It requires special accreditation procedures to carry SCI data and a simple TS network accreditation cannot do it. Above simple SCI, there is additional accreditation required for SAP/SAR. So I think you are mistaken, although it could all just be semantics if you wish. The fact of the matter is you can have a TS-only clearance, a TS/SCI clearance with the standard compartments, TS/SCI with special compartments requiring poly, and TS/SCI with special requirements requiring a full-scope lifestyle poly. Each of these is harder to get, and it is "fair" to think of them as above one another, because they have increasingly stringent access requirements.
> If your idea of "having an online presence" is tweeting and having a Facebook page, I would not hire you.
It remains to be demonstrated that you are anything resembling a good employer. A sweeping generalization for all "technical jobs" like this leaves this very much in doubt, I'm afraid.
Perfectly legal in what jurisdiction? American jurisdiction does not apply to foreign citizens on foreign soil at all. Not even for murder, to make things clear. Now if his home country decides that's a crime, that's fine.
Julian Assange is not a traitor. The Rosenbergs were. You cannot be a declared an open citizen of another country and be a "traitor" to another. What he did was not even a crime, and the notion of extradition is dubious.
> By the way, if you don't see something inherently wrong with allowing a private company to print money with the government's snookered approval, you should.
Oh, there's plenty wrong with it, however what's worse is allowing a government to print its own money based on the political whimsy of the current issue de jure. Politicians absolutely don't have any restraint. The Fed does.
FA-18's deployed from aircraft carriers with live pilots, alas, do this too.
Which is not to trivialize the matter. Rather, what I'm trying to say here is that this is part of the tragedy of warfare, and one of the reasons a nation really, really needs to think very, very hard about being militarily involved against anyone else. If you do, it had better be for a very fucking good reason, as innocent men, women and children are absolutely certain to die.
This would have been an amusing time to file a $100 claim against them in small claims court. There's nothing quite like forcing them to employ their $400/hr legal retainer in order to get some attention.
I don't think it's just a calculus. It's humilating to be caught, and makes you angry. The combination of humiliation and anger at the same time leads you to want to lash out, but you're not going to further your humiliation further by confessing it, so all that's left to do is lash out, yes? Anyway, the one think I personally try to avoid succumbing to is the temptation to accuse anyone so lashing out of anything other than what they say. One reason for this is that if someone is hurt, and falsely accused of also doing something bad, you'll just be throwing fire on their already hurt self. So I usually don't remark at all, or express sympathy (no matter what I think).
My major criticism of btrfs is the horrid sync performance. Hosting virtual machines tends to require lots of small writes to disk that make btrfs incredibly non-performant.
ZFS has similar problems, FYI. If you run VM's on it, you have two choices. Buy SSD's for the ZIL, or disable the ZIL.
It wasn't just perception that killed the housing market. The homes were objectively over valued. Things like rental value to investment cost actually matter. The change in perception involved people waking up to that.
80% profit? I can believe that NG was slow to submit, but this was not a government contract. Either that, or you don't really know what you're talking about here.
This could have back fired. Threatening to call someone at 8AM every day until some outcome occurs... this is not a good idea at all. Supposing you catch a narcissistic CEO (and aren't they all narcissistic?) in a bad mood (and can't you imagine them in a bad mood, the job is actually a high stress one), then one possible outcome is the next phone call you get is from their corporate counsel advising you to not to attempt to extort their executive staff.
Well, sometimes we can think up things that are "better" that are nevertheless unfeasible and even possibly ethically dubious. Disabling "all"
patents would put every major drug manufacturer out of business. Software companies, on the other hand, wouldn't even blink.
One reason I'm against software patents is that copyrights cover software companies adequately.
Political reasoning is abhorrently dishonest, even in really smart people. Curiously enough, the mind prevents us from seeing just how dishonest we are being with ourselves.
In my mind it's all about confirmation bias. Which is to say, when confronted with a larger list of facts to assess, human beings have a remarkable ability to select only a small subset of the facts and use those to confirm their beliefs. I encountered this last year. I will relay the anecdote.
Sometime last year a study came out that "proved" that caffeine drinkers who regularly drink caffeine induce no practical effect to themselves, and only restore themselves to what would be a baseline level. Over a twenty year period I have read summaries on many, many caffeine studies. This particular study stood alone as an outlier in a much larger field of study. I noted this with amusement and went on with my life.
One day not so long later, I was getting coffee at work. A coworker of mine intruded to attempt to tell me about the study. I cut him off cold, and was quite irritated. This coworker was Mormon. I did not need to mire in the narrowly minded comfort-confirmed mentality of someone who is able to learn nothing else. It's just sad, really.
Of course on the subject of global warming, the issue is political. I once heard a great definition of politics, once: "politics is who gets what". It's true. While politics is about many things, it's certainly about resource allocation, and when you consider it from that perspective, and decide to tolerate the notion that for human beings resource allocation will always be highly contentious, what you will do is become a bit jaded like me, which is to say, unsurprised, disdainful, and accepting of the ugliness of politics all at the same time.
if the globe warms, but the temperature in a specific area of the globe remains well below freezing, that area could very easily accumulate more ice, particularly if the warmer globe carries more water vapour to that area than it otherwise would.
I am personally rather indifferent to the whole GW/AGW affair. That said, it's just silly to infer that extra snow means the globe isn't warming. For example, consider: if 100 billion tons of ice melts at the poles, and global snow levels then increase, in winter, when was the water cooler: 1) when it spent all year round being ice, or 2) when it spends 4 months a year as ice? If you guessed #1, you'd be right.
Of course, I can ask the question a different way, and just make you mental. If the globe is warming, and the average temperature goes up, would it be possible for the increased water vapor as it traveled across the poles to actually generate an expanding ice sheet? If you agreed that it was possible, you'd be right.
Now the part that will make you mental is that these two questions imply answers that could be superficially viewed as contradictory. I'm fun at a party, eh?
While patents may have a great deal of benefit in many of their use cases, software/process patents are an abortion that needs to be flushed down the toilet.
I'm not super in-favor of our patent system either. I'm just wondering if you realize what you are saying. "A legislative act disabling every patent granted for the last 20 years" is simply throwing out every patent ever granted. More or less. Keep in mind that patents don't last very long.
I actually think we should cut out all software and process patents permanently.
Drug patents, we need to keep. This is because of the huge $1B+ FDA qualifications and so forth.
I know all this. But it would be more clear, communicative, and honest to simply state that "Python is not truly multi-threaded" than it is to say anything else. For example, the model of threading for concurrent I/O is a case of "Python can wait in parallel." Ironically, that's a different way of saying it can do a bunch of nothings in parallel, which might also be phrased as "it can do nothing in parallel," which is pretty darn close to the truth.
When programmers think about multi-threading, they do think about the programming model, and not just the implementation, and that's true. Python is very convenient that way. But programmer's also expect the implementation to be parallel, by which I mean that they expect that the threads will be literally executing in parallel on different cores on a multi-core computer. And for this last, that's not true in Python at all.
And that's a shame. Guido would, of course, disagree. But this is no coincidence. The two are related.
While your comments are in fact true, let's be fair. Programming in C is programming in C. Multiple processes with inter-process communication is not what most people think of when someone says "multi-threading," and in fact while these disciplines are related, they are indeed different. So when we talk about the problems of multi-threading in Python, let's actually talk about that, shall we?
Years ago I watched Guido talk about threading a lot. Clearly he's not a fan. It is no surprise that Python does not handle this situation well. "Fruit of a poison tree," is what I would say.... well, so to speak. That's a bit unfair to the designer of an immensely useful and easy-to-understand programming language. Be that as it may, I for one think he deserves a bit of heat for that. The few times I've read what he wrote about it, his words were more about disdain than much else.
The world of multi-core computing is hear to stay.
Slashdot Mirror
>No, it is not. It is a *part* of TS. Not "above.
