Now, for the umpteenth time, that was spent to prove, Clinton lied under oath. The proof was successfully secured and Clinton was punished for that perjury.
claiming that the FBI is an integral part of the conspiracy
You aren't citing any such claims, so they probably have not been made. It is quite obvious, however, that FBI was leaned on — likely by the White House.
you hate Hillary, so she needs to go to jail.
She needs to go to jail for mishandling classified information. FBI's report stated, she did it — suck it up, cupcake, while the rest of us are sucking up the sorry reality, that laws are for "little people".
And that Benghazi was the worst incidences ever [...]
We had problems with embassies before, but only after Benghazi was the Secretary of State lying to the public and Congress about it. Any I mean "lying" as in "knowingly telling an untruth".
We hate her — and you should too — for this lying. Her dishonesty is so bad, NY Times, of all publications, called her a "congenital liar" in 1996 — twenty years ago! Do you suppose, she improved with age?
As long as we have a finite number of such developers, we have limited resources.
Developer-numbers aren't the bottleneck...
You also seem perfectly happy to make demands that such developers do things your way, without you actually paying them.
I happen to know, how open source projects work better than 99.9% of people on the planet. Payment is not the issue. Open source developers work because it scratches a particular itch — and for the "bragging rights". Design-decisions of the senior developer(s) of the project are what rules it all.
And the quiche-eaters, who would've been laughed at only 20 years ago, are increasingly making those decisions: yes, 100 million users may each need to buy $30 worth of RAM to use our next version ($3 bln), but we aren't going to spend an extra week coding the new features so that the upgrade does not increase memory-requirements. As I keep repeating in this thread, the bulk of hardware advancements have been spent on convenience of developers, rather than of users. And that's unfortunate...
You also seem to think that GUIs and browsers and the like should run at maximum speed, but in actuality they have to run fast enough
That's true, but the point is not entirely about speed. If the GUI desktop or a browser is taking up most of the workstation's RAM, then there is a problem. As I type this, my Firefox is using over 2Gb of RAM — WTF? Thunderbird is another 1.5Gb — and, although the two apps compile from near-identical code base, their authors make no attempt to share the shared libraries. Both and use their own separate libxul.so (73Mb each) for example — look on your own box for confirmation.
The typical answer from the quiche-eaters — "Memory is cheap, go buy more" — is bogus.
Are there? We are talking about open source here. Programmers participate in such projects, because they like the process — not get paid (from a limited pool).
whether it's better to spend them to get maximum performance out of old hardware or to take advantage of newer features
False. An efficiently-written program will be faster on all hardware — old and new. A poorly-written one may be fast enough on the newer computer, but a well-written one will still beat it.
As hardware becomes cheaper relative to software, it's overall more economical to use additional hardware
That formula is only applicable for small audiences of specialized software. Things like desktop GUIs, web-browsers and e-mail clients, editors and word-processors are used by millions of people while the developer base is counted in low hundreds. There is no justification in forcing millions of users to throw out their old machines because a handful of developers can't be bothered to write well.
try an old version of whatever Linux distro you like. It still should work
Wow, condescending much? No, it will not work — old versions stop getting security updates. Oh, and I never liked any Linux distro — they tend to be for punks, not for professionals...
If the case wasn't a 100%, sure-fire victory, no one would be willing to prosecute it. Which is kind of reasonable: who wants to torpedo their career by killing Hillary's presidential chances only to lose at trial?
Arguably, getting acquitted would've helped her a lot, whereas avoiding indictment is certainly damaging.
But it does lay clear that there are two classes in the US: the ruling class, who won't be charged for clear violations because they might be able to get off, and the rest of us.
Yes, this perception damages her — because Trump, for all his money, is not (yet) of the ruling class.
This is merely to put the final nail in Bernie's coffin.
Anyone with a favorable view of Bernie Sanders needs to explain, how his proposals differ from those of Hugo Chavez.
two absolutely horrible people
Only one of those two people has deliberately and knowingly mishandled classified information and profoundly failed in all government positions occupied so far (including that of the First Lady). The other one is alleged to be racist.
