I'm of the opinion that a published limit based simply on (total monthly backbone transfer capacity)/(number of users), perhaps with an extra multiplier to account for those users who don't consume their total allowance, would be more sensible and more user friendly than the current method of selling "unlimited" and complaining when the users go over 10% of that.
I don't think your proposed metric is a fair statement of the service that a properly run ISP would provide you. See, the point of overselling in a correctly run ISP is that you can regularly get maximum speeds that are higher than uplink/subscribers. It's not unreasonable for a properly run ISP to advertise the maximum bandwidth that customers can achieve.
It's only when you get into improperly run ISPs advertising this number that things get problematic. But it sounds like the right thing to do is to allow ISPs to advertise subscriber maximum speeds only if they meet certain technical standards; e.g., uplink utilization at peak hours falls below a certain threshold, like 85%.
As others have pointed out, it is in the Tier 1 providers INTERESTS to create artificial scarcity of bandwidth. A Tier 3 provider buying upstream pipe from a Tier 2 should be federally mandated to buy at least 50% of the bandwidth he is selling in aggregate to end customers.
Eh, no, this is bullshit. The practice that/. nerds keep decrying as "overselling" is the whole damn point of having a shared network. I don't put 50% utilization on my broadband pipe; I don't want to pay for the network that supports that.
If you want to be ambitious about this, what you should go for is (a) separate the last-mile cable owners from the ISPs, so as to create a competitive market for the latter, (b) force ISPs to disclose upstream bandwidth utilization metrics on an ongoing basis.
In philosophy a bunch of people agree that some one was/is a great philosopher and so they give more value to a statement from such person. The credibility flows from the speaker to the statement.
This is what always drove me up the wall in my philosophy classes. I remember reading Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy and thinking "Ok, sure, the arguments that I could be misled about existence are decent, and sure, I have to exist, but everything past his second meditation is refutable". Maybe it's a matter of not having been born in an age where god is taken for granted (or at least those with opposing viewpoints aren't killed/tortured/ridiculed), but the arguments are just plain weak.
You've reached an odd combination of (a) getting the point and (b) missing the point that you've gotten the point. What you've stated is, very succinctly, what the subsequent Western philosophical tradition thought about Descartes ever after. When you read all those other post-Cartesian philosophers, it helps enormously to understand that they more or less agreed with Descartes' first meditation, but thought the subsequent ones were weak...
That's a remarkably dense collection of bullshit you've managed to put into that post, and it would be hard to untangle it all. I'll just scratch at the surface:
Wittgenstein very clearly did not want to "smear of of the patina" on himself of "the tremendous success of physics at figuring shit out." In fact, Wittgenstein (a) had a faint dislike for science, (b) thought that philosophers should leave other people alone in general, scientists included. Granted this is not at all obvious from the Tractatus (it only really becomes explicit in the Philosophical Investigations), and can only be gleaned from reading biographical material on him; that might make him a bad writer, but it makes you wrong.
The idea that reading the Tractatus is like reading a modern computer science proof inverts the credit. Do you think computer scientists invented logic? No, buddy, logicians invented computer science.
Socrates did not invent the syllogism. That was Aristotle.
Computer science has figured out taxonomy in practice? Really? So CS has banished the Circle-Ellipse Problems, or non-disjoint taxonomies from practice? Hell, hopelessly bad taxonomies are endemic to "object-oriented" design and modeling. (And where exactly did you run into a philosopher talking about "is-a" and "has-a"?)
Actually, I would say that at its heart Computer Science is Logic (that is, Mathematics), and is therefore actually closer to Logic, or Mathematics.
Mod this AC insightful. That is exactly it. That is why I suspect Pascal is often used, because it has one of the least abstracted set of logical operators out there.
No, you don't understand GP's comment. This has nothing to do with Pascal. What it comes down to is that a lot of fundamental CS theory grew out of mathematical logic, or feeds back into it. Before there was any CS, logicians worked on decision problems for logical languages and theories; Turing and Church's foundational CS work was, at its heart, about this.
After that, the major later theoretical advance in CS is the Curry-Howard Correspondence—which is an equivalence between models of computation and systems of logic.
.. On top of that, right before the war they gave the North Koreans 70,000+ ethnic Korean soldiers from the Chinese People's Liberation Army, including two already-organized, experienced ethnic Korean divisions that had fought in the Chinese civil war. Kim Il Sung invaded the south only after Mao promised to send forces if the USA intervened..
Agree that there was a large influx of korean troops returning to NK after the end of the chinese civil war, but these weren't members of the chinese PLA (which didn't exist at the time). Those troops formed the KVA (Korean Volunteer Army) that fought side by side with the CCP forces.. the chinese forces in the korean war called themselves the People's Volunteer Army in tribute to the KVA since they were reciprocating the help they got from the KVA.
Ok, I've reviewed Millett on this, and here's what I find:
"The Chungking coalition trained young Korean men for the Korean Restoration Army and sent some of them north to join partisan groups; if these men did not die in battle, they usually ended up in the ranks of the People's Liberation Army, which formed its own Korean auxiliary, the Korean Volunteer Army, a force that numbered only five hundred to one thousand men in 1945. Most Koreans who joined the People's Liberation Army simply went into the army's regular divisions and by 1945, it had at least two Korean divisions and probably forty thousand Korean soldiers in its ranks." (p. 41)
"The Chinese provided the edge the KPA [Korean People's Army, the North Korean Army] required to move into position just north of the Thirty-eight Parallel. In July 1949 the Korean 166th Division, People's Liberation Army, joined the North Korean Army as its Sixth Division. The next month, the 167th Division transformed itself into the Fifth Division, KPA. Only the senior officers changed positions. By the end of the year, the KPA had formed another division from Sino-Korean veterans in Manchuria." (p. 194)
The full reference: Allan R. Millett, 2005. The War for Korea, 1945-1950: A House Burning. University of Kansas Press.
Agree that there was a large influx of korean troops returning to NK after the end of the chinese civil war, but these weren't members of the chinese PLA (which didn't exist at the time). Those troops formed the KVA (Korean Volunteer Army) that fought side by side with the CCP forces.
Thanks for the correction. I'm currently reading Allan R. Millett's The War for Korea, but I may have misread some pieces.
Neither Stalin or Mao or Kim Il Sung actually anticipated the US to intervene going by the statements that the US had made and the lack of assistance to SK (military or economical). And while Mao did intervene quite strongly, he wasn't consulted in the lead up to the start of the war.. rather he was kept in the dark because Stalin didn't trust Mao. Later on Stalin egged Mao on to intervene, but that was after the war turned bad for NK.
...And now I must say, however, that Millett's work contradicts you here. According to Millett, Stalin told Kim Il Sung was that he would only support invasion of the South if Kim obtained Mao's approval and support. Kim then went to Mao, who actually checked with Stalin before giving Kim the go-ahead.
I've only made it as far as early July 1950 so far, but the last few pages I read say that Stalin at this point, given that the capture of Seoul had failed to fell the southern government, was asking Mao to move troops to Manchuria.
This is my first book on the Korean War, so I don't know how it differs from other works, but does seem to be the most recent major English-language retrospective of the war.
The NK Army never lost a war, just battles. Don't forget that bit either.
No, the UN forces flat-out defeated the North Korean Army in 1950. The war only lasted beyond that because the Chinese took over. Just look at the strengths of the top 5 combatants (Wikipedia numbers, yeah):
China: 926,000
South Korea: 590,911
USA: 480,000
North Korea: 260,000
UK: 63,000
Yes, Communist China fielded 3.5x as many troops as the North Koreans. On top of that, right before the war they gave the North Koreans 70,000+ ethnic Korean soldiers from the Chinese People's Liberation Army, including two already-organized, experienced ethnic Korean divisions that had fought in the Chinese civil war. Kim Il Sung invaded the south only after Mao promised to send forces if the USA intervened. The Chinese Communists really, really threw their support behind North Korea.
Another thing that might be worthy of attention- one of the revelations to emerge from Wikileaks was the revelation that China was open to the possibility of a united Korea, under the control of Seoul.
Eh, the cable says that some dude in South Korea talked to some dude at the Chinese Embassy, and the dude from the Chinese Embassy said that he and a couple other people in the Chinese government would prefer a unified Korea under Seoul's government, but with certain economic and military concessions toward China. The Chinese dude also, IIRC, expressed regret that some guy who was dealing with the situation on China's behalf was a gung-ho old guard communist who disagreed with it.
There are factions in China that support reunification under southern rule. There are factions that don't. The question is which are going to win this one.