It requires special accreditation procedures to carry SCI data and a simple TS network accreditation cannot do it. Above simple SCI, there is additional accreditation required for SAP/SAR. So I think you are mistaken, although it could all just be semantics if you wish. The fact of the matter is you can have a TS-only clearance, a TS/SCI clearance with the standard compartments, TS/SCI with special compartments requiring poly, and TS/SCI with special requirements requiring a full-scope lifestyle poly. Each of these is harder to get, and it is "fair" to think of them as above one another, because they have increasingly stringent access requirements.
> If your idea of "having an online presence" is tweeting and having a Facebook page, I would not hire you.
It remains to be demonstrated that you are anything resembling a good employer. A sweeping generalization for all "technical jobs" like this leaves this very much in doubt, I'm afraid.
>I'm sure AMD fanboys will....
*perk*
There are still AMD fanboys? Where? ;-P
Perfectly legal in what jurisdiction? American jurisdiction does not apply to foreign citizens on foreign soil at all. Not even for murder, to make things clear. Now if his home country decides that's a crime, that's fine.
Julian Assange is not a traitor. The Rosenbergs were. You cannot be a declared an open citizen of another country and be a "traitor" to another. What he did was not even a crime, and the notion of extradition is dubious.
> By the way, if you don't see something inherently wrong with allowing a private company to print money with the government's snookered approval, you should.
Oh, there's plenty wrong with it, however what's worse is allowing a government to print its own money based on the political whimsy of the current issue de jure. Politicians absolutely don't have any restraint. The Fed does.
...of which around 160 were children...
FA-18's deployed from aircraft carriers with live pilots, alas, do this too.
Which is not to trivialize the matter. Rather, what I'm trying to say here is that this is part of the tragedy of warfare, and one of the reasons a nation really, really needs to think very, very hard about being militarily involved against anyone else. If you do, it had better be for a very fucking good reason, as innocent men, women and children are absolutely certain to die.
C//
This would have been an amusing time to file a $100 claim against them in small claims court. There's nothing quite like forcing them to employ their $400/hr legal retainer in order to get some attention.
I don't think it's just a calculus. It's humilating to be caught, and makes you angry. The combination of humiliation and anger at the same time leads you to want to lash out, but you're not going to further your humiliation further by confessing it, so all that's left to do is lash out, yes? Anyway, the one think I personally try to avoid succumbing to is the temptation to accuse anyone so lashing out of anything other than what they say. One reason for this is that if someone is hurt, and falsely accused of also doing something bad, you'll just be throwing fire on their already hurt self. So I usually don't remark at all, or express sympathy (no matter what I think).
My major criticism of btrfs is the horrid sync performance. Hosting virtual machines tends to require lots of small writes to disk that make btrfs incredibly non-performant.
ZFS has similar problems, FYI. If you run VM's on it, you have two choices. Buy SSD's for the ZIL, or disable the ZIL.
C//
It wasn't just perception that killed the housing market. The homes were objectively over valued. Things like rental value to investment cost actually matter. The change in perception involved people waking up to that.
80% profit? I can believe that NG was slow to submit, but this was not a government contract. Either that, or you don't really know what you're talking about here.
This could have back fired. Threatening to call someone at 8AM every day until some outcome occurs... this is not a good idea at all. Supposing you catch a narcissistic CEO (and aren't they all narcissistic?) in a bad mood (and can't you imagine them in a bad mood, the job is actually a high stress one), then one possible outcome is the next phone call you get is from their corporate counsel advising you to not to attempt to extort their executive staff.
C//
Well, sometimes we can think up things that are "better" that are nevertheless unfeasible and even possibly ethically dubious. Disabling "all"
patents would put every major drug manufacturer out of business. Software companies, on the other hand, wouldn't even blink.
One reason I'm against software patents is that copyrights cover software companies adequately.
No. You aren't.
Deliberately rude, are we?
Political reasoning is abhorrently dishonest, even in really smart people. Curiously enough, the mind prevents us from seeing just how dishonest we are being with ourselves.
In my mind it's all about confirmation bias. Which is to say, when confronted with a larger list of facts to assess, human beings have a remarkable ability to select only a small subset of the facts and use those to confirm their beliefs. I encountered this last year. I will relay the anecdote.
