But how can you argue with what revolutionary socialists who devoted their whole lives to Marxism said about Marxism?
Like this: the inevitable result of attempting to intersect Marxism with a government is oppressive State communism.
I.e., the "communism" that we see is simply the only result one can reasonably expect of any attempt to generate the communism on paper, in the real world, on any national scale.
I don't really agree that it's a "workaround". See, I think sales runs all those companies. Telling sales you're really pissed about customer support is much, much, much more effective than telling customer support you're pissed about customer support. The sales guys at the top of the tree talk directly with all the executives and can be very influential in the company. They can say things like "a big buyer is looking at Juniper instead of us because our India BPO for Customer Service is executing incompetently and treating them rudely (subtext: Maybe I should offer to help them switch their account their and go to Juniper myself, eh?)". Sales, not customer service, is the direct line of the customer to the company.
A router? An SGI? Was this an enterprise class situation? I would have called up my CISCO sales rep or what not, and suggest that he and perhaps his boss get on a plane and discuss the situation with me. We did this to Dell, recently, when DRAC manifested some apparent problems. Those sales guys... they have more power than you think. Helps being a big buyer, of course.
BTW, not all consumer level support sucks. I buy my DSL from Speakeasy (http://www.speakeasy.net). While they cost maybe 25% more than your local Baby Bell carrier, two things: 1) their tech support is top notch, 2) you own your connection... they don't care what servers you run, the bandwidth is yours, NAT, firewall, whatever. I got really, really tired of the utterly incompetent script readers once at Time Warner Cable, and I fired them. Went to speakeasy, and I'll never look back.
Well I agree with you, although I would have stated it as "with room for argument, within the category of thing the founding fathers had in mind." For that matter, my post a couple levels up about "should be killed" wasn't far from the way they thought as well. I have nothing but disdain for the police officer who made this arrest. He should be killed, too. Too many people these days are saluting the jack boots, or more pathetically, looking away and pretending not to see them.
The notion that a police officer, interacting with the general public in the course of his duties for ANY REASON, has an "expectation of privacy" is utterly obnoxious.
That's interesting. Occasionally in situations like this, judges get irked by police misbehavior. By inappropriately arresting this individual for something that apparently is not a crime in PA, the police officer in question (possibly) and the local government (more possibly) can expose itself to civil liability. I'd suggest that once this is all sorted out, the 18 year kid in the article get himself a good shark (err, attorney) and sue.
You know the law in every state of the Union? Curious. Anyway, in the TFA it turned out to be illegal in that state to record an oral conversation without consent.
Whoever passed the law without an exception for public officials, especially police, should be killed.
And people scoff at the notion that we could become a Police State!
Well the question is whether or not we disagree completely, or agree somewhere in the middle. If you see nothing wrong with a society where a contract is entered into merely through the act of buying something, you are right: we will never agree.
I regard a contract as something special, a thing which must at a minimum take the positive actions of both parties to enter into, expressly for that purpose. The issue I have with Contracts of Adhesion is that they encourage the entrance into contracts willy nilly and without intention aforethought. I regard this as a very bad thing, whichever way you look at it. Whether or not one could move in the right direction without entirely doing away with the Contract of Adhesion is certainly an open matter to discuss. But understand me clearly: you cannot have the situation that we have come to day WITHOUT the Contract of Adhesion. It just can't be done.
BTW, Contracts of Adhesion were not recognized in the US until 1919.
A contract shouldn't be made with mere mortal citizens, without representation present, unless it is clear, concise, and can be readily understood by a layperson with a high school education. Failing that, go to an agent. Failing that, don't have a contract TO BEGIN WITH. If the terms of the contract involve legal jargon, there should be an attorney present. If one can't manage all that, try a contract that is very simply worded.
The notion of a "Meeting of the Minds" has its roots in English Common Law... hardly my invention! It's been continuously eroded, leading the contracts becoming an instrument to abuse the unwary or unable, especially the half of the population that has an IQ of less than 100.
As for the terms "complex," this is not a proposal for the words of black letter law.
I feel that contracts should be like this: as the contract is proposed, either the proposer or an agent describes every last detail of the contract in complete detail. Failing that: NO CONTRACT.
A straw-man argument isn't a personal attack? I'd say that it is. To avoid these situations in the future, avoid the behavior.
