Furthermore, the kernel is free to keep as many threads as it wants in a pool, it just doesn't have to do so. Keep a few around, so you can dispatch them quickly, create more if needed, and terminate any that returns when the thread pool is full - you'll still end up with less threads and associated overhead than with the current system.
So, you replace time with space. Fair enough. It's making a lot more sense now.
Of course, this would rely upon everything running in the same context. Threads aren't just "an execution state" they're attached to a execution context. If you just thread off everything out from the kernel, then you have a hojillion threads running around here and there in the kernel context. Not always the best idea, didn't work so well for DOS.
Yes, implementation is the major driving factor behind their slow nature. But you're mistaken that they're not a target for optimization. They've got a lot of optimization towards making them fast on Linux, mainly because they were destroying the performance of many features that made Windows significantly better than Linux.
Now, let's take your idea, multiple threads, keep them in some sort of "pool" where they wait to be reused. How is this different from establishing a event-handling thread and then putting it to sleep between events? You just have a "pool" of one thread, that handles events when they come in (that's all it's there for) and then handles it.
It's not a problem for a library to establish an event-handling API that allows for this automatically, you just say, "hey, I know you have an event-thread. If this condition happens, I want you to run that thread here."
To keep any sort of "thread pool" would require each process to have a seperate thread pool, and if you hold just a pitiful 5 threads in there per process, then you've just decreased the scalability of the OS by a factor of 5. If you're thinking of going with a single process that just threads out to everything, you run into the same process as I showed above, everything is running in the same memory space, and there's no memory protection anymore.
The design of a UI that has itself send its event-handler on long-lasting events is a poor design of the program, and not a fault of the computer. Even with your thread-per-event system, one can still write a poor behaving program that would break all of these advantages that you put forth.
There's an idea in CS, that you spend the most time optimizing and making fast the things that are most often executed, and spend the most time. Requiring a thread-spawn or a thread-reassignment per event handle would slow down things like keyboard input, or mouse input, that generally happens quickly, and generally can be handled quickly.
It should be designed such that long-running tasks or potentially long-running tasks can be spun off into their own thread, allowing them to execute while everything else continues. But it makes no sense to force this thread-spin-off for the simplest thing as a keyboard input, or worse, a timer interrupt.
These things need to be going fast. For instance in an emulator. Taking out just *one* instruction from the code-path of every instruction can gain you literally thousands or millions of instructions per second. Slowing down a very often occuring event, that can be handled fast is to make it conform to some "ideal" object-oriented nature, is not ideal.
Spinlock vs Mutex. The Mutex is more powerful, because if the mutex is locked when you go to check it, you can yield CPU time until it's free. But if the lock is only ever held for short periods of time, then you lose possibly a whole timeslice, just because it was taken. If the lock is only ever held for at most 10 instructions, then you're definitely wasting time using a Mutex, no matter how more powerful it is, or no matter how much it allows you to pre-empt the task for something that can continue execution at that instant in time.
I think you're looking at things a bit wrong. You need to consider that, aside from a few shows, almost all anime airs in Japan late at night (as in, after midnight). When they're shown on cartoon network during the day in the US and aimed towards children, its no surprise that theres a different standard to match as far as nudity goes. As far as language goes, you're also kind of pushing it when you say chikushou is a 'very strong curse word'. It's pervasiveness places it more along the lines of more mild experlatives such as "damn" or "damnit", which is how I've usually seen it translated.
And what about "kuso"? That's just as pervasive, and you can't tell me that it translates anything similar to "crap", because it means "shit". Look, some cultures don't have this big stigma against cursing, and guess what? It happens in subcultures of the US, also. "chikushou" may be pervasive, but that doesn't degrade its intensity. And its intensity is such that its one of the more offensive words out there.
If "chikushou" doesn't translate with intent to "fucking christ" then I'd like to know what you could possibly come up with that would be better.
As far as occuring late in the day, like, after midnight, I'd like you to explain to me a series I saw in Japanese language club, which was clearly shown in daytime television, where a young child let's say about 3 years old took out a magazine and pointed at it looking at him mom, and said, "Hey, mom, this girl has more hair on her crotch than you." Serious. There is no possible way that Japan could release so much anime that we deem partly offensive given only the after-hours of post-midnight.
For the record, the bikinis are drawn on to characters of such series as Tenchi Muyou, which is not "adult-only" content in Japan. And "chikushou", and at the very least "kuso" has been toned down in series such as Ranma 1/2, again, something that is not considered "adult-only" content in Japan.
I also saw an anime (wasn't paying too much attention) where a girl was saved and was running out of a cave butt naked. It looked in style much like Voltron or something like that, and I turned to a real Japanese person, and asked them, "Does this stuff really air during child viewing hours?" and he said, "This is a kids show, I don't watch it. But I'd have to suppose yeah."
What they're doing with the Simpsons is entirely different. They're editing it for actual content. Homer no longer drinks beer! How much of the show will they have to cut out, because it was based on Homer being drunk? This has been tried with some anime here in the past, and for the most parts, fans rejected it (Example: the butchered Cardcaptors dub that failed badly). Idealy, the Arab audience will do the same with Al Shamshoon, and they'll eventually get to see things as they were originally written. Maybe I'm just being overly optimistic tho, as I can't say I'm really in touch with their society.
I'm not saying that Al-Shamshoon's won't get labasted and ignored. I'm not even arguing that taking these drunken antics out of the series is going to make some episodes completely useless. But let's take maybe a decent match up here. Let's say there's an Anime about incest. Tons of the jokes are about a brother and a sister getting it on.
Holy cow! Would that have to be cleaned up to make it into the US televisions, and it would lose most of what made it funny.
Now, YOU as an american/other-western-european-culture-ian, may not see the link between beer and incest, but I can tell you that there are people who practice Islam where offering them alcohol or pork is a serious offense, and they'd be pissed.
Alcohol offends in very highly Muslim cultures. You may not think it matters that Homer gets drunk and makes an idiot of himself, but in a Muslim culture Omar would just about be the firey avatar of the devil, if he were to drink like he does in American TV.
Does this mean that they need to sober up, and realize that Alcoholism can be funny? No. Yeah, we think it's funny, and that Alcohol is fine, but they don't. Stop trying to oppress this opinion upon their culture.
Yeah, I totally agree.. that's why Blizzard can actually publish Macintosh title at the same time as their Windows titles, because they write portable games.
It's actually *not* that unusual that id would releaase two seperate graphics engines for Windows and Linux once you learn how they tend to work. They tend to write very highly optimized code-paths for anything that would benefit from this. Considering that Windows Vista will seriously damage OpenGL performance, and actually Windows OpenGL performance is massively less optimized than DirectX performance, it only makes sense that id would release a DirectX code path to support Windows as fast as they can.
id kind of takes a different approach to portability. They don't really so much write portable code, but write fast code for each ported OS, and video card. Yeah, I know it's weird, but it allows them to have some of the best performance in games than just about anyone else, and it works for them.
These changes to Al-Shamshoon's were not enacted by a restriction from the Government, it was a choice of the MBC to change the content to make it less offensive to arabic viewers.
The same thing that happens with Japanese Anime being "toned down" to not offend American parents. (trust me, the kids, likely wouldn't care at all.)