Sometime last year a study came out that "proved" that caffeine drinkers who regularly drink caffeine induce no practical effect to themselves, and only restore themselves to what would be a baseline level. Over a twenty year period I have read summaries on many, many caffeine studies. This particular study stood alone as an outlier in a much larger field of study. I noted this with amusement and went on with my life.
One day not so long later, I was getting coffee at work. A coworker of mine intruded to attempt to tell me about the study. I cut him off cold, and was quite irritated. This coworker was Mormon. I did not need to mire in the narrowly minded comfort-confirmed mentality of someone who is able to learn nothing else. It's just sad, really.
Of course on the subject of global warming, the issue is political. I once heard a great definition of politics, once: "politics is who gets what". It's true. While politics is about many things, it's certainly about resource allocation, and when you consider it from that perspective, and decide to tolerate the notion that for human beings resource allocation will always be highly contentious, what you will do is become a bit jaded like me, which is to say, unsurprised, disdainful, and accepting of the ugliness of politics all at the same time.
C//
if the globe warms, but the temperature in a specific area of the globe remains well below freezing, that area could very easily accumulate more ice, particularly if the warmer globe carries more water vapour to that area than it otherwise would.
I am personally rather indifferent to the whole GW/AGW affair. That said, it's just silly to infer that extra snow means the globe isn't warming. For example, consider: if 100 billion tons of ice melts at the poles, and global snow levels then increase, in winter, when was the water cooler: 1) when it spent all year round being ice, or 2) when it spends 4 months a year as ice? If you guessed #1, you'd be right.
Of course, I can ask the question a different way, and just make you mental. If the globe is warming, and the average temperature goes up, would it be possible for the increased water vapor as it traveled across the poles to actually generate an expanding ice sheet? If you agreed that it was possible, you'd be right.
Now the part that will make you mental is that these two questions imply answers that could be superficially viewed as contradictory. I'm fun at a party, eh?
C//
While patents may have a great deal of benefit in many of their use cases, software/process patents are an abortion that needs to be flushed down the toilet.
I'm not super in-favor of our patent system either. I'm just wondering if you realize what you are saying. "A legislative act disabling every patent granted for the last 20 years" is simply throwing out every patent ever granted. More or less. Keep in mind that patents don't last very long.
I actually think we should cut out all software and process patents permanently.
Drug patents, we need to keep. This is because of the huge $1B+ FDA qualifications and so forth.
And so forth.
C//
There is no such medical term as "pussy". FYI. :-P
...specifically 1. whether APIs can be copyrighted,...
This case won't decide that. Any decision other than "no" will go all the way up the line to SCOTUS.
C//
So you're spending is your conclusion. The ease with which people call stuff "mine" when it is in fact not the least bit theirs is horrifying.
I know all this. But it would be more clear, communicative, and honest to simply state that "Python is not truly multi-threaded" than it is to say anything else. For example, the model of threading for concurrent I/O is a case of "Python can wait in parallel." Ironically, that's a different way of saying it can do a bunch of nothings in parallel, which might also be phrased as "it can do nothing in parallel," which is pretty darn close to the truth.
When programmers think about multi-threading, they do think about the programming model, and not just the implementation, and that's true. Python is very convenient that way. But programmer's also expect the implementation to be parallel, by which I mean that they expect that the threads will be literally executing in parallel on different cores on a multi-core computer. And for this last, that's not true in Python at all.
And that's a shame. Guido would, of course, disagree. But this is no coincidence. The two are related.
While your comments are in fact true, let's be fair. Programming in C is programming in C. Multiple processes with inter-process communication is not what most people think of when someone says "multi-threading," and in fact while these disciplines are related, they are indeed different. So when we talk about the problems of multi-threading in Python, let's actually talk about that, shall we?
Years ago I watched Guido talk about threading a lot. Clearly he's not a fan. It is no surprise that Python does not handle this situation well. "Fruit of a poison tree," is what I would say.... well, so to speak. That's a bit unfair to the designer of an immensely useful and easy-to-understand programming language. Be that as it may, I for one think he deserves a bit of heat for that. The few times I've read what he wrote about it, his words were more about disdain than much else.
The world of multi-core computing is hear to stay.