Or you could just use OSX and Time Machine and have it do auto backups for you. No need to nag unless it can't reach the backup server.
The problem is that the burglar can also steal the Time Machine or external HD.
Don't get me wrong, Apple have definitely done a nice job of making backup friendlier and more mainstream, but there's still a lot to do in that area. There's no Time Machine equivalent for off-site backup so far. (Not that there aren't friendly online backup solutions, but not with the level of friendliness and OS integration as Time Machine.)
Basically, the industry is not in any hurry to make all computers come with redundant storage, make OSes automatically keep multiple copies of everything, make all ISP accounts come with off-site backup, make encryption easy to use and secure enough for the population at large, etc.
No, el texto is certainly the direct object. For example, the verb doesn't agree with it: La máquina traduce el texto. La máquina traduce los textos. Las máquinas traducen el texto.
"Lo traduce el texto" is definitely not grammatical in standard Spanish, because it has two direct objects: "lo" and "el texto". It might be acceptable in some dialect I haven't come across.
Oh boy. This was one of the things I studied in my first year of grad school in Linguistics, so it was a long time ago. This is called "clitic doubling." I remember things being as follows:
Clitic doubling of indirect objects (Le dije a Juan vs. Dije a Juan) is obligatory or optional depending on dialect and register.
Some dialects, most notably Argentinian, allow clitic doubling of direct objects quite freely (or was it obligatorily? don't rememeber). I think there are also Andean Highland dialects that are highly influenced by native languages, and have a high degree of direct object clitic doubling.
Other dialects have restrictions on clitic doubling, but not an absolute prohibition; many analysts, however, fail to spot this fact, so I would not be surprised if you came across claims that it's ungrammatical.
Direct object clitic doubling in most Spanish dialects is permissible only in some conversational contexts, and IIRC depends on things like topic/focus structure of the dialogue, and parallel structure of coordinate clauses. The best examples I concocted in my research went something like this: A Pedro le mataron al hermano, a María le mataron a su madre, pero a Juan lo mataron a él. ("Peter, they killed his brother, Mary, they killed her mother, but John, they killed him"). In the final clause of that sentence, the direct object clitic doubling is in fact obligatory.
Actually, Lo traduce el texto, meaning "it translates the text," is actually grammatical in Spanish; but only works in certain conversational contexts, and definitely not in one like that. It'd have to be something like this:
Despues que uno entra el texto, qué hace la aplicación? ("After you enter the text, what does the application do?")
Lo traduce el texto. ("It translates the text.")
This is of course of no credit to the writers of this "translation" app. It seems to be looping over the words, looking them up in the dictionary and spitting out the top translation it gets for them, with no attempt to actually take care of word order or to use the context in which a word appears to choose the best translation.
As I pointed out, this is something that is so OBVIOUS in retrospect that it's a wonder other database products haven't gotten around to implementing it.
Um, SQL Server 2009 and Oracle have the MERGE statement, which is a SQL 2003 standards, and sounds like it is exactly what "ON DUPLICATE KEY" is from my quick Googling.
MySQL has the features I want, including ON DUPLICATE KEY. When pgsql has it, I'll certainly look at it, but unless things change, why bother?
Because you probably need a lot of things that you don't know enough about to want.
Given that employment contracts routinely require employees to disclose conflicts of interest, it should be at least a breach of that. But it could easily be corporate espionage, fraud, or something similar, because you're deliberately sabotaging your company's product for personal gain.
Why engage in mass speculation? Check out the code from the time period in question and audit it for a back door. I don't know why everyone should get up in arms over an allegation that may very well be unfounded.
Did you read Theo's email? He's basically saying that he's been told that somebody put a backdoor in, that he doesn't know whether it's true, and that all concerned parties should audit.
Who exactly are you implying is speculating who should be auditing instead? It seems to me like the people who should be auditing are doing so or planning to, and the people who can't audit it can't help but to speculate.
That isn't an issue if you don't oversell. If you sell x customers y available bandwidth you need to have x*y bandwidth available through peers.
A lot of people keep repeating this, but it's bullshit. No efficient network operates like that. The whole point of a network is to share the costs of a fast network, so that everybody can get a higher speed than the could otherwise. The only way to guarantee the performance you're demanding here is to use dedicated point-to-point links.
This comment by Late Adopter above lays it out fairly clearly. The total bandwidth demand by x users with connections of speed y is much lower than x*y. The shared network needs to provide that much upstream bandwidth. Comcast are in the wrong because they are evidently providing much less than the aggregate demand. Your "don't oversell" rule is wrong for the opposite reason, which is that it would provide way, way too much.
Well, a lot of the problem comes from the bastardization of the concept of INSURANCE when it comes to health care. Insurance should be there ONLY for catastrophic health events(ie heart attack, accident). Routine health expenditures, should be saved and budgeted for like any other necessity of life (food, shelter, beer...).
There's always somebody trotting out this argument. It's bullshit. Health insurance makes people who need very little healthcare overpay for it so that the ones who need a lot can underpay. That's insurance; it's a risk transfer scheme that the healthy ones pay a lot for because it protects them if they move over to the other group.
If you think that health insurance should work like car insurance, well, you're making a bad analogy between car accidents and help. Car insurance has these properties:
Episodic: you have a car accident, the insurance disburses a one-time settlement, and it's done for now. Car accidents don't last over lifetimes.
People who drive more have more accidents: so the car insurers actually should provide you disincentives against driving. Like, charging you based on how many miles you drive each year.
Health is not like that. Health problems are often chronic and require lifetime care. In addition, unlike with driving, where driving more tends to lead to more accidents and more costs, with health, more health care tends to lead to better health and fewer costs. That's why it makes sense for health insurers to pay for routine care (healthier patients = less cost), but not for auto insurers to pay for your gas (more driving = more accidents).
Why not go to insurance for more emergency usage, and expand the program for HSA's (Health Savings Accounts) for everyone, to save for their own routine medical/drug needs PRE-Tax, and unlike the FSA's, let everyone have a HSA that is not use it or lose it.
Because HSA plans can't protect you against the risk of a costly chronic condition. No recipe that models health insurance after the model of auto insurance can do it. If you learn at age 27, just when you've gotten your career really going, that you were born with a congenital problem that's going to require costly periodic treatments for the rest of your life, then you'd be fucked. And if, in addition, you're a valuable member of our society, we're all a little bit fucked for it, too, because instead of doing all the work you'd have done to benefit us all, you're not going to be able to afford the treatments that would allow you to be healthy enough to do that work.
Only if you are the government and can impose an estate tax. The doctor will see no money unless he treats a patient, and everyone knows dead patients are untreatable.
Eh, they'll treat you until you run out of money, and then they'll let you die. If you can't afford the next procedure, they'll just give you a cheaper one that'll just keep you alive for a while longer. End result = they get all your wealth.
Not to be trite, but just giving away money doesn't really help. Trillions have been pumped into Africa as Western aid over the years, and there is diddly-squat to show for it.
You know, a lot of it has indeed been disappointing, but saying that there's "diddly-squat" to show for it is plain wrong. And what's worse, it discourages people from donating, when there are in fact success stories—even if they might be outnumbered.
There is a number of nations in Africa that have managed to create a peaceful society without rampant corruption, where foreign help has made a difference and can continue to do so. They're not as much in the news because the news is always reportig the worse things, but there are places like Senegal or Cape Verde where progress is being made.
Over time, a halfway rationally managed pile of equities always has and always will grow in value.
Not that I disagree with your overall recommendations, but this is a common statement about investing that is just wrong. There is no lack of historical examples where this rule of thumb has failed. Take Germany from about 1870 up to 1945.
People who make these statements usually justify them by pointing at the performance of the US stock market, or the EAFE index. That is a case of survivor bias; you're judging stock market performance but leaving out the markets that performed so badly that they disappeared.
If all of the assets in a well balanced portfolio completely cease to exist, you can rest assured that there are far, far bigger problems than splitting hairs over whether it was smarter to buy a big pile of mosquito netting once, or setting up a foundation chartered to buy them regularly and forever.
It's a tax dodge... Foundations don't get taxed and you can take a fee for running it, or the board of directors...
Yeah, except that you have to give away more money than what you save in taxes, and the income from those fees for running it is taxed. Hell, if you're rich, donate to your own charity, and get paid back for running it, you might actually pay more in taxes: if your primary source of income is from long term capital gains, you're saving the 15% tax on those but paying 35% on the fee for running it.
Garbage collection interacts very badly with swap. Once your Java program starts hitting the disk, it will stand still for minutes. Bigger memory sizes are solving this problem nowadays.
swap allows on OS to move UNUSED applications / etc off to disk, so they can be restored later to main memory when they need to run. if your system is trying to run an application that's located in swap, that's called thrashing and any application is going to perform like crap.
You are wrong in two subtle but crucial ways here:
Swap (or, more accurately named, "paging") allows the OS to move unused MEMORY PAGES to disk. It doesn't happen on a per-application basis as you say; it's finer grained than that. If an application doesn't touch a page in its address space for a long time, that page can be swapped out to disk while leaving the process's active set in memory, freeing up memory for other things—even things that may benefit that one process (e.g., caching filesystem blocks that the process is using).
The reason garbage collection interacts badly with swap is that garbage collection needs to touch all of the memory pages in a generation. This means that memory pages that are really inactive often need to be swapped back into memory just so that the GC can look at them—for no good reason, since the objects were not in memory anyway...
I once read an interesting paper on an experiment where they modified a Java VM's garbage collector and a Linux kernel to be more aware of each other and improve performance: Garbage Collection Without Paging. Worth looking at. (There's also an amusing story of how the authors of the papers submitted a patch to get their GC-oriented advisory kernel calls into the Linux kernel, and got rejected by folks who didn't give a damn.)
From 10,000 feet, I'd say that one of the issues is that operating system kernels have been designed for C-style languages with manual memory management, and don't provide any services designed for garbage-collected languages.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm of the opinion that a published limit based simply on (total monthly backbone transfer capacity)/(number of users), perhaps with an extra multiplier to account for those users who don't consume their total allowance, would be more sensible and more user friendly than the current method of selling "unlimited" and complaining when the users go over 10% of that.
I don't think your proposed metric is a fair statement of the service that a properly run ISP would provide you. See, the point of overselling in a correctly run ISP is that you can regularly get maximum speeds that are higher than uplink/subscribers. It's not unreasonable for a properly run ISP to advertise the maximum bandwidth that customers can achieve.
It's only when you get into improperly run ISPs advertising this number that things get problematic. But it sounds like the right thing to do is to allow ISPs to advertise subscriber maximum speeds only if they meet certain technical standards; e.g., uplink utilization at peak hours falls below a certain threshold, like 85%.
As others have pointed out, it is in the Tier 1 providers INTERESTS to create artificial scarcity of bandwidth. A Tier 3 provider buying upstream pipe from a Tier 2 should be federally mandated to buy at least 50% of the bandwidth he is selling in aggregate to end customers.
Eh, no, this is bullshit. The practice that /. nerds keep decrying as "overselling" is the whole damn point of having a shared network. I don't put 50% utilization on my broadband pipe; I don't want to pay for the network that supports that.
If you want to be ambitious about this, what you should go for is (a) separate the last-mile cable owners from the ISPs, so as to create a competitive market for the latter, (b) force ISPs to disclose upstream bandwidth utilization metrics on an ongoing basis.
In philosophy a bunch of people agree that some one was/is a great philosopher and so they give more value to a statement from such person. The credibility flows from the speaker to the statement.
This is what always drove me up the wall in my philosophy classes. I remember reading Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy and thinking "Ok, sure, the arguments that I could be misled about existence are decent, and sure, I have to exist, but everything past his second meditation is refutable". Maybe it's a matter of not having been born in an age where god is taken for granted (or at least those with opposing viewpoints aren't killed/tortured/ridiculed), but the arguments are just plain weak.
You've reached an odd combination of (a) getting the point and (b) missing the point that you've gotten the point. What you've stated is, very succinctly, what the subsequent Western philosophical tradition thought about Descartes ever after. When you read all those other post-Cartesian philosophers, it helps enormously to understand that they more or less agreed with Descartes' first meditation, but thought the subsequent ones were weak...
That's a remarkably dense collection of bullshit you've managed to put into that post, and it would be hard to untangle it all. I'll just scratch at the surface:
Actually, I would say that at its heart Computer Science is Logic (that is, Mathematics), and is therefore actually closer to Logic, or Mathematics.
Mod this AC insightful. That is exactly it. That is why I suspect Pascal is often used, because it has one of the least abstracted set of logical operators out there.
No, you don't understand GP's comment. This has nothing to do with Pascal. What it comes down to is that a lot of fundamental CS theory grew out of mathematical logic, or feeds back into it. Before there was any CS, logicians worked on decision problems for logical languages and theories; Turing and Church's foundational CS work was, at its heart, about this.