Be that as it may, look in my response to your first message. An agent, verbally explaining the terms of the contract, assures that both the terms are understood, and that a claim that they were not would not be credible unless the terms were very complex. If the terms are very complex, then I would elevate even further and state that such a contract shouldn't be a contract at all unless an attorney assists with in its agreement.
Note that you can get out of any contract today simply by getting a jury to believe you were drunk when you signed it. Contracts aren't valid if one lacks "Legal Capacity" at the time the contract is made.
There's nothing complicated about it at all, and you've gone and redoubled your efforts, now asserting that it was my opinion, which it was not. Truly obnoxious.
You shouldn't be in the habit of declaring you understand what others think. I've made quite clear in my post what I think (one cannot credibly claim that a contract wherein a third party agent described all the terms to you in plain english was not understood!).
Fictionalizing my mind state is unacceptably rude behavior. KNOCK THAT SHIT OFF.
Well. I'm a somewhat-libertarian, and I like contracts. Real ones. Such as the ones that require there to exists a true Meeting of the Minds between parties for there to legally exist a contract. Any situation in which a contract is so lengthy that some agent cannot go over every single term with you in utter clarity is no contract at all.
The modern concept that thwarts what I think is the way it ought to be done is the "Contract of Adhesion"... the notion that says that once a contract is signed, insofar as the terms are reasonable and similar to other such provisions in like contracts, whether or not you knew about the terms is of no concern. I find the Contract of Adhesion to be a villainous development in our laws; it should be done away with entirely in all circumstances.
With the Contract of Adhesion done away with, even Mortgages Agreements would have to be shortened. Why? The mortgage companies would have to consider the costs of their hourly time in explaining the contract, and the relative merits of their competitors who don't bear such expenses. And so forth.
The EULA obviously couldn't exist at all. It would require a human in the store at the point of sale to go over it with you.
To me, if it's not sufficiently important to justify human intervention, it's simply not sufficiently important to justify a contract.
We -know- there's a limited amount of fuel in the world.
It not so much the fixed supply as the astronomically increasing demand... the third world is first-world-ifying... and energy use is increasing at a breakneck pace. This dramatic increase in energy demands coming from what is actually the vast majority of the world population is what to really be concerned about.
Well. One might quip that California is so Democrat, that even the Republicans sometimes think they're Democrats. For a Republican, the Governator is socially fairly liberal. Not a "real" Republican at all, really. More of a modern Republocrat.
If you have 2 gigs of ram in a machine, but then install a second OS, if that OS plus the primary OS each have memory utilization profiles greater than one gig, the machine will start to swap. Performance will drop catastrophically. "20% performance boost" for VMWare is inconsistent with both what VMWare has said publicly and what my lab findings verify. For one, with or without VT enabled, VMWare is 95% efficient for CPU. VT doesn't improve I/O at all. Which virtualization technology are you using? Which benchmarks have you run?
My findings are for VMWare ESX (which of course, will not readily so much as install on a laptop), using Dell 1955 blades (Intel Woodcrest 5160 CPUs... which offer VT). I've validated with the OSDB benchmark, SPEC int/fp, and a variety TCP/IP benchmarks as well as an NFS benchmark. My conclusions to date have been firmly this: CPU efficiency doesn't matter (VMWare already 95% efficient), and I/O can use a lot of help (50% inefficient for network bandwidth, 65% latency hit). Xen does better on this last, but that's a different matter.
The other issue is, of course, storage. If one is using the host OS and guest OS at the same time, disk performance will be effectively 50% for each, being that there is only one drive to subdivide. That can hurt ya where it counts.
What they plan to do in three years, with technology not yet fielded, and what is true today are different things.
You were talking in the present, about current BIOS settings. Chances are, your clients experiencing problems with virtualization performance didn't have enough memory. The VT settings are hardly relevant to VMWare deployments today. Virtually all performance problems with virtualization can be traced to insufficient memory or insufficient storage fabric speed.
Well yay and nay. There's not a shortage on space insofar as the roof above you is sufficient space.
But I think the shortage is, in the end, really about money. It's just that the cost function isn't always as simple as the solar cells purchase, installation, and life long maintenance. There is, namely, the value of the land one places beneath it.
Putting solar cells in downtown Tokyo is an altogether different proposition than in the Mojave Desert.
Let's just hope those room temperