dangerous to governments), and therefore the providers of media must have a clear legislative framework in which they can operate so they know their liability. Without it (whether the framework is reasonable or not, to a particular observer), a chilling effect occurs and the availability and therefore benefits of access to such media are lost. Can you imagine commerce without advertising? Should advertisers be held to standards of honesty? Should publishers of advertising? Should advertisements be subject to editorial review? If so, this raises the cost to advertise, and shuts out small advertisers -- No "Craigslist" for you!
Because advertising is commercial, it stands to reason that there is a desire to protect commercial interests.
But publication of news or opinion is NOT commercial, except to the extent of the value placed in the reliability of the news. Without editorial oversight, publication is very inexpensive (and, IMHO, a boon to freedom, if at the expense of reliability, or sensibility). Is it really that desirable to purchase reliability and sensibility at the price of freedom?
Italians may (or their present government dictate) "Yes", but if Americans hold to their hard won First Amendment principles, I think many would (at least I hope they would) shout a resounding "No!".
The Constitution does not "grant rights". You already have them (God given, if you happen to believe in a deity). All it does is recognize them, and serve to limit government.
Yeah: that's a use of the word large with which I wasn't familiar.
Break it up into what appear to be the logical sub-components, test by making libraries, and seeing how things link together and headers are included, until you have sufficiently manageable pieces.
But, even in the aggregate, one or two read throughs should get you a "feel" for the code.
Meh. Only because you have not defined "War" creatively enough.
I think willful violation of the U.S. Constitution by those sworn to uphold it is an act of war against the American people because it seeks to deprive them of their constitutional rights. It does not have to be limited to bombing, burning, and otherwise destroying and killing.
Er, states can pass all sorts of unconstitutional laws, and try to punish anyone who breaks them. They have force until challenged as unconstitutional, and then it was as if they never had force at all (meaning that people convicted under them must be freed, or otherwise made whole).
All documents are "living" in the way you describe because their interpretation is subject to change with the times. This is why the important bits are in very plain language.
Woe be it to anyone who things that "living" means "ignore as you please".
Thanks for the explanation of why another trial is possible when the judge sets aside a civil jury's damage award.
But, what's the point if it can only serve to uphold or reduce the current award?
The only thing I can see is to hope that it will force the defendant to spend more on a defense, possibly a lot more than any reduction in award, as some perverse sense of "punishment". IOW, it isn't about the RIAA collecting "just" damages, but rather the defendant being made to pay as much as possible, to anyone, for their copyright violation. That soooooooo "smells" of barratry.
Okay. I got off my ass and actually looked at waitlock. It isn't, as I thought, a lock with a restoration of execution context when held, so that one can temporarily surrender other locks, and reacquire them. It is a lock on keeping the system out of various low-power states.
Mainline has an (arguably, according to Google-folk, inefficient), lock on guaranteed service latency (low, medium, high?). and Google wants a lock on specific activity level abstractions (idle, suspend, etc.). Did I get that right?
Well, if the present implementation is inefficient (a linear search...), fix that: use an AA-tree or heap, or something.
I suspect the latency time guarantees are coarse at best and probably map to specific power states (idle, suspend, etc.) anyway. I think BOTH models should be supported (heck, you could always map levels to latencies in some tunable fashion, if you had to fake it: "responsiveness SUSPEND" vs. "hardware SUSPEND") but only because there are already standard abstract notions of what IDLE, SUSPEND, and POWEROFF are.
What may have happened is that the existing implementation was inefficient, not quite fitting the expected model, and Google-folk found it faster to roll their own driven by time-pressure, instead of reworking the existing inefficiencies, thinking "heck, we can layer our API over the existing implementation later" and finding the models are more different than thought.
Reconciling that is called "refactoring" and sometimes it breaks APIs as much as one does not want it to.
Now, who has a vested interest in doing that?
Google? Not really. They figure they can handle the overhead of a kernel fork, at least for a while.
Mainline kernel devs? No. The existing model "works".
I'll tell you who: Google's downstream customers. One of them will do it.
I never wrote that I accused you of writing that I "bought into the bullshit...". I meant that in the context of great media pressure to buy into the bullshit -- namely, one must have an intense, active sex life.
I think people with biological drives that can't be suppressed because acting on them has negative personal consequences are weak. It's rather like gingerly touching a hot cup of liquid in the microwave and deciding that, despite the fact that it is hot, one can safely move it to the counter, before one gets burned, when the natural urge is "Hot! Avoid!". The analogy isn't perfect, but it's the first thing that comes to mind: suffering something unpleasant (unrelieved arousal) because the result is desirable (avoiding offspring at all costs).