3. Russia realizes, its "spiritual legacy" lies in the North rather than (or in addition to) the South, and occipies the entire Scandinavia in a couple of months.
As long as Russia remains a mad dog, money and efforts should be spent on putting it down, unfortunately, not on the niceties, that only excite and attract it.
If pointer size is your primary concern, why not run a 16-bit OS?
Because with 16-bit pointers, you are limited to process-sizes of 65Kb only, which is too small. 32 bit gives you enough of process virtual memory.
I'm not even sure what this means. Who stole anything?
As I said — Moore's law gave computers, that are 4096 times more powerful today, than what we had 18 years ago. Would you say, user experience is 4096 times better today, than in 1998?
No, it is not. It is a lot better, but on that scale, however you measure it. Various things continue to suck as they did before: databases and applications still want more memory. In 1996 I would take me three days to rebuild FreeBSD "world" — today it takes 3 hours. A 24-times improvement, instead of 4000-fold.
Where did the hardware-gains go was my question and "developers ate it" is my answer. Every time somebody makes a choice of "complicated but efficient" vs. "simple but hardware-demanding" towards the latter, the users lose. Every time you choose Python/Java/Go/Scala over C, you sacrifice some hardware of all of your users for your own convenience.
Almost all Intel/AMD hardware has been 64-bit for many years
Yes, of course. But you don't have to switch the OS to 64-bit to make use of those hardware capabilities. And even where you do, that may be the user's choice — developers should not be forcing it. Certainly not for the bogus reasons like "we can't find i386 hardware"...
I agree with you to a certain point but, how many people are running a 32-bit OS for legitimate reasons?
What's "legitimate"? Is it "legitimate" to want to be able to handle 50% more simultaneous TCP-connections to your server or from your desktop, for example? Look at my earlier post for differences in sizes of several vital data-structures.
Now, is it "legitimate" for developers to "steal" the hardware gains for their own benefit?
Unless you happen to want to run your embedded machine past 2038
You can change time_t to int64_t at any time — with the next major release of your OS. You do not need to switch everything to 64-bit just for that.
First, addresses/pointers aren't normally the largest chunk of code or data memory usage, so the include in RAM usage is far less than double.
Define "normally"... On a busy web-server, for example, the number of simultaneous connections is limited by the maximum number of sockets and files, that can be opened and processes or threads, that can run. All of those structures have lots of pointers... And even where they don't, the alignment optimizations often pad them, leading to (much) bigger sizes. For example, right now on my two FreeBSD-boxes:
So, if you use Apache, which uses a process (or even a thread) per active connection, you need about 50% as much memory for the same number of simultaneous connections.
Something similar can be said for Firefox and any other user application.
When AMD created x86_64, they added a bunch of registers
Those registers are largely available to 32-bit processes — just specify the right -march to your compiler. Yes, 64-bit mode does give your something — no question about it. Point is, it is not free...
do you know how hard it is to find 32-bit hardware these days?
What's there to "find"? You can kick-off a 32-bit VM under any hypervisor — both on the cloud or on your own desktop. You can automate the VM-creation and tear-down on your build-farm quite easily.
I too strongly prefer to have a system, where size_t is equal to off_t (so you could mmap an entire file and not worry about it), but that is not "free". 64-bit pointers are, obviously, twice-wider than 32-bit ones, so "hairy" structures — with lots of pointers in them — nearly double in size. If none of your processes require more than 4Gb of virtual memory, there is no reason — other than the developers' laziness — to go 64-bit.
Whether it is an OS embedded inside a router or a point-of-sale machine, or even a single-user web-and-email desktop, 32-bit is perfectly sufficient and the overhead of 64-bit not justified.
And that laziness is what is keeping us back... Over the last 18 years, according to Moore's law, our computers have become at least 2^12 times more powerful. Now ask yourself, is the user-experience — however you choose to measure it — 4096 times better than it was in 1998? And, if it is not, where did the gains in hardware go?
By refusing to setup/use tens or even hundreds of 32-bit test-systems, developers force thousands and millions of users to upgrade. That is not a fair trade-off.
The only actually *REAL* controversy that exist among scientific is about the minute details of interpretation (like the exact expected decimals at the end of the predicted number), not about the broad existence of climate change.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. So it is now Ok, in your opinion, to imprison the remaining deniers and to erase (or otherwise keep inaccessible) the raw data, that has once lead our betters to these universally-accepted conclusions?
Now, boffins from Sweden and the UK have cast doubt on the quality of the science
Is not it great, that such Scientific scepticism remains legal and the raw data remains available for anyone trying to replicate the earlier findings of others?
But first about "racism": the term was never used in a stricly genetic sense
Ah, once again, Illiberal "Progressives" redefine terms to suit their agenda...
hence the British Race, the Spanish Race, the Jewish Race
Sorry, would not fly. The dictionary says (emphasis mine):
race: people who are believed to belong to the same genetic stock;
The fact that you defend youself against being called a racist shows that you are aware of this
I am aware of folks like yourself, who would — incorrectly — claim "racism", where there is not any.
worth looking back at the history of America or UK. The Wild West was lousy with quacks and other fraudsters
Citations?
until the dreaded state stepped in and forced some rules on them
I'm yet to see evidence, the state's rules are helping.
the unregulated, free market encourages cheating, fraud and ruthless exploitation
You promise, I'll find evidence of this, but you aren't offering any such evidence yourself. The burden of proof is on you — put up or shut up.
even if you think Communism is a bad thing in itself, its failings have less to do with the state control and more to do with poor administration and inability to build trust between individuals and the state
Despite several attempts — by people of various racial, cultural, and religious backgrounds, Communism has failed spectacularly. Despite killing over 90 million people in 20th century and left the destitute survivors with neither human rights nor material wealth. It really is a "bad thing in itself", whatever spin you may attempt to put on it as you not-so-subtly attempt to justify "trying again".
Chinese cheat. Period. Ex-Soviets and formerly-Cubans do too. No, this is not "racism" — the trait is not genetic, it is cultural. When you are dealing with the abusive State for most of the things, cheating is the only way to have a reasonably comfortable life. It is not considered wrong or dishonest — everybody does it.
Western world weren't cheating quite so much not because they are racially superior somehow, but simply because they don't interact with the State as much as victims of Socialism/Communism are forced to.
It is coming to America as well — and not just with the immigrants, but with the "natives" too, because the State (comparably abusive in all countries) is increasingly in charge of various aspects of our lives. From tax-evaders, to highway speeders swearing they "didn't do it", to "workman's compensation" false claims, to Medicare fraud — cheating the government and the fugly bureaucrats who represent it is Ok.
And then you forget to stop and cheat even the business partners... Consider it PTSD — with Socialism being the trauma.
What if Joe the Revolutionary and Bob the Bomber are the only people in a particular train car.
It is a good question, and I'm not prepared to answer. The judge will decide, whether this evidence against them will be admissible in trial. But the bombing will have been prevented, one hopes.
I also feel sorry for anyone accused by this software
Any place I worked for before would've used the flags raised by such software only to alert the manager. It would be up to him then to decide how (and even whether) to act.
Staffing is a difficult and expensive part of running a corporation. Maybe, not for burger-joints — but certainly for anything using corporate e-mail to begin with. Firing or even disciplining an otherwise useful employee over his being tired or experiencing a financial strain is rather counter-productive.
Why aren't these systems running afoul of both state and federal wiretapping laws?
It is public transit. There is no "wire" being tapped and your conversation is not private. If a person next to you can hear/see — and record — audio/video of your conversation, so can the government.
That person next to you can deliver their recording to the police, automating it all simply makes law-enforcement's job easier. No, I don't like it either, but there is nothing illegal about it. The great technologies give us increasingly smart personal devices and digital assistants. It is providing police with similarly awesome new capabilities — would've been strange, if it did not...