After that, the major later theoretical advance in CS is the Curry-Howard Correspondence—which is an equivalence between models of computation and systems of logic.
.. On top of that, right before the war they gave the North Koreans 70,000+ ethnic Korean soldiers from the Chinese People's Liberation Army, including two already-organized, experienced ethnic Korean divisions that had fought in the Chinese civil war. Kim Il Sung invaded the south only after Mao promised to send forces if the USA intervened ..
Agree that there was a large influx of korean troops returning to NK after the end of the chinese civil war, but these weren't members of the chinese PLA (which didn't exist at the time). Those troops formed the KVA (Korean Volunteer Army) that fought side by side with the CCP forces .. the chinese forces in the korean war called themselves the People's Volunteer Army in tribute to the KVA since they were reciprocating the help they got from the KVA.
Ok, I've reviewed Millett on this, and here's what I find:
"The Chungking coalition trained young Korean men for the Korean Restoration Army and sent some of them north to join partisan groups; if these men did not die in battle, they usually ended up in the ranks of the People's Liberation Army, which formed its own Korean auxiliary, the Korean Volunteer Army, a force that numbered only five hundred to one thousand men in 1945. Most Koreans who joined the People's Liberation Army simply went into the army's regular divisions and by 1945, it had at least two Korean divisions and probably forty thousand Korean soldiers in its ranks." (p. 41)
"The Chinese provided the edge the KPA [Korean People's Army, the North Korean Army] required to move into position just north of the Thirty-eight Parallel. In July 1949 the Korean 166th Division, People's Liberation Army, joined the North Korean Army as its Sixth Division. The next month, the 167th Division transformed itself into the Fifth Division, KPA. Only the senior officers changed positions. By the end of the year, the KPA had formed another division from Sino-Korean veterans in Manchuria." (p. 194)
The full reference: Allan R. Millett, 2005. The War for Korea, 1945-1950: A House Burning. University of Kansas Press.
Agree that there was a large influx of korean troops returning to NK after the end of the chinese civil war, but these weren't members of the chinese PLA (which didn't exist at the time). Those troops formed the KVA (Korean Volunteer Army) that fought side by side with the CCP forces.
Thanks for the correction. I'm currently reading Allan R. Millett's The War for Korea, but I may have misread some pieces.
Neither Stalin or Mao or Kim Il Sung actually anticipated the US to intervene going by the statements that the US had made and the lack of assistance to SK (military or economical). And while Mao did intervene quite strongly, he wasn't consulted in the lead up to the start of the war .. rather he was kept in the dark because Stalin didn't trust Mao. Later on Stalin egged Mao on to intervene, but that was after the war turned bad for NK.
...And now I must say, however, that Millett's work contradicts you here. According to Millett, Stalin told Kim Il Sung was that he would only support invasion of the South if Kim obtained Mao's approval and support. Kim then went to Mao, who actually checked with Stalin before giving Kim the go-ahead.
I've only made it as far as early July 1950 so far, but the last few pages I read say that Stalin at this point, given that the capture of Seoul had failed to fell the southern government, was asking Mao to move troops to Manchuria.
This is my first book on the Korean War, so I don't know how it differs from other works, but does seem to be the most recent major English-language retrospective of the war.
The NK Army never lost a war, just battles. Don't forget that bit either.
No, the UN forces flat-out defeated the North Korean Army in 1950. The war only lasted beyond that because the Chinese took over. Just look at the strengths of the top 5 combatants (Wikipedia numbers, yeah):
Yes, Communist China fielded 3.5x as many troops as the North Koreans. On top of that, right before the war they gave the North Koreans 70,000+ ethnic Korean soldiers from the Chinese People's Liberation Army, including two already-organized, experienced ethnic Korean divisions that had fought in the Chinese civil war. Kim Il Sung invaded the south only after Mao promised to send forces if the USA intervened. The Chinese Communists really, really threw their support behind North Korea.
Another thing that might be worthy of attention- one of the revelations to emerge from Wikileaks was the revelation that China was open to the possibility of a united Korea, under the control of Seoul.
Eh, the cable says that some dude in South Korea talked to some dude at the Chinese Embassy, and the dude from the Chinese Embassy said that he and a couple other people in the Chinese government would prefer a unified Korea under Seoul's government, but with certain economic and military concessions toward China. The Chinese dude also, IIRC, expressed regret that some guy who was dealing with the situation on China's behalf was a gung-ho old guard communist who disagreed with it.