One can enjoy physical affection without sexual activity, though it is true that few would accept abstinent relationships. Nevertheless, I would not consider the purchase of affection at the price of risking further progeny acceptable.
My point is not to insist that sheeple adopt something they can not master, namely abstinence. It never was. It was that the only way to prevent the production of babies, guaranteed, was abstinence. If reducing their production is adequate, then sure, contraception is advised, but in the context of "this can help, but it won't guarantee no more children, only abstinence will" (at least for men... a woman could always find herself raped).
You don't merge new features into a robust low-level code base.
You merge support for abstractions the new features rely upon into the low-level code base, and build on them.
Make a case for kernel support of the "new lock" and "security model" independent of Android's reliance on it, and remove as many of the Android drivers using these facilities OUT of the main tree. IMHO, drivers really don't belong there, but should be available in "driver package sets" aggregated by distro providers.
Harumph. I've essentially deprived myself of it from puberty to the time I could afford to raise children, and from the time I had the last child I wanted to now.
No great yearning or obsession. The thought of contraceptive failure and an unwanted child have a big chilling effect.
See, I never bought into the bullshit that its necessary for my survival or well-being. And, guess what? It isn't!
Another kid would sure be a damper, though. And, with me being 48, not fair to the kid.
Sex keeps people in abusive relationships, leads to unwanted children, makes one initially be in a "lovestruck fog" with someone new. No, thank you.
Surely a rational person can censor their impulses, no? That's what distinguishes us. There are plenty of people I think should be killed (liberals, mostly, but I digress). I don't go around killing them. A new car would be nice, and I could steal one, but I don't. Rich food tastes good, but a rational person does not overindulge. Sex might feel good, but it requires all these less than perfect mechanisms to avoid its natural consequences.
Crap, few things disgust me more than people living in inner-city squalor who can not support the families they already have, and continuing to breed, producing more children in misery. They lack self-control and do not strike me as human in the rational sense.
My opinions might be different if contracts to abort were legally enforceable, in the event of contraceptive failure, but they aren't.
As for "not normal", I think 99% of the population are little more than sheeple driven by what's pleasant in "the now", rather than using their brains to consider consequences.
The best ways to understand my views is to look at them from the perspective of asceticism: voluntary self-deprivation of comforts to build strength of will and remove the shackles of attraction to the unhealthy. Different ascetics deprive themselves of different things. Crap, if I did not like good food, comfortable surroundings, and technology, I'd likely be a Buddhist monk, though I am actually agnostic.
Well, duh. Abstinence is a choice, not a religion, though religion usually proscribes when people should be abstinent.
I dislike sex for two reasons:
1. It can lead to children that I no longer wish to father: contraception is not perfect, and contracts to abort in the event of its failure are unenforceable at law.
2. It leads to changes in brain chemistry that can affect one's ability to act rationally -- the old maxim about women falling in love after a particularly good romp noted. I supposed men are also so affected, though to what degree is debatable. I've read that they become addicted to the sex partner.
I neither want children nor want an addiction to something that can be withheld on a whim,
At best, I liken sex to alcohol: moderation is best -- though a bit more dangerous.
Except, again, you are confusing the issue. AP (ancestral poster) talked about stopping the making of babies, and suggested contraception.
Contraception does not prevent the making of babies -- it merely reduces the chances of success (or failure, depending on your perspective).
Abstinence, absent coercion (though you could argue that a woman raped did not abstain, though she was not willing), does prevent the making of babies.
Of course, if you're only interested in reducing the chances of making babies, then, sure, contraception is very effective compared to nothing.
But, that is only useful in the aggregate. Poor Bozo Bazuzoo, who's family will starve if he has one more child can't risk any more children. If he cares about his family, he has to accept that his "glory days" are over. If he does not, then he is an animal.
Even sterilization can fail. Vasectomies spontaneously reverse at a rate of anywhere from 1/600 to 1/2000, depending who's statistics you cite. What "safety net" does Bozo have against such failure returning him and his family to semi-starvation?
If you're going to push contraception, then you must have a plan of what can be affordably done by the "climbing out of poverty" masses when it fails: saving for the cost of vasectomy while fertile, and then having enough income to insure against vasectomy failure.