To all of the Orwell's fans out there — Big Brother used the tech to detect and suppress dissent. TSA is using it to protect us. It is dangerous — for some day the technology and hardware already in place may be used to target opposition — but that hasn't happened yet and other places (like North Korea) successfully keep the tabs on without such tech.
The goal of audio recording on public transit is to provide evidence in a court case.
Not just that — they may be able to parse the words (the way Siri, Alexa, et al do already) looking for certain terms and expressions to alert human operators to the conversation.
There must be clear rules in place for who can have access to the recordings and under what authorization
Public transit is, by definition, public. If a person next to you can overhear it — and even record it on his smartphone unbeknown to you — then so can police. It just makes their job much easier.
I too am rather uncomfortable with these developments, but there is nothing illegal about them. And, no, we do not need rules, which TSA and others will write and then change to suit themselves. We need laws — set by lawmakers, binding for the police, enforced by the courts...
Slashdot Mirror
Now, for the umpteenth time, that was spent to prove, Clinton lied under oath. The proof was successfully secured and Clinton was punished for that perjury.
You aren't citing any such claims, so they probably have not been made. It is quite obvious, however, that FBI was leaned on — likely by the White House.
She needs to go to jail for mishandling classified information. FBI's report stated, she did it — suck it up, cupcake, while the rest of us are sucking up the sorry reality, that laws are for "little people".
We had problems with embassies before, but only after Benghazi was the Secretary of State lying to the public and Congress about it. Any I mean "lying" as in "knowingly telling an untruth".
We hate her — and you should too — for this lying. Her dishonesty is so bad, NY Times, of all publications, called her a "congenital liar" in 1996 — twenty years ago! Do you suppose, she improved with age?
When a person make directly contradictory statements, one of them is a lie. But which one?
Was he lying then, or is he lying now?
Developer-numbers aren't the bottleneck...
I happen to know, how open source projects work better than 99.9% of people on the planet. Payment is not the issue. Open source developers work because it scratches a particular itch — and for the "bragging rights". Design-decisions of the senior developer(s) of the project are what rules it all.
And the quiche-eaters, who would've been laughed at only 20 years ago, are increasingly making those decisions: yes, 100 million users may each need to buy $30 worth of RAM to use our next version ($3 bln), but we aren't going to spend an extra week coding the new features so that the upgrade does not increase memory-requirements. As I keep repeating in this thread, the bulk of hardware advancements have been spent on convenience of developers, rather than of users. And that's unfortunate...
That's true, but the point is not entirely about speed. If the GUI desktop or a browser is taking up most of the workstation's RAM, then there is a problem. As I type this, my Firefox is using over 2Gb of RAM — WTF? Thunderbird is another 1.5Gb — and, although the two apps compile from near-identical code base, their authors make no attempt to share the shared libraries. Both and use their own separate libxul.so (73Mb each) for example — look on your own box for confirmation.
The typical answer from the quiche-eaters — "Memory is cheap, go buy more" — is bogus.
Are there? We are talking about open source here. Programmers participate in such projects, because they like the process — not get paid (from a limited pool).
False. An efficiently-written program will be faster on all hardware — old and new. A poorly-written one may be fast enough on the newer computer, but a well-written one will still beat it.
That formula is only applicable for small audiences of specialized software. Things like desktop GUIs, web-browsers and e-mail clients, editors and word-processors are used by millions of people while the developer base is counted in low hundreds. There is no justification in forcing millions of users to throw out their old machines because a handful of developers can't be bothered to write well.
Wow, condescending much? No, it will not work — old versions stop getting security updates. Oh, and I never liked any Linux distro — they tend to be for punks, not for professionals...
He sure is an attractive guy...
No, I like Godwin's Law...
His billions laugh at you, while winking at the "average citizen".
Why do you hate America?
Could you cite a few examples, please? Thank you!
Arguably, getting acquitted would've helped her a lot, whereas avoiding indictment is certainly damaging.