Re:Portage...
on
Quake 4 Linux
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Jon Caramack is generally a pretty wicked Apple fan. So expect a client for OSX at some point sooner rather than later.
Re:quake 4 linux
on
Quake 4 Linux
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This just didn't work. They released Quake 3 and RTCW on Linux also, but hardly anyone bought those. Sure it's good to let them know you support their Linux clients and servers, because then they'll keep doing the support that they are doing, but it's not going to make other people "wake up" and support Linux or even Mac OS.
Loki tried to market Linux games, and I bought just about every title that they had released, but it didn't save them, because there weren't enough people like me, who were willing to put their money where their mouth was.
Anyways, as much as I appreciate id for releasing Linux binaries and I love Blizzard for supporting the Macintosh, at the same time, don't think that just because some big name is porting their code to a particulr platform that you really love, isn't going to make other people do the same.
If it did, then this would be old news because Linux and Mac *would* have the same games that Windows has now. But fact is that these big names have supported Linux/Mac for a long time, and there's still very little more support now than there was before.
Look, the issue isn't that we're emasculating our own content. But you can't tell me that we're not pandering to christian values when... well, this is too long to put in a dependant clause, I explain.
Watch some Anime, originals from Japan. There are shows that are marketed to children, or young adults, or at least air during such hours that American families usually allow their children to watch TV. These shows have STRONG explicit words in them occationally, and nudity.
So, what do we do in America? Well, first we change the explicit words so that when say, an actor says "Chikushou" = very strong curse word, along the lines of "fucking christ!", or "kuso" = literally, "shit", we change these words to be "darn" or "dangit". I mean, we change the words coming out of the characters mouth from "JESUS FUCKING CHRIST THAT HURT!" to "OUCH! Hey man, that hurt!"
Next up is how to deal with nudity. Well, we have good examples of these... we just digitally insert bikinis on to them. There you go, all happy christian-safe now.
So, yes, the US does censor content coming from foreign countries, the same as this Al-Shamshoons does in Arabia.
Speaking of bacon, from TFA: "If Homer doesn't drink and eat bacon and generally act like a pig, which I guess is also against Islam, then it's not Homer."
Is Al Jean saying that Homer drinks bacon? I mean, not that I'd be surprised, but it is a little funny...
Plus, the guy is FROM Holland/The Netherlands, who are you to argue with him?
This is like where in High School, I had a German teacher argue with a Slovakian student about "in der Slovakei" (to Slovakia). The German teacher told her that it's "nach Slovakei" like every other rule-following country name. And the student, who learned German in Slovakia, and should have god-damn good reason to know this, insisted that it was one of the irregulars like "in den Nederlanden", "in den USA", and "in der Schweiz".
Did the teacher listen? No, because she wasn't paying attention to credentials just like you.
Do you realize that that spawning a new thread isn't just some lose, willy nilly thing that's efficient to do?
Should things be polling rather than event-driven? No, polling sucks, because it wastes CPU time if there's enough of a wait between events. Does that mean that you have to implement event-driven with new threads to handle things like keyboard input, etc? Hell no. That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard.
Why not just *interrupt* a thread that has asked to be interrupted for this purpose, and use that existing thread to handle the keyboard input. Because I tell you what, interrupting a thread is hella cheaper than spawning a new thread for the purpose of handling the event.
The US, the people that brought you the Iran-Contra affair, the militarization of guerillas in South America, the Bay of Pigs, the whole Iraq international argument, etc, etc, etc.
You might labast the UN for making some bad policy decisions, but the US does just as many. Don't act like it's not an innate property of human beings to make mistakes, or do something wrong. In fact, the more people you add into the mix, the more likely those mistakes become, and the more likely it is that people will use wrongful methods to gain things that they want.
Every government, and/or international group has done some very stupid shit over the course of time. Don't act like the US is immune.
But we as a country don't have any right to be telling China that they can't block out freedoms.
We have the right to tell them any fucking thing we please. First Amendment freedom of speech. The Chinese, for their part, don't have to listen to us. They can ignore us any time they like - and have, with their own national firewall. China, more than any other country on Earth, has opted NOT to listen to us, or anyone else, when it comes to the internet.
Emphasis added again so that maybe you can actually see what I'm trying to say here. There's no First Amendment in international politics. There's no First Amendment of the consitution of the world that says that the United States as a country, as a government has any right to tell another country what to do. I'm not talking about individual rights. Yes, you and I and everyone else in the US has the right to speak our minds about Chinese policy and government (which to me is stupid because we're not even citizens of their country, so in my opinion all our ranting and raving is stupid, because we have no legal authority or relevance to criticise their government, except as being a nosy neighbor. Like Mr XY across the street who says you should mow your lawn more often. Fuck you, it's my lawn, bitch.)
If you'd take ten seconds to think outside of individual rights, maybe you might realize that, hey, wtf? I'm talking about international relationships here, not personal criticisms of a government that isn't your own.
It's the same thing.
What a crock. Retaining control the DNS servers has nothing to do with 'imposing' freedom, or invading Iraq. Trying to connect these disparate ideas is both pathetic and ludicrous.
This is any different from trade embargos and trade restrictions, and human watch lists, and blah blah blah blah blah, the millions of international sanctions that have been and will be put out on countries just because we disagree with them?
One country forcing another sovereign country to do something against its own will, is wrong.
Tell that to China. Betcha they have something different to say when it comes to Tibet.
You're right they would have something different to say about it. China would say that Tibet is not a sovereign country. It sees it as a subjugate province to the Chinese government, and always has been. Just at one point, China wasn't really taking this leadership role that it should have been, but now it is.
But then we trade-embargoed Cuba, Iraq, and all sorts of other countries that we don't agree with, and make their economy suffer, and their citizens sufffer, in order to force them to do something
Yet another statement that has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. But since you seem to be incapable of sticking to the issue at hand, let me point out that *as a sovereign nation* the U.S. has every right in the world to NOT TRADE with other nations. No nation has a right to 'force' the U.S. to trade with it. Ever.
Does the US government have the right to tell its citizens that they're not allowed to deal with these governments? No, no one can ever force the US to trade with it, but there are companies that want to buy/sell with these countries, but they can't because of a trade embargo.
I'd liken a trade embargo to telling Joey who you don't like that he can't play with his ball, because you don't like something that he does. Yeah, you have every right to not let him play with your ball, but I still think it's pretty infantile.
Or telling your kid that he can't play with Billy XY across the street because they force their women to stay at home, and not work. Yeah, real mature. You may not agree with their lifestyle, but wtf are you teaching your kid? That it's ok to treat people like crap because you disagree with them.
Yeah, I agree with everything you're saying. It's just that people tend to lose sight of the "real" meaning of democracy in their strive for freedom. Much like people misusing "Occam's Razor" and "Begging the Question" from Philosophy.
No, I don't agree that the USSR's "democracy" was really all that much of a democracy. It was like a rigged democracy. Although, generally we accept that Mexico has long been a democracy, but until recently there's only been one party. You either voted for or against the guy, who was put up there to run for office.
Then you get into the question of if even the American way is all that democratic. Yes, we vote between freely standing people, but the majority of the time they're placed there and selected by their party. True, we tend to vote on who we want to represent our party in the next election, but for instance, a person of the republican party didn't have an option to say, "Hey, I don't think we should let Bush run for reelection." The party determined that he would run, and guess who the leader of the party that's in the White House is? Um... the President.
Now, granted any person can just up and run for president, we've seen a few independents, and lately 3rd party people are starting to come out of the wood work. But for the most part we are still vastly governed by an elite group of people who run their party relatively strictly. I mean, the party can outright tell some that they won't support their election. (Which is of course their right to do so.) But that's basically a relegation to 3rd party candidate and we've seen how they generally tend to fair in elections.
I've in fact heard from some Canadians that the Canadian parliment is run by the Prime Minister, who is also a member of the parliment, and is generally the leader of the party in control over the parliment (or over the coalition in control over the parliment) so that effectively, they have 4~8 year dictatorships, where the person in power controls the executive and the legislative branch in one fell swoop.
Crap, I'm ranting again. Um... so back to the topic. Yeah, Democracy != Freedom for All, right we agree. USSR's "democracy" was a piss poor democracy, and can hardly be called more than a sham, but it wasn't that far off from some of the actions taken by parties here in the US and other countries considered considerably more democratic. And democratic governments do tend to protect the rights of the people much better than other forms of government.
Democracy is pretty popular idea also, because the legitimacy of the government hangs upon the people giving the government such authority, and in a democracy that's the people generally giving most of that authority right back to themselves. Good Thing(tm) Rather than in some autocrat who dictates everything. No So Good Ting(tm) No matter how many people he saves from Hurricanes.;)
Heck, the U.S. has nuclear weapons, why should North Korea not have them?
Bad thinking, terrible logic.
No, North Korea shouldn't have nuclear weapons. But if you can argue that some people shouldn't have nuclear weapons, then no one should.
East Germany was some sort of democracy because they had that word in their title? I do not know where to begin with such nonsense.
No. God damn, "Democracy" is the single most misunderstood concept by modern America. Likely due to all of that "Democracy vs. Communism" crap from whenever that shit was going on. Democracy is a form of government, and Communism is a form of economy. They're not fundamentally opposing, like Confusionism and Christianity. (Confusious teaches secular ideology, not religious ideology)
"Democracy is a form of government in which policy is decided by the preference of the majority in a decision-making process, usually elections or referenda, open to all or most citizens and the protection of the human rights."
Easy enough. Ok, first, who are citizens? If you define that to be men in the communist party, then it's a democracy. How, oddly, defining citizen isn't unique to just East Germany, and the USSR. In the earliest history of our government, the only people who could vote were white male land-owners. I suppose the US hasn't been a democracy that long at all...
The part about "protection of human rights" is a misnomer. Nothing fundamental to democracy requires the government to protect human rights, only that all or most "citizens" are allowed to vote.
Citizenship is membership in a political community (originally a city but now usually a state), and carries with it rights to political participation; a person having such membership is a citizen. It is largely coterminous with nationality, although it is possible to have a nationality without being a citizen (i.e. be legally subject to a state and entitled to its protection without having rights of political participation in it)
See? I told you that countries can play games with the definition of "citizen".
Fundamentally there's a problem here because people confuse "Democracy" with an *ideology* of freedom, but it's not. It's a form of government. By nature of a Democracy, the citizenry will vote to protect their own rights, and the rights of the majority, but there is no guarentee that they will protect the rights of the minority.
That is a different fundamental that the US has taken on. Majority Rules, but Minority Rights.
Democracy != Freedom for All Democracy == Power in the hands of those who can vote.
Our military must be willing to sacrifice to ensure our freedom is not threatened by rogue states. If we were unwilling to use force to protect our freedom, we'd be speaking German or Japanese right now.
Sovereignty is not the ultimate right, individual freedom is.
China shouldn't be feeling this same way? I mean, imagine all the horrible irony of them saying: "If we don't do something to stop the USA, we'll be speaking English in 10 years!"
If China were unwilling to use force to protect their sovereignty, and freedoms, what's to stop them from lobbing a couple of nuclear missles our way?
We believe that individual freedom is what is the ultimate right, but what protects those rights? The sovereign state of the United States. Without that sovereignty then any government with the power could dictate to us that the constitution doesn't matter, and we're going to follow their rules from now on.
It's like copyrights being used to protect copylefts. Copylefts say that the end-user's rights are more important than all, but in order to have force to say that and enforce that, they need the copyrights that say that we can dictate any use that we want to.
Sovereignty shields the individual rights from other countries so China can't just come in and say, "Company XY, you're too powerful, we're taking all your assests into the Chinese government, so that we might better manage that power for the good of the people."
Do you have a moral duty to stop him? If you choose not to prevent his actions despite your ability to do so, does it mean you are partially responsible for the continued abuse?
This is the fundamental problem of dilemas, and free will. Are we morally obligated to protect his family? It's certainly not our job to do so. There's certainly no responsibilities that we have that might carry innately to protect them, beyond that we're human, and they're human, and we're aware of their plight. I see you're not arguing that it might be the responsibility of some person half way across the world to stop him. I'm sure you could certainly find someone in the world, who would be much better suited to the task of stopping this guy than yourself. Why would they not be responsible?
For that matter, what does being the largest person on the block have to do with being morally bound to stop him? Because you can? So, you're only responsible if you're aware of it and you are physically able to stop it? Couldn't one argue that no matter what your capability to stop him, it's your moral responsibility to try your best to stop him?
Bringing God into this just for a sec (as a piece of argument, you don't have to believe in him, you just have to accept that some people believe him to exist, and this question matter is important for them), since God is surely able to stop this (omnipotent) and he's surely aware of it (omniscencient) wouldn't that make it his moral duty to stop it?
You've already said: "The police are contacted, but the man is in business with the police chief and mayor and corruption has made them unwilling to prevent any of this." So, it's obvious to say that there are a number of people who have a moral duty to stop this, but already are not. So at issue here is not just the man beating his wife and kids, but also that the whole system is permitting this behavior and you consider it wrong, and you want to take action.
Now, say you're the Simpsons living next door to the Flanders. Your kid Bart is a horrible brat. Not only that, but you're a lazy bum, and just about everyone in your family has their problems. If you were the Flanders, is it your moral duty to rescue the kids from this situation, and give them a better life? You certainly could. Now, if you were the Simpsons, do you want them butting in on your business?
One may draw the line of moral responsibility to react only when they're breaking the law, but you have to understand that everyone will respond the same way, "this is my business not yours" no matter if it's a legal issue or not. That family-beater is going to tell you to mind your own damn busieness, you can be sure of that.
Fundamentally, it is not the responsibility of the individual to enforce the laws of their nation, state, county, and city, or other such divisions as they may exist. If the police department and the city government is not doing its job, then you let the next level up know, until someone does something to clean up that corruption, and save that family. You have no right to walk over and beat the shit out of that man, even if he is beating his family. But hey, free will, you can choose to ignore that you don't have a right to do it, and just go and beat his ass anyway, and teach him a lesson. Just expect consequences as a result of it. Is saving that family worth you going to jail for assault? Especially when it's not guarenteed that you'll save them permanently?
Rosa Parks knew she was going to get in trouble, and get arrested when she did what she did. She wasn't some clueless idiot who was just tired and didn't want to move back. Just because you believe that you are morally justified does not mean that you'll escape consequences for doing something. Most people into civil disobedience seem to forget this.
Anyways, I'm obviously ranting on a range of topics here. My answer: You're morally responsible for that family only if you feel or believe that you're morally responsible. You're also only at fault for allowing it to continue, if you feel or believe that you are responsible to stop it. No one else can dictate this moral duty upon you.
Why the hell should we not attempt to hold other nations accountable for their human rights record. Surely enough nations attempt to hold the US accountable for its record, with say, capital punishment. Besides, China built the so-called Great Firewall of China. They don't need to control root servers for that. BTW, are you one of those people who think that certain groups of people aren't ready for democracy and liberty?
Everyone is going to push their ideals and values on another group of people. That's just how things work. China is pushing on us (the USA) because we're driving technological innovation, and they're upset that effectively, their government is subject to US technology. A natural desire... if you were the CIA would you want to be running computers from China, with software from China?
One of my friends raised the response to me: "I wouldn't trust China or Iran with DNS." Um... did you stop to think maybe they wouldn't trust us to control DNS?
No, I don't think that some people "aren't ready" for democracy and "liberty". But let me remind you of a couple things. East Germany's official title was "German Democratic Republic". The USSR was a "democracy" and so is China. Citizens vote on issues, they really do. Just the definition of Citizen is a lot tighter. So, when you ask "why aren't they a democracy" you have to rephrase, "why aren't they a more open democracy?" at which point the same question can be asked of the US.
As for liberty, they have some very limited rights. They have free speech, until it crosses certain boundaries, like anti-governmental speech, unpopular speech, protesting, etc. So we rephrase to be more accurate: "why aren't they given more liberty." But again, the same can be asked of the US. In the US, you can't say whatever you want whenever. Speech actively threatening the US government or major officials through the act of force is not allowed, or at lease extremely discouraged to the point of a chilling effect. (As one Kuro5hin guy found out daring the Secret Service to do something about him saying he wanted to kill the President.) You're also not allowed to threaten someone verbally with the threat of physical violence. In an entirely free enviroment these sorts of actions should be encouraged, if not at least tolerated.
Many will bring up the issue that we restrict the freedoms of our masses in order to provide for their security. Guess what? China, and Cuba do the same thing. Did you know that Cuba loses almost no people to Hurricanes? Wanna guess why? Not because people are all good and happy, but because Cuba forces their citizens into shelters, and away from target areas, at gun point if necessary. Now, let me ask you? If your neighbor wants to stay in New Orleans for a Hurricane, what the hell is the US going to do about it? Oh yeah, let him die, because it's his right to remain in his household.
It's not that I don't think these people aren't ready for democracy and liberty, but as a Christian, I'm reminded of many times when questions were to Jesus asking if someone should pay taxes, or otherwise follow the Roman government (which I think we can all agree, was not as democratic or free as the US is). Jesus said that their leaders were placed there by God, and it's wrong to go against the will of God and to oppose your leaders, and to "pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's". These people live in a different government from us. Should we try and help them out and make their life better?
Remember the Golden Rule? "Do unto others what you would want done unto you."? Well, let's see here. How many rebel groups have we armed to fight off their governments, and in many ways that could be considered a terrorist activity? Why should we expect different against ourselves?
Here's the big question. What happens when China decides that the US is housing WMD (which the whole world knows) and that we need to disarm because we're threatening the security of their country? Should they ma
This is just a bunch of whiney bitches wanting to edge in on something they didn't do the work for but reap the benefits of. Let's not forget where the net (darpa) originated, eh?
Ok, let me rephrase this, and then I'll agree with you. "It's all stupid politics."
Exactly. The ICANN is doing a good job, so is the US. Just people are always annoyed by things dangled over them that they can't control.
Are they "whiney bitches" for wanting in on the "power" giving "authority" to the ICANN? I don't think so. It's a reasonable human response.
The point is that it's not the right of the United States to force this lack of censorship upon every country in the world.
I agree, it's awesome that information is free like this, and in the United States, it damn well ought to be free.
But we as a country don't have any right to be telling China that they can't block out freedoms. Yes, we try to all the time, because they're violating basic human rights, but this doesn't mean that we have any right to demand, and force change upon them.
As a show of hands, if you agree that the US should maintain controll of the internet for the Freedom of Expression for All Humanity (even though outside of the US jurisdiction), and you agree that US should have invaded Iraq even if they hadn't had WMD, because we were deposing a hated dictator, who was a threat to world security.
It's the same thing. No, we're not going in with soldiers and dictating our will upon China, Iran, and other countries with censorship. Rather, we're going in with our culture, and our technology, and doing the same thing. One country forcing another sovereign country to do something against its own will, is wrong.
But then we trade-embargoed Cuba, Iraq, and all sorts of other countries that we don't agree with, and make their economy suffer, and their citizens sufffer, in order to force them to do something, like pay attention to human rights. We all see how that works... apparantly the Internet is a safe "non-hostile" way to force these people to see things the way we do.
Reduplication is actually a linguistic term. It refers to repeating a word (obviously). In English, it's hardly ever correct. But you could make the case for things like "he is very, very stupid."
Japanese tends to use reduplication for Onomatopoeias. Thus you get things like "giri giri", "nyan nyan", "don don", etc.
Some languages ues it for indicating the plural. A case can be made here for Japanese: "ware ware" (us) from "ware" (I) Note though that "ware" is uncommon, and for that matter "ware ware" is also. Either way, these words have fairly specific societal conditions on their use, so don't think these are a) the only words for I/me and we/us, or b) socially appropriate for you to use. If you don't speak Japanese well enough to know if they can be applied by you in a given situation, then don't use them.
I think he would argue that they're not training mechanical methods to kill, but rather suppressing the natural state of a human to not want to kill.
Because he keeps claiming that the US military uses video games to supress the feeling that killing is wrong.
Actually, when I was in Army Basic Combat Training, the training that we had to suppress this was to shoot at human-shaped silhouettes, and bayonett man-shaped objects.
The Army has a lot of techniques for suppressing this desire to not kill, and none of them involve video games. We weren't even allowed to watch TV during Basic Combat Training.
Basically, the Army teaches you how to do your job, defend yourself, and attack points through wargames, that involve you shooting fellow Army mates on the other side with blanks and Miles gear (advanced lasertag stuff, really cool). The idea is you get so trained into really physically pointing an M-16 at someone and shooting at them, that you won't hesitate in the field.
This isn't something that can be matched in the computer rendered world. (Ok, there are simulators where you interact with a scene. This is what at least a few police departments do.)
My point is not just that video games lack sufficient AI to be sufficient for real world application, but also that even the "desensitation" that he claims happens doesn't really exist, because there's a difference between not giving a crap about shooting some gansta in a video game just 'cause he on you land, and handing that same person a real firearm with no expectations. They will not first thing take aim and shoot at people, because they don't care. Otherwise the military would train exclusively with actual computer games. I'm sure it's cheaper to hook up a huge LAN party than to stage war games. I mean, if the only thing standing in the way wasn't muscle memory and real life reactionary skills, but rather just simply a desensification to killing.
Hm... that applies so long as he's a public citizen. In court, I'm sure he would attempt to argue the opposite. (Note, I say, attempt)
Attempting to show malice... meh, yeah, he's got a good tone to his article. Not scathing at all, and at the end a serious concern for the man's well being. Of course, apparently a court in Florida at one time had equal such concerns.
So, your right, he's probably safe. As with psychiatry, helping avoid defamation is best not practiced remotely...
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore, the kernel is free to keep as many threads as it wants in a pool, it just doesn't have to do so. Keep a few around, so you can dispatch them quickly, create more if needed, and terminate any that returns when the thread pool is full - you'll still end up with less threads and associated overhead than with the current system.
So, you replace time with space. Fair enough. It's making a lot more sense now.
Of course, this would rely upon everything running in the same context. Threads aren't just "an execution state" they're attached to a execution context. If you just thread off everything out from the kernel, then you have a hojillion threads running around here and there in the kernel context. Not always the best idea, didn't work so well for DOS.
Yes, implementation is the major driving factor behind their slow nature. But you're mistaken that they're not a target for optimization. They've got a lot of optimization towards making them fast on Linux, mainly because they were destroying the performance of many features that made Windows significantly better than Linux.
Now, let's take your idea, multiple threads, keep them in some sort of "pool" where they wait to be reused. How is this different from establishing a event-handling thread and then putting it to sleep between events? You just have a "pool" of one thread, that handles events when they come in (that's all it's there for) and then handles it.
It's not a problem for a library to establish an event-handling API that allows for this automatically, you just say, "hey, I know you have an event-thread. If this condition happens, I want you to run that thread here."
To keep any sort of "thread pool" would require each process to have a seperate thread pool, and if you hold just a pitiful 5 threads in there per process, then you've just decreased the scalability of the OS by a factor of 5. If you're thinking of going with a single process that just threads out to everything, you run into the same process as I showed above, everything is running in the same memory space, and there's no memory protection anymore.
The design of a UI that has itself send its event-handler on long-lasting events is a poor design of the program, and not a fault of the computer. Even with your thread-per-event system, one can still write a poor behaving program that would break all of these advantages that you put forth.
There's an idea in CS, that you spend the most time optimizing and making fast the things that are most often executed, and spend the most time. Requiring a thread-spawn or a thread-reassignment per event handle would slow down things like keyboard input, or mouse input, that generally happens quickly, and generally can be handled quickly.
It should be designed such that long-running tasks or potentially long-running tasks can be spun off into their own thread, allowing them to execute while everything else continues. But it makes no sense to force this thread-spin-off for the simplest thing as a keyboard input, or worse, a timer interrupt.
These things need to be going fast. For instance in an emulator. Taking out just *one* instruction from the code-path of every instruction can gain you literally thousands or millions of instructions per second. Slowing down a very often occuring event, that can be handled fast is to make it conform to some "ideal" object-oriented nature, is not ideal.
Spinlock vs Mutex. The Mutex is more powerful, because if the mutex is locked when you go to check it, you can yield CPU time until it's free. But if the lock is only ever held for short periods of time, then you lose possibly a whole timeslice, just because it was taken. If the lock is only ever held for at most 10 instructions, then you're definitely wasting time using a Mutex, no matter how more powerful it is, or no matter how much it allows you to pre-empt the task for something that can continue execution at that instant in time.
I think you're looking at things a bit wrong. You need to consider that, aside from a few shows, almost all anime airs in Japan late at night (as in, after midnight). When they're shown on cartoon network during the day in the US and aimed towards children, its no surprise that theres a different standard to match as far as nudity goes. As far as language goes, you're also kind of pushing it when you say chikushou is a 'very strong curse word'. It's pervasiveness places it more along the lines of more mild experlatives such as "damn" or "damnit", which is how I've usually seen it translated.
And what about "kuso"? That's just as pervasive, and you can't tell me that it translates anything similar to "crap", because it means "shit". Look, some cultures don't have this big stigma against cursing, and guess what? It happens in subcultures of the US, also. "chikushou" may be pervasive, but that doesn't degrade its intensity. And its intensity is such that its one of the more offensive words out there.
If "chikushou" doesn't translate with intent to "fucking christ" then I'd like to know what you could possibly come up with that would be better.
As far as occuring late in the day, like, after midnight, I'd like you to explain to me a series I saw in Japanese language club, which was clearly shown in daytime television, where a young child let's say about 3 years old took out a magazine and pointed at it looking at him mom, and said, "Hey, mom, this girl has more hair on her crotch than you." Serious. There is no possible way that Japan could release so much anime that we deem partly offensive given only the after-hours of post-midnight.
For the record, the bikinis are drawn on to characters of such series as Tenchi Muyou, which is not "adult-only" content in Japan. And "chikushou", and at the very least "kuso" has been toned down in series such as Ranma 1/2, again, something that is not considered "adult-only" content in Japan.
I also saw an anime (wasn't paying too much attention) where a girl was saved and was running out of a cave butt naked. It looked in style much like Voltron or something like that, and I turned to a real Japanese person, and asked them, "Does this stuff really air during child viewing hours?" and he said, "This is a kids show, I don't watch it. But I'd have to suppose yeah."
What they're doing with the Simpsons is entirely different. They're editing it for actual content. Homer no longer drinks beer! How much of the show will they have to cut out, because it was based on Homer being drunk? This has been tried with some anime here in the past, and for the most parts, fans rejected it (Example: the butchered Cardcaptors dub that failed badly). Idealy, the Arab audience will do the same with Al Shamshoon, and they'll eventually get to see things as they were originally written. Maybe I'm just being overly optimistic tho, as I can't say I'm really in touch with their society.
I'm not saying that Al-Shamshoon's won't get labasted and ignored. I'm not even arguing that taking these drunken antics out of the series is going to make some episodes completely useless. But let's take maybe a decent match up here. Let's say there's an Anime about incest. Tons of the jokes are about a brother and a sister getting it on.
Holy cow! Would that have to be cleaned up to make it into the US televisions, and it would lose most of what made it funny.
Now, YOU as an american/other-western-european-culture-ian, may not see the link between beer and incest, but I can tell you that there are people who practice Islam where offering them alcohol or pork is a serious offense, and they'd be pissed.
Alcohol offends in very highly Muslim cultures. You may not think it matters that Homer gets drunk and makes an idiot of himself, but in a Muslim culture Omar would just about be the firey avatar of the devil, if he were to drink like he does in American TV.
Does this mean that they need to sober up, and realize that Alcoholism can be funny? No. Yeah, we think it's funny, and that Alcohol is fine, but they don't. Stop trying to oppress this opinion upon their culture.
Yeah, I totally agree.. that's why Blizzard can actually publish Macintosh title at the same time as their Windows titles, because they write portable games.
It's actually *not* that unusual that id would releaase two seperate graphics engines for Windows and Linux once you learn how they tend to work. They tend to write very highly optimized code-paths for anything that would benefit from this. Considering that Windows Vista will seriously damage OpenGL performance, and actually Windows OpenGL performance is massively less optimized than DirectX performance, it only makes sense that id would release a DirectX code path to support Windows as fast as they can.
id kind of takes a different approach to portability. They don't really so much write portable code, but write fast code for each ported OS, and video card. Yeah, I know it's weird, but it allows them to have some of the best performance in games than just about anyone else, and it works for them.
Community Standards are set by the vocal group of people that complain when they see something offensive on TV.
This means that you get the lowest possible bar of non-offensive out of the deal.
These changes to Al-Shamshoon's were not enacted by a restriction from the Government, it was a choice of the MBC to change the content to make it less offensive to arabic viewers.
The same thing that happens with Japanese Anime being "toned down" to not offend American parents. (trust me, the kids, likely wouldn't care at all.)
Jon Caramack is generally a pretty wicked Apple fan. So expect a client for OSX at some point sooner rather than later.
This just didn't work. They released Quake 3 and RTCW on Linux also, but hardly anyone bought those. Sure it's good to let them know you support their Linux clients and servers, because then they'll keep doing the support that they are doing, but it's not going to make other people "wake up" and support Linux or even Mac OS.
Loki tried to market Linux games, and I bought just about every title that they had released, but it didn't save them, because there weren't enough people like me, who were willing to put their money where their mouth was.
Anyways, as much as I appreciate id for releasing Linux binaries and I love Blizzard for supporting the Macintosh, at the same time, don't think that just because some big name is porting their code to a particulr platform that you really love, isn't going to make other people do the same.
If it did, then this would be old news because Linux and Mac *would* have the same games that Windows has now. But fact is that these big names have supported Linux/Mac for a long time, and there's still very little more support now than there was before.
Look, the issue isn't that we're emasculating our own content. But you can't tell me that we're not pandering to christian values when... well, this is too long to put in a dependant clause, I explain.
Watch some Anime, originals from Japan. There are shows that are marketed to children, or young adults, or at least air during such hours that American families usually allow their children to watch TV. These shows have STRONG explicit words in them occationally, and nudity.
So, what do we do in America? Well, first we change the explicit words so that when say, an actor says "Chikushou" = very strong curse word, along the lines of "fucking christ!", or "kuso" = literally, "shit", we change these words to be "darn" or "dangit". I mean, we change the words coming out of the characters mouth from "JESUS FUCKING CHRIST THAT HURT!" to "OUCH! Hey man, that hurt!"
Next up is how to deal with nudity. Well, we have good examples of these... we just digitally insert bikinis on to them. There you go, all happy christian-safe now.
So, yes, the US does censor content coming from foreign countries, the same as this Al-Shamshoons does in Arabia.
Speaking of bacon, from TFA: "If Homer doesn't drink and eat bacon and generally act like a pig, which I guess is also against Islam, then it's not Homer."
Is Al Jean saying that Homer drinks bacon? I mean, not that I'd be surprised, but it is a little funny...
Dude, like Holland == The Netherlands in English.
Plus, the guy is FROM Holland/The Netherlands, who are you to argue with him?
This is like where in High School, I had a German teacher argue with a Slovakian student about "in der Slovakei" (to Slovakia). The German teacher told her that it's "nach Slovakei" like every other rule-following country name. And the student, who learned German in Slovakia, and should have god-damn good reason to know this, insisted that it was one of the irregulars like "in den Nederlanden", "in den USA", and "in der Schweiz".
Did the teacher listen? No, because she wasn't paying attention to credentials just like you.
Um... spawn a thread for each event handling?
ARE YOU MAD?
Do you realize that that spawning a new thread isn't just some lose, willy nilly thing that's efficient to do?
Should things be polling rather than event-driven? No, polling sucks, because it wastes CPU time if there's enough of a wait between events. Does that mean that you have to implement event-driven with new threads to handle things like keyboard input, etc? Hell no. That's the stupidest idea I've ever heard.
Why not just *interrupt* a thread that has asked to be interrupted for this purpose, and use that existing thread to handle the keyboard input. Because I tell you what, interrupting a thread is hella cheaper than spawning a new thread for the purpose of handling the event.
Very enlightening, thanks :)
I can only agree.
The US, the people that brought you the Iran-Contra affair, the militarization of guerillas in South America, the Bay of Pigs, the whole Iraq international argument, etc, etc, etc.
You might labast the UN for making some bad policy decisions, but the US does just as many. Don't act like it's not an innate property of human beings to make mistakes, or do something wrong. In fact, the more people you add into the mix, the more likely those mistakes become, and the more likely it is that people will use wrongful methods to gain things that they want.
Every government, and/or international group has done some very stupid shit over the course of time. Don't act like the US is immune.
Emphasis added again so that maybe you can actually see what I'm trying to say here. There's no First Amendment in international politics. There's no First Amendment of the consitution of the world that says that the United States as a country, as a government has any right to tell another country what to do. I'm not talking about individual rights. Yes, you and I and everyone else in the US has the right to speak our minds about Chinese policy and government (which to me is stupid because we're not even citizens of their country, so in my opinion all our ranting and raving is stupid, because we have no legal authority or relevance to criticise their government, except as being a nosy neighbor. Like Mr XY across the street who says you should mow your lawn more often. Fuck you, it's my lawn, bitch.)
If you'd take ten seconds to think outside of individual rights, maybe you might realize that, hey, wtf? I'm talking about international relationships here, not personal criticisms of a government that isn't your own.
This is any different from trade embargos and trade restrictions, and human watch lists, and blah blah blah blah blah, the millions of international sanctions that have been and will be put out on countries just because we disagree with them?
You're right they would have something different to say about it. China would say that Tibet is not a sovereign country. It sees it as a subjugate province to the Chinese government, and always has been. Just at one point, China wasn't really taking this leadership role that it should have been, but now it is.
Does the US government have the right to tell its citizens that they're not allowed to deal with these governments? No, no one can ever force the US to trade with it, but there are companies that want to buy/sell with these countries, but they can't because of a trade embargo.
I'd liken a trade embargo to telling Joey who you don't like that he can't play with his ball, because you don't like something that he does. Yeah, you have every right to not let him play with your ball, but I still think it's pretty infantile.
Or telling your kid that he can't play with Billy XY across the street because they force their women to stay at home, and not work. Yeah, real mature. You may not agree with their lifestyle, but wtf are you teaching your kid? That it's ok to treat people like crap because you disagree with them.
Yeah, that's actually what got me to look up the point about obscenity and libel. :)
It is an awesome show. I was damn surprised by the 2nd Hand Smoking episode. I was all, "WTF? 2nd Hand Smoke is Bullshit?" Sure enough.
And you have the same Jack Thompson-like assholes running that sham, too.
Yeah, I agree with everything you're saying. It's just that people tend to lose sight of the "real" meaning of democracy in their strive for freedom. Much like people misusing "Occam's Razor" and "Begging the Question" from Philosophy.
;)
No, I don't agree that the USSR's "democracy" was really all that much of a democracy. It was like a rigged democracy. Although, generally we accept that Mexico has long been a democracy, but until recently there's only been one party. You either voted for or against the guy, who was put up there to run for office.
Then you get into the question of if even the American way is all that democratic. Yes, we vote between freely standing people, but the majority of the time they're placed there and selected by their party. True, we tend to vote on who we want to represent our party in the next election, but for instance, a person of the republican party didn't have an option to say, "Hey, I don't think we should let Bush run for reelection." The party determined that he would run, and guess who the leader of the party that's in the White House is? Um... the President.
Now, granted any person can just up and run for president, we've seen a few independents, and lately 3rd party people are starting to come out of the wood work. But for the most part we are still vastly governed by an elite group of people who run their party relatively strictly. I mean, the party can outright tell some that they won't support their election. (Which is of course their right to do so.) But that's basically a relegation to 3rd party candidate and we've seen how they generally tend to fair in elections.
I've in fact heard from some Canadians that the Canadian parliment is run by the Prime Minister, who is also a member of the parliment, and is generally the leader of the party in control over the parliment (or over the coalition in control over the parliment) so that effectively, they have 4~8 year dictatorships, where the person in power controls the executive and the legislative branch in one fell swoop.
Crap, I'm ranting again. Um... so back to the topic. Yeah, Democracy != Freedom for All, right we agree. USSR's "democracy" was a piss poor democracy, and can hardly be called more than a sham, but it wasn't that far off from some of the actions taken by parties here in the US and other countries considered considerably more democratic. And democratic governments do tend to protect the rights of the people much better than other forms of government.
Democracy is pretty popular idea also, because the legitimacy of the government hangs upon the people giving the government such authority, and in a democracy that's the people generally giving most of that authority right back to themselves. Good Thing(tm) Rather than in some autocrat who dictates everything. No So Good Ting(tm) No matter how many people he saves from Hurricanes.
Heck, the U.S. has nuclear weapons, why should North Korea not have them?
Bad thinking, terrible logic.
No, North Korea shouldn't have nuclear weapons. But if you can argue that some people shouldn't have nuclear weapons, then no one should.
East Germany was some sort of democracy because they had that word in their title? I do not know where to begin with such nonsense.
No. God damn, "Democracy" is the single most misunderstood concept by modern America. Likely due to all of that "Democracy vs. Communism" crap from whenever that shit was going on. Democracy is a form of government, and Communism is a form of economy. They're not fundamentally opposing, like Confusionism and Christianity. (Confusious teaches secular ideology, not religious ideology)
Let's look at how the DDR was a Democracy. First we need a starting groud: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
"Democracy is a form of government in which policy is decided by the preference of the majority in a decision-making process, usually elections or referenda, open to all or most citizens and the protection of the human rights."
Easy enough. Ok, first, who are citizens? If you define that to be men in the communist party, then it's a democracy. How, oddly, defining citizen isn't unique to just East Germany, and the USSR. In the earliest history of our government, the only people who could vote were white male land-owners. I suppose the US hasn't been a democracy that long at all...
The part about "protection of human rights" is a misnomer. Nothing fundamental to democracy requires the government to protect human rights, only that all or most "citizens" are allowed to vote.
Let's look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship
Citizenship is membership in a political community (originally a city but now usually a state), and carries with it rights to political participation; a person having such membership is a citizen. It is largely coterminous with nationality, although it is possible to have a nationality without being a citizen (i.e. be legally subject to a state and entitled to its protection without having rights of political participation in it)
See? I told you that countries can play games with the definition of "citizen".
Fundamentally there's a problem here because people confuse "Democracy" with an *ideology* of freedom, but it's not. It's a form of government. By nature of a Democracy, the citizenry will vote to protect their own rights, and the rights of the majority, but there is no guarentee that they will protect the rights of the minority.
That is a different fundamental that the US has taken on. Majority Rules, but Minority Rights.
Democracy != Freedom for All
Democracy == Power in the hands of those who can vote.
Our military must be willing to sacrifice to ensure our freedom is not threatened by rogue states. If we were unwilling to use force to protect our freedom, we'd be speaking German or Japanese right now.
Sovereignty is not the ultimate right, individual freedom is.
China shouldn't be feeling this same way? I mean, imagine all the horrible irony of them saying: "If we don't do something to stop the USA, we'll be speaking English in 10 years!"
If China were unwilling to use force to protect their sovereignty, and freedoms, what's to stop them from lobbing a couple of nuclear missles our way?
We believe that individual freedom is what is the ultimate right, but what protects those rights? The sovereign state of the United States. Without that sovereignty then any government with the power could dictate to us that the constitution doesn't matter, and we're going to follow their rules from now on.
It's like copyrights being used to protect copylefts. Copylefts say that the end-user's rights are more important than all, but in order to have force to say that and enforce that, they need the copyrights that say that we can dictate any use that we want to.
Sovereignty shields the individual rights from other countries so China can't just come in and say, "Company XY, you're too powerful, we're taking all your assests into the Chinese government, so that we might better manage that power for the good of the people."
Do you have a moral duty to stop him? If you choose not to prevent his actions despite your ability to do so, does it mean you are partially responsible for the continued abuse?
This is the fundamental problem of dilemas, and free will. Are we morally obligated to protect his family? It's certainly not our job to do so. There's certainly no responsibilities that we have that might carry innately to protect them, beyond that we're human, and they're human, and we're aware of their plight. I see you're not arguing that it might be the responsibility of some person half way across the world to stop him. I'm sure you could certainly find someone in the world, who would be much better suited to the task of stopping this guy than yourself. Why would they not be responsible?
For that matter, what does being the largest person on the block have to do with being morally bound to stop him? Because you can? So, you're only responsible if you're aware of it and you are physically able to stop it? Couldn't one argue that no matter what your capability to stop him, it's your moral responsibility to try your best to stop him?
Bringing God into this just for a sec (as a piece of argument, you don't have to believe in him, you just have to accept that some people believe him to exist, and this question matter is important for them), since God is surely able to stop this (omnipotent) and he's surely aware of it (omniscencient) wouldn't that make it his moral duty to stop it?
You've already said: "The police are contacted, but the man is in business with the police chief and mayor and corruption has made them unwilling to prevent any of this." So, it's obvious to say that there are a number of people who have a moral duty to stop this, but already are not. So at issue here is not just the man beating his wife and kids, but also that the whole system is permitting this behavior and you consider it wrong, and you want to take action.
Now, say you're the Simpsons living next door to the Flanders. Your kid Bart is a horrible brat. Not only that, but you're a lazy bum, and just about everyone in your family has their problems. If you were the Flanders, is it your moral duty to rescue the kids from this situation, and give them a better life? You certainly could. Now, if you were the Simpsons, do you want them butting in on your business?
One may draw the line of moral responsibility to react only when they're breaking the law, but you have to understand that everyone will respond the same way, "this is my business not yours" no matter if it's a legal issue or not. That family-beater is going to tell you to mind your own damn busieness, you can be sure of that.
Fundamentally, it is not the responsibility of the individual to enforce the laws of their nation, state, county, and city, or other such divisions as they may exist. If the police department and the city government is not doing its job, then you let the next level up know, until someone does something to clean up that corruption, and save that family. You have no right to walk over and beat the shit out of that man, even if he is beating his family. But hey, free will, you can choose to ignore that you don't have a right to do it, and just go and beat his ass anyway, and teach him a lesson. Just expect consequences as a result of it. Is saving that family worth you going to jail for assault? Especially when it's not guarenteed that you'll save them permanently?
Rosa Parks knew she was going to get in trouble, and get arrested when she did what she did. She wasn't some clueless idiot who was just tired and didn't want to move back. Just because you believe that you are morally justified does not mean that you'll escape consequences for doing something. Most people into civil disobedience seem to forget this.
Anyways, I'm obviously ranting on a range of topics here. My answer: You're morally responsible for that family only if you feel or believe that you're morally responsible. You're also only at fault for allowing it to continue, if you feel or believe that you are responsible to stop it. No one else can dictate this moral duty upon you.
Why the hell should we not attempt to hold other nations accountable for their human rights record. Surely enough nations attempt to hold the US accountable for its record, with say, capital punishment. Besides, China built the so-called Great Firewall of China. They don't need to control root servers for that. BTW, are you one of those people who think that certain groups of people aren't ready for democracy and liberty?
Everyone is going to push their ideals and values on another group of people. That's just how things work. China is pushing on us (the USA) because we're driving technological innovation, and they're upset that effectively, their government is subject to US technology. A natural desire... if you were the CIA would you want to be running computers from China, with software from China?
One of my friends raised the response to me: "I wouldn't trust China or Iran with DNS." Um... did you stop to think maybe they wouldn't trust us to control DNS?
No, I don't think that some people "aren't ready" for democracy and "liberty". But let me remind you of a couple things. East Germany's official title was "German Democratic Republic". The USSR was a "democracy" and so is China. Citizens vote on issues, they really do. Just the definition of Citizen is a lot tighter. So, when you ask "why aren't they a democracy" you have to rephrase, "why aren't they a more open democracy?" at which point the same question can be asked of the US.
As for liberty, they have some very limited rights. They have free speech, until it crosses certain boundaries, like anti-governmental speech, unpopular speech, protesting, etc. So we rephrase to be more accurate: "why aren't they given more liberty." But again, the same can be asked of the US. In the US, you can't say whatever you want whenever. Speech actively threatening the US government or major officials through the act of force is not allowed, or at lease extremely discouraged to the point of a chilling effect. (As one Kuro5hin guy found out daring the Secret Service to do something about him saying he wanted to kill the President.) You're also not allowed to threaten someone verbally with the threat of physical violence. In an entirely free enviroment these sorts of actions should be encouraged, if not at least tolerated.
Many will bring up the issue that we restrict the freedoms of our masses in order to provide for their security. Guess what? China, and Cuba do the same thing. Did you know that Cuba loses almost no people to Hurricanes? Wanna guess why? Not because people are all good and happy, but because Cuba forces their citizens into shelters, and away from target areas, at gun point if necessary. Now, let me ask you? If your neighbor wants to stay in New Orleans for a Hurricane, what the hell is the US going to do about it? Oh yeah, let him die, because it's his right to remain in his household.
It's not that I don't think these people aren't ready for democracy and liberty, but as a Christian, I'm reminded of many times when questions were to Jesus asking if someone should pay taxes, or otherwise follow the Roman government (which I think we can all agree, was not as democratic or free as the US is). Jesus said that their leaders were placed there by God, and it's wrong to go against the will of God and to oppose your leaders, and to "pay unto Caesar what is Caesar's". These people live in a different government from us. Should we try and help them out and make their life better?
Remember the Golden Rule? "Do unto others what you would want done unto you."? Well, let's see here. How many rebel groups have we armed to fight off their governments, and in many ways that could be considered a terrorist activity? Why should we expect different against ourselves?
Here's the big question. What happens when China decides that the US is housing WMD (which the whole world knows) and that we need to disarm because we're threatening the security of their country? Should they ma
This is just a bunch of whiney bitches wanting to edge in on something they didn't do the work for but reap the benefits of. Let's not forget where the net (darpa) originated, eh?
Ok, let me rephrase this, and then I'll agree with you. "It's all stupid politics."
Exactly. The ICANN is doing a good job, so is the US. Just people are always annoyed by things dangled over them that they can't control.
Are they "whiney bitches" for wanting in on the "power" giving "authority" to the ICANN? I don't think so. It's a reasonable human response.
The point is that it's not the right of the United States to force this lack of censorship upon every country in the world.
I agree, it's awesome that information is free like this, and in the United States, it damn well ought to be free.
But we as a country don't have any right to be telling China that they can't block out freedoms. Yes, we try to all the time, because they're violating basic human rights, but this doesn't mean that we have any right to demand, and force change upon them.
As a show of hands, if you agree that the US should maintain controll of the internet for the Freedom of Expression for All Humanity (even though outside of the US jurisdiction), and you agree that US should have invaded Iraq even if they hadn't had WMD, because we were deposing a hated dictator, who was a threat to world security.
It's the same thing. No, we're not going in with soldiers and dictating our will upon China, Iran, and other countries with censorship. Rather, we're going in with our culture, and our technology, and doing the same thing. One country forcing another sovereign country to do something against its own will, is wrong.
But then we trade-embargoed Cuba, Iraq, and all sorts of other countries that we don't agree with, and make their economy suffer, and their citizens sufffer, in order to force them to do something, like pay attention to human rights. We all see how that works... apparantly the Internet is a safe "non-hostile" way to force these people to see things the way we do.
Reduplication is actually a linguistic term. It refers to repeating a word (obviously). In English, it's hardly ever correct. But you could make the case for things like "he is very, very stupid."
Japanese tends to use reduplication for Onomatopoeias. Thus you get things like "giri giri", "nyan nyan", "don don", etc.
Some languages ues it for indicating the plural. A case can be made here for Japanese: "ware ware" (us) from "ware" (I) Note though that "ware" is uncommon, and for that matter "ware ware" is also. Either way, these words have fairly specific societal conditions on their use, so don't think these are a) the only words for I/me and we/us, or b) socially appropriate for you to use. If you don't speak Japanese well enough to know if they can be applied by you in a given situation, then don't use them.
More information on reduplication can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduplication
I think he would argue that they're not training mechanical methods to kill, but rather suppressing the natural state of a human to not want to kill.
Because he keeps claiming that the US military uses video games to supress the feeling that killing is wrong.
Actually, when I was in Army Basic Combat Training, the training that we had to suppress this was to shoot at human-shaped silhouettes, and bayonett man-shaped objects.
The Army has a lot of techniques for suppressing this desire to not kill, and none of them involve video games. We weren't even allowed to watch TV during Basic Combat Training.
Basically, the Army teaches you how to do your job, defend yourself, and attack points through wargames, that involve you shooting fellow Army mates on the other side with blanks and Miles gear (advanced lasertag stuff, really cool). The idea is you get so trained into really physically pointing an M-16 at someone and shooting at them, that you won't hesitate in the field.
This isn't something that can be matched in the computer rendered world. (Ok, there are simulators where you interact with a scene. This is what at least a few police departments do.)
My point is not just that video games lack sufficient AI to be sufficient for real world application, but also that even the "desensitation" that he claims happens doesn't really exist, because there's a difference between not giving a crap about shooting some gansta in a video game just 'cause he on you land, and handing that same person a real firearm with no expectations. They will not first thing take aim and shoot at people, because they don't care. Otherwise the military would train exclusively with actual computer games. I'm sure it's cheaper to hook up a huge LAN party than to stage war games. I mean, if the only thing standing in the way wasn't muscle memory and real life reactionary skills, but rather just simply a desensification to killing.
Hm... that applies so long as he's a public citizen. In court, I'm sure he would attempt to argue the opposite. (Note, I say, attempt)
Attempting to show malice... meh, yeah, he's got a good tone to his article. Not scathing at all, and at the end a serious concern for the man's well being. Of course, apparently a court in Florida at one time had equal such concerns.
So, your right, he's probably safe. As with psychiatry, helping avoid defamation is best not practiced remotely...