It's not a matter of bibles. It's a matter of offering the means to stop producing children, guaranteed, when one wants to. Right now, only abstinence offers this, because no insurer offers insurance against sterilization failure. Further, in the U.S., for men, abstinence is also the only option since contracts to abort in the event of contraceptive failure are not recognized at law. (I'm presuming abortion is not available in poverty-stricken areas because relatively safe abortions are expensive to perform).
Actually, many people who practice abstinence do have children: we just chose when to have them and our lives are free of the worry if we have any "by accident".
People who have sex without wanting children are irrational: they take on an unnecessary risk. Even if they are willing to accept children if contraception fails, this is cruel to the child: would you prefer to be "wanted" or merely "accepted"?
People who want to bring children into wretched circumstances are truly heinous.
What distinguishes people from animals is our capacity for restraint in consideration of potential consequences. Where such restraint is absent, I do not consider such animals "people".
You're picking nits when you introduce crime: anything possible can be coerced.
There is no way an abstinent person can consensually produce offspring. I suppose they could do so accidentally, for example if a naked woman inadvertently sits on a puddle of fresh semen, but surely that can be avoided without too much difficulty as well.
Slashdot Mirror
A newspaper is a bad analogy, precisely because the content is edited.
A bulletin board in a supermarket, or a very large one in a public square is a better analogy: anyone who can pay for the paper (content hosting), and find a free spot on the board (bandwidth), can post whatever they want, that is legal for them to post.
The poster has control over what they post and therefore can be held liable for it, if they can be found.
The owner of the bulletin board has the power to remove offending items upon appropriate request but otherwise does not exercise editorial control. In fact if the owner does exercise such control they lose the immunity offered by ignorance of content posted -- "common carrier" status, which is covered by legislation and precedent in many parts of the word. In effect, they provide the medium but not the message.
So, the poster is liable for the message, and the board owner the medium.
The proper way to deal with this is to ensure that who controls the medium does not frustrate identifying the source of offending messages, and is best addressed via laws regarding anonymity.
With regard to the bulleting board analogy, one might have laws requiring such boards to be monitored so posters of offending material can be identified and prosecuted. I'm not suggesting that I'd agree with such a requirement, because I value anonymity (as well as privacy) in a free society.
Such media are immensely valuable to buttress the exchange of information as it has value in commerce as well as in the realm of ideas (which, arguably, can be dangerous to governments), and therefore the providers of media must have a clear legislative framework in which they can operate so they know their liability. Without it (whether the framework is reasonable or not, to a particular observer), a chilling effect occurs and the availability and therefore benefits of access to such media are lost. Can you imagine commerce without advertising? Should advertisers be held to standards of honesty? Should publishers of advertising? Should advertisements be subject to editorial review? If so, this raises the cost to advertise, and shuts out small advertisers -- No "Craigslist" for you!
Because advertising is commercial, it stands to reason that there is a desire to protect commercial interests.
But publication of news or opinion is NOT commercial, except to the extent of the value placed in the reliability of the news. Without editorial oversight, publication is very inexpensive (and, IMHO, a boon to freedom, if at the expense of reliability, or sensibility). Is it really that desirable to purchase reliability and sensibility at the price of freedom?
Italians may (or their present government dictate) "Yes", but if Americans hold to their hard won First Amendment principles, I think many would (at least I hope they would) shout a resounding "No!".
Because that takes fuel, whether to push them into a higher orbit or a lower one (say to disintegrate on reentry).
The Constitution does not "grant rights". You already have them (God given, if you happen to believe in a deity). All it does is recognize them, and serve to limit government.
Yeah: that's a use of the word large with which I wasn't familiar.
Break it up into what appear to be the logical sub-components, test by making libraries, and seeing how things link together and headers are included, until you have sufficiently manageable pieces.
But, even in the aggregate, one or two read throughs should get you a "feel" for the code.
In any case, constitution as the other laws are the expression of the will of the Government
What part of WE THE PEOPLE do you not understand?
Well, it is the ultimate law of the land, and therefore deserves some deference.
If you find it dated, propose amendments, and get them ratified.
That's how it works.
Except there is no civil right to impose defacto theocracy. In fact, there is an explicit prohibition against it.
Christians can enforce their beliefs only upon those who voluntarily accept such enforcement.
Meh. Only because you have not defined "War" creatively enough.
I think willful violation of the U.S. Constitution by those sworn to uphold it is an act of war against the American people because it seeks to deprive them of their constitutional rights. It does not have to be limited to bombing, burning, and otherwise destroying and killing.
Er, states can pass all sorts of unconstitutional laws, and try to punish anyone who breaks them. They have force until challenged as unconstitutional, and then it was as if they never had force at all (meaning that people convicted under them must be freed, or otherwise made whole).