There are factions in China that support reunification under southern rule. There are factions that don't. The question is which are going to win this one.
Or you could just use OSX and Time Machine and have it do auto backups for you. No need to nag unless it can't reach the backup server.
The problem is that the burglar can also steal the Time Machine or external HD.
Don't get me wrong, Apple have definitely done a nice job of making backup friendlier and more mainstream, but there's still a lot to do in that area. There's no Time Machine equivalent for off-site backup so far. (Not that there aren't friendly online backup solutions, but not with the level of friendliness and OS integration as Time Machine.)
Basically, the industry is not in any hurry to make all computers come with redundant storage, make OSes automatically keep multiple copies of everything, make all ISP accounts come with off-site backup, make encryption easy to use and secure enough for the population at large, etc.
No, el texto is certainly the direct object. For example, the verb doesn't agree with it: La máquina traduce el texto. La máquina traduce los textos. Las máquinas traducen el texto.
"Lo traduce el texto" is definitely not grammatical in standard Spanish, because it has two direct objects: "lo" and "el texto". It might be acceptable in some dialect I haven't come across.
Oh boy. This was one of the things I studied in my first year of grad school in Linguistics, so it was a long time ago. This is called "clitic doubling." I remember things being as follows:
Direct object clitic doubling in most Spanish dialects is permissible only in some conversational contexts, and IIRC depends on things like topic/focus structure of the dialogue, and parallel structure of coordinate clauses. The best examples I concocted in my research went something like this: A Pedro le mataron al hermano, a María le mataron a su madre, pero a Juan lo mataron a él. ("Peter, they killed his brother, Mary, they killed her mother, but John, they killed him"). In the final clause of that sentence, the direct object clitic doubling is in fact obligatory.
Actually, Lo traduce el texto, meaning "it translates the text," is actually grammatical in Spanish; but only works in certain conversational contexts, and definitely not in one like that. It'd have to be something like this:
Despues que uno entra el texto, qué hace la aplicación? ("After you enter the text, what does the application do?")
Lo traduce el texto. ("It translates the text.")
This is of course of no credit to the writers of this "translation" app. It seems to be looping over the words, looking them up in the dictionary and spitting out the top translation it gets for them, with no attempt to actually take care of word order or to use the context in which a word appears to choose the best translation.
"Casco" is probably not in the limited vocabulary of the app (I'd assume 5000-10000 words, and "helmet" is probably not in there.)
No, actually, it sure looks like it has the word "casco" in it, but in the sense of "downtown" or "urban core" (casco urbano). Yeah, WTF.
As I pointed out, this is something that is so OBVIOUS in retrospect that it's a wonder other database products haven't gotten around to implementing it.
Um, SQL Server 2009 and Oracle have the MERGE statement, which is a SQL 2003 standards, and sounds like it is exactly what "ON DUPLICATE KEY" is from my quick Googling.
MySQL has the features I want, including ON DUPLICATE KEY. When pgsql has it, I'll certainly look at it, but unless things change, why bother?
Because you probably need a lot of things that you don't know enough about to want.
Given that employment contracts routinely require employees to disclose conflicts of interest, it should be at least a breach of that. But it could easily be corporate espionage, fraud, or something similar, because you're deliberately sabotaging your company's product for personal gain.
Why engage in mass speculation? Check out the code from the time period in question and audit it for a back door. I don't know why everyone should get up in arms over an allegation that may very well be unfounded.
Did you read Theo's email? He's basically saying that he's been told that somebody put a backdoor in, that he doesn't know whether it's true, and that all concerned parties should audit.
Who exactly are you implying is speculating who should be auditing instead? It seems to me like the people who should be auditing are doing so or planning to, and the people who can't audit it can't help but to speculate.
That isn't an issue if you don't oversell. If you sell x customers y available bandwidth you need to have x*y bandwidth available through peers.
A lot of people keep repeating this, but it's bullshit. No efficient network operates like that. The whole point of a network is to share the costs of a fast network, so that everybody can get a higher speed than the could otherwise. The only way to guarantee the performance you're demanding here is to use dedicated point-to-point links.
This comment by Late Adopter above lays it out fairly clearly. The total bandwidth demand by x users with connections of speed y is much lower than x*y. The shared network needs to provide that much upstream bandwidth. Comcast are in the wrong because they are evidently providing much less than the aggregate demand. Your "don't oversell" rule is wrong for the opposite reason, which is that it would provide way, way too much.
There's always somebody trotting out this argument. It's bullshit. Health insurance makes people who need very little healthcare overpay for it so that the ones who need a lot can underpay. That's insurance; it's a risk transfer scheme that the healthy ones pay a lot for because it protects them if they move over to the other group.
If you think that health insurance should work like car insurance, well, you're making a bad analogy between car accidents and help. Car insurance has these properties:
Health is not like that. Health problems are often chronic and require lifetime care. In addition, unlike with driving, where driving more tends to lead to more accidents and more costs, with health, more health care tends to lead to better health and fewer costs. That's why it makes sense for health insurers to pay for routine care (healthier patients = less cost), but not for auto insurers to pay for your gas (more driving = more accidents).
Because HSA plans can't protect you against the risk of a costly chronic condition. No recipe that models health insurance after the model of auto insurance can do it. If you learn at age 27, just when you've gotten your career really going, that you were born with a congenital problem that's going to require costly periodic treatments for the rest of your life, then you'd be fucked. And if, in addition, you're a valuable member of our society, we're all a little bit fucked for it, too, because instead of doing all the work you'd have done to benefit us all, you're not going to be able to afford the treatments that would allow you to be healthy enough to do that work.
Only if you are the government and can impose an estate tax. The doctor will see no money unless he treats a patient, and everyone knows dead patients are untreatable.
Eh, they'll treat you until you run out of money, and then they'll let you die. If you can't afford the next procedure, they'll just give you a cheaper one that'll just keep you alive for a while longer. End result = they get all your wealth.
You know, a lot of it has indeed been disappointing, but saying that there's "diddly-squat" to show for it is plain wrong. And what's worse, it discourages people from donating, when there are in fact success stories—even if they might be outnumbered.
There is a number of nations in Africa that have managed to create a peaceful society without rampant corruption, where foreign help has made a difference and can continue to do so. They're not as much in the news because the news is always reportig the worse things, but there are places like Senegal or Cape Verde where progress is being made.
Over time, a halfway rationally managed pile of equities always has and always will grow in value.
Not that I disagree with your overall recommendations, but this is a common statement about investing that is just wrong. There is no lack of historical examples where this rule of thumb has failed. Take Germany from about 1870 up to 1945.
People who make these statements usually justify them by pointing at the performance of the US stock market, or the EAFE index. That is a case of survivor bias; you're judging stock market performance but leaving out the markets that performed so badly that they disappeared.
If all of the assets in a well balanced portfolio completely cease to exist, you can rest assured that there are far, far bigger problems than splitting hairs over whether it was smarter to buy a big pile of mosquito netting once, or setting up a foundation chartered to buy them regularly and forever.
Yup. Bigger problems like, say, world war...
Yeah, except that you have to give away more money than what you save in taxes, and the income from those fees for running it is taxed. Hell, if you're rich, donate to your own charity, and get paid back for running it, you might actually pay more in taxes: if your primary source of income is from long term capital gains, you're saving the 15% tax on those but paying 35% on the fee for running it.
I was just reviewing this stuff a bit, and came across this paper which is just as interesting and relevant (PDF file): CRAMM: Virtual Memory Support for Garbage-Collected Applications (Ting Yang, Emery D. Berger, Scott F. Kaplan, J. Eliot B. Moss).
Garbage collection interacts very badly with swap. Once your Java program starts hitting the disk, it will stand still for minutes. Bigger memory sizes are solving this problem nowadays.
swap allows on OS to move UNUSED applications / etc off to disk, so they can be restored later to main memory when they need to run. if your system is trying to run an application that's located in swap, that's called thrashing and any application is going to perform like crap.
You are wrong in two subtle but crucial ways here:
I once read an interesting paper on an experiment where they modified a Java VM's garbage collector and a Linux kernel to be more aware of each other and improve performance: Garbage Collection Without Paging. Worth looking at. (There's also an amusing story of how the authors of the papers submitted a patch to get their GC-oriented advisory kernel calls into the Linux kernel, and got rejected by folks who didn't give a damn.)
From 10,000 feet, I'd say that one of the issues is that operating system kernels have been designed for C-style languages with manual memory management, and don't provide any services designed for garbage-collected languages.