Yes, this perception damages her — because Trump, for all his money, is not (yet) of the ruling class.
Throw the bums out.
Anyone with a favorable view of Bernie Sanders needs to explain, how his proposals differ from those of Hugo Chavez.
Only one of those two people has deliberately and knowingly mishandled classified information and profoundly failed in all government positions occupied so far (including that of the First Lady). The other one is alleged to be racist.
The choice is clear.
3. Russia realizes, its "spiritual legacy" lies in the North rather than (or in addition to) the South, and occipies the entire Scandinavia in a couple of months.
As long as Russia remains a mad dog, money and efforts should be spent on putting it down, unfortunately, not on the niceties, that only excite and attract it.
Because with 16-bit pointers, you are limited to process-sizes of 65Kb only, which is too small. 32 bit gives you enough of process virtual memory.
As I said — Moore's law gave computers, that are 4096 times more powerful today, than what we had 18 years ago. Would you say, user experience is 4096 times better today, than in 1998?
No, it is not. It is a lot better, but on that scale, however you measure it. Various things continue to suck as they did before: databases and applications still want more memory. In 1996 I would take me three days to rebuild FreeBSD "world" — today it takes 3 hours. A 24-times improvement, instead of 4000-fold.
Where did the hardware-gains go was my question and "developers ate it" is my answer. Every time somebody makes a choice of "complicated but efficient" vs. "simple but hardware-demanding" towards the latter, the users lose. Every time you choose Python/Java/Go/Scala over C, you sacrifice some hardware of all of your users for your own convenience.
Yes, of course. But you don't have to switch the OS to 64-bit to make use of those hardware capabilities. And even where you do, that may be the user's choice — developers should not be forcing it. Certainly not for the bogus reasons like "we can't find i386 hardware"...
What's "legitimate"? Is it "legitimate" to want to be able to handle 50% more simultaneous TCP-connections to your server or from your desktop, for example? Look at my earlier post for differences in sizes of several vital data-structures.
Now, is it "legitimate" for developers to "steal" the hardware gains for their own benefit?
You can change time_t to int64_t at any time — with the next major release of your OS. You do not need to switch everything to 64-bit just for that.
Define "normally"... On a busy web-server, for example, the number of simultaneous connections is limited by the maximum number of sockets and files, that can be opened and processes or threads, that can run. All of those structures have lots of pointers... And even where they don't, the alignment optimizations often pad them, leading to (much) bigger sizes. For example, right now on my two FreeBSD-boxes:
sizeof(FILE) i386: 236, amd64: 312 sizeof(struct socket) i386: 424, amd64: 696 sizeof(struct proc) i386: 776, amd64: 1272So, if you use Apache, which uses a process (or even a thread) per active connection, you need about 50% as much memory for the same number of simultaneous connections.
Something similar can be said for Firefox and any other user application.
Those registers are largely available to 32-bit processes — just specify the right -march to your compiler. Yes, 64-bit mode does give your something — no question about it. Point is, it is not free...
What's there to "find"? You can kick-off a 32-bit VM under any hypervisor — both on the cloud or on your own desktop. You can automate the VM-creation and tear-down on your build-farm quite easily.
I too strongly prefer to have a system, where size_t is equal to off_t (so you could mmap an entire file and not worry about it), but that is not "free". 64-bit pointers are, obviously, twice-wider than 32-bit ones, so "hairy" structures — with lots of pointers in them — nearly double in size. If none of your processes require more than 4Gb of virtual memory, there is no reason — other than the developers' laziness — to go 64-bit.
Whether it is an OS embedded inside a router or a point-of-sale machine, or even a single-user web-and-email desktop, 32-bit is perfectly sufficient and the overhead of 64-bit not justified.
And that laziness is what is keeping us back... Over the last 18 years, according to Moore's law, our computers have become at least 2^12 times more powerful. Now ask yourself, is the user-experience — however you choose to measure it — 4096 times better than it was in 1998? And, if it is not, where did the gains in hardware go?