All documents are "living" in the way you describe because their interpretation is subject to change with the times. This is why the important bits are in very plain language.
Woe be it to anyone who things that "living" means "ignore as you please".
Sure, an amendment is a modification, specifically an addition.
In fact, some documents can have invariant and variant sections, with specification of how to change the variant sections.
The constitution is not the only legal document subject to modification. In fact many legal judgments and court orders are subject to modification.
The key is that the terms of how and to what degree things can be modified are either part of the document itself, or established by statute.
As with all things, there's often room for subjective interpretation of the terms of modification, and that's where case law and precedent come in.
What distinguishes a constitution is that it is intentionally difficult to modify.
All it will take is a suit that the school board violates civil liberties.
I wish it could go further. I wish that provably willful violations of civil liberties were treated as treason.
Thanks for the explanation of why another trial is possible when the judge sets aside a civil jury's damage award.
But, what's the point if it can only serve to uphold or reduce the current award?
The only thing I can see is to hope that it will force the defendant to spend more on a defense, possibly a lot more than any reduction in award, as some perverse sense of "punishment". IOW, it isn't about the RIAA collecting "just" damages, but rather the defendant being made to pay as much as possible, to anyone, for their copyright violation. That soooooooo "smells" of barratry.
replying because of a wrong mod. Meant Informative, NOT Funny
Note to self: consider trying to become MSFT's exclusive chair supplier.
Oh great. Rise of the Bulemics.
Okay. I got off my ass and actually looked at waitlock. It isn't, as I thought, a lock with a restoration of execution context when held, so that one can temporarily surrender other locks, and reacquire them. It is a lock on keeping the system out of various low-power states.
Mainline has an (arguably, according to Google-folk, inefficient), lock on guaranteed service latency (low, medium, high?). and Google wants a lock on specific activity level abstractions (idle, suspend, etc.). Did I get that right?
Well, if the present implementation is inefficient (a linear search...), fix that: use an AA-tree or heap, or something.
I suspect the latency time guarantees are coarse at best and probably map to specific power states (idle, suspend, etc.) anyway. I think BOTH models should be supported (heck, you could always map levels to latencies in some tunable fashion, if you had to fake it: "responsiveness SUSPEND" vs. "hardware SUSPEND") but only because there are already standard abstract notions of what IDLE, SUSPEND, and POWEROFF are.
What may have happened is that the existing implementation was inefficient, not quite fitting the expected model, and Google-folk found it faster to roll their own driven by time-pressure, instead of reworking the existing inefficiencies, thinking "heck, we can layer our API over the existing implementation later" and finding the models are more different than thought.
Reconciling that is called "refactoring" and sometimes it breaks APIs as much as one does not want it to.
Now, who has a vested interest in doing that?
Google? Not really. They figure they can handle the overhead of a kernel fork, at least for a while.
Mainline kernel devs? No. The existing model "works".
I'll tell you who: Google's downstream customers. One of them will do it.
I never wrote that I accused you of writing that I "bought into the bullshit...". I meant that in the context of great media pressure to buy into the bullshit -- namely, one must have an intense, active sex life.
I think people with biological drives that can't be suppressed because acting on them has negative personal consequences are weak. It's rather like gingerly touching a hot cup of liquid in the microwave and deciding that, despite the fact that it is hot, one can safely move it to the counter, before one gets burned, when the natural urge is "Hot! Avoid!". The analogy isn't perfect, but it's the first thing that comes to mind: suffering something unpleasant (unrelieved arousal) because the result is desirable (avoiding offspring at all costs).
One can enjoy physical affection without sexual activity, though it is true that few would accept abstinent relationships. Nevertheless, I would not consider the purchase of affection at the price of risking further progeny acceptable.
My point is not to insist that sheeple adopt something they can not master, namely abstinence. It never was. It was that the only way to prevent the production of babies, guaranteed, was abstinence. If reducing their production is adequate, then sure, contraception is advised, but in the context of "this can help, but it won't guarantee no more children, only abstinence will" (at least for men... a woman could always find herself raped).
You don't merge new features into a robust low-level code base.
You merge support for abstractions the new features rely upon into the low-level code base, and build on them.
Make a case for kernel support of the "new lock" and "security model" independent of Android's reliance on it, and remove as many of the Android drivers using these facilities OUT of the main tree. IMHO, drivers really don't belong there, but should be available in "driver package sets" aggregated by distro providers.
Harumph. I've essentially deprived myself of it from puberty to the time I could afford to raise children, and from the time I had the last child I wanted to now.
No great yearning or obsession. The thought of contraceptive failure and an unwanted child have a big chilling effect.
See, I never bought into the bullshit that its necessary for my survival or well-being. And, guess what? It isn't!
Another kid would sure be a damper, though. And, with me being 48, not fair to the kid.
Sex keeps people in abusive relationships, leads to unwanted children, makes one initially be in a "lovestruck fog" with someone new. No, thank you.
Surely a rational person can censor their impulses, no? That's what distinguishes us. There are plenty of people I think should be killed (liberals, mostly, but I digress). I don't go around killing them. A new car would be nice, and I could steal one, but I don't. Rich food tastes good, but a rational person does not overindulge. Sex might feel good, but it requires all these less than perfect mechanisms to avoid its natural consequences.
Crap, few things disgust me more than people living in inner-city squalor who can not support the families they already have, and continuing to breed, producing more children in misery. They lack self-control and do not strike me as human in the rational sense.
My opinions might be different if contracts to abort were legally enforceable, in the event of contraceptive failure, but they aren't.
As for "not normal", I think 99% of the population are little more than sheeple driven by what's pleasant in "the now", rather than using their brains to consider consequences.
The best ways to understand my views is to look at them from the perspective of asceticism: voluntary self-deprivation of comforts to build strength of will and remove the shackles of attraction to the unhealthy. Different ascetics deprive themselves of different things. Crap, if I did not like good food, comfortable surroundings, and technology, I'd likely be a Buddhist monk, though I am actually agnostic.
Well, duh. Abstinence is a choice, not a religion, though religion usually proscribes when people should be abstinent.
I dislike sex for two reasons:
1. It can lead to children that I no longer wish to father: contraception is not perfect, and contracts to abort in the event of its failure are unenforceable at law.
2. It leads to changes in brain chemistry that can affect one's ability to act rationally -- the old maxim about women falling in love after a particularly good romp noted. I supposed men are also so affected, though to what degree is debatable. I've read that they become addicted to the sex partner.
I neither want children nor want an addiction to something that can be withheld on a whim,
At best, I liken sex to alcohol: moderation is best -- though a bit more dangerous.
Except, again, you are confusing the issue. AP (ancestral poster) talked about stopping the making of babies, and suggested contraception.
Contraception does not prevent the making of babies -- it merely reduces the chances of success (or failure, depending on your perspective).
Abstinence, absent coercion (though you could argue that a woman raped did not abstain, though she was not willing), does prevent the making of babies.
Of course, if you're only interested in reducing the chances of making babies, then, sure, contraception is very effective compared to nothing.
But, that is only useful in the aggregate. Poor Bozo Bazuzoo, who's family will starve if he has one more child can't risk any more children. If he cares about his family, he has to accept that his "glory days" are over. If he does not, then he is an animal.
Even sterilization can fail. Vasectomies spontaneously reverse at a rate of anywhere from 1/600 to 1/2000, depending who's statistics you cite. What "safety net" does Bozo have against such failure returning him and his family to semi-starvation?
If you're going to push contraception, then you must have a plan of what can be affordably done by the "climbing out of poverty" masses when it fails: saving for the cost of vasectomy while fertile, and then having enough income to insure against vasectomy failure.
It's not a matter of bibles. It's a matter of offering the means to stop producing children, guaranteed, when one wants to. Right now, only abstinence offers this, because no insurer offers insurance against sterilization failure. Further, in the U.S., for men, abstinence is also the only option since contracts to abort in the event of contraceptive failure are not recognized at law. (I'm presuming abortion is not available in poverty-stricken areas because relatively safe abortions are expensive to perform).
Actually, many people who practice abstinence do have children: we just chose when to have them and our lives are free of the worry if we have any "by accident".
People who have sex without wanting children are irrational: they take on an unnecessary risk. Even if they are willing to accept children if contraception fails, this is cruel to the child: would you prefer to be "wanted" or merely "accepted"?
People who want to bring children into wretched circumstances are truly heinous.
What distinguishes people from animals is our capacity for restraint in consideration of potential consequences. Where such restraint is absent, I do not consider such animals "people".
You're picking nits when you introduce crime: anything possible can be coerced.
There is no way an abstinent person can consensually produce offspring. I suppose they could do so accidentally, for example if a naked woman inadvertently sits on a puddle of fresh semen, but surely that can be avoided without too much difficulty as well.