By refusing to setup/use tens or even hundreds of 32-bit test-systems, developers force thousands and millions of users to upgrade. That is not a fair trade-off.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. So it is now Ok, in your opinion, to imprison the remaining deniers and to erase (or otherwise keep inaccessible) the raw data, that has once lead our betters to these universally-accepted conclusions?
Or do you still agree, criminal prosecution of dissenters (however unreasonable they may be themselves) is wrong and unavailability of the data — suspicious?
Please, confirm. Thank you!
Is not it great, that such Scientific scepticism remains legal and the raw data remains available for anyone trying to replicate the earlier findings of others?
Quite often, "median" and "average" are used interchangeably, though that is not always correct.
Ah, once again, Illiberal "Progressives" redefine terms to suit their agenda...
Sorry, would not fly. The dictionary says (emphasis mine):
I am aware of folks like yourself, who would — incorrectly — claim "racism", where there is not any.
Citations?
I'm yet to see evidence, the state's rules are helping.
You promise, I'll find evidence of this, but you aren't offering any such evidence yourself. The burden of proof is on you — put up or shut up.
Despite several attempts — by people of various racial, cultural, and religious backgrounds, Communism has failed spectacularly. Despite killing over 90 million people in 20th century and left the destitute survivors with neither human rights nor material wealth. It really is a "bad thing in itself", whatever spin you may attempt to put on it as you not-so-subtly attempt to justify "trying again".
I think, you meant "median"...
Chinese cheat. Period. Ex-Soviets and formerly-Cubans do too. No, this is not "racism" — the trait is not genetic, it is cultural. When you are dealing with the abusive State for most of the things, cheating is the only way to have a reasonably comfortable life. It is not considered wrong or dishonest — everybody does it.
Western world weren't cheating quite so much not because they are racially superior somehow, but simply because they don't interact with the State as much as victims of Socialism/Communism are forced to.
It is coming to America as well — and not just with the immigrants, but with the "natives" too, because the State (comparably abusive in all countries) is increasingly in charge of various aspects of our lives. From tax-evaders, to highway speeders swearing they "didn't do it", to "workman's compensation" false claims, to Medicare fraud — cheating the government and the fugly bureaucrats who represent it is Ok.
And then you forget to stop and cheat even the business partners... Consider it PTSD — with Socialism being the trauma.
It is a good question, and I'm not prepared to answer. The judge will decide, whether this evidence against them will be admissible in trial. But the bombing will have been prevented, one hopes.
Any place I worked for before would've used the flags raised by such software only to alert the manager. It would be up to him then to decide how (and even whether) to act.
Staffing is a difficult and expensive part of running a corporation. Maybe, not for burger-joints — but certainly for anything using corporate e-mail to begin with. Firing or even disciplining an otherwise useful employee over his being tired or experiencing a financial strain is rather counter-productive.
File a FOIA-request...
It is public transit. There is no "wire" being tapped and your conversation is not private. If a person next to you can hear/see — and record — audio/video of your conversation, so can the government.
That person next to you can deliver their recording to the police, automating it all simply makes law-enforcement's job easier. No, I don't like it either, but there is nothing illegal about it. The great technologies give us increasingly smart personal devices and digital assistants. It is providing police with similarly awesome new capabilities — would've been strange, if it did not...
To all of the Orwell's fans out there — Big Brother used the tech to detect and suppress dissent. TSA is using it to protect us. It is dangerous — for some day the technology and hardware already in place may be used to target opposition — but that hasn't happened yet and other places (like North Korea) successfully keep the tabs on without such tech.
Not just that — they may be able to parse the words (the way Siri, Alexa, et al do already) looking for certain terms and expressions to alert human operators to the conversation.
Public transit is, by definition, public. If a person next to you can overhear it — and even record it on his smartphone unbeknown to you — then so can police. It just makes their job much easier.
I too am rather uncomfortable with these developments, but there is nothing illegal about them. And, no, we do not need rules, which TSA and others will write and then change to suit themselves. We need laws — set by lawmakers, binding for the police, enforced by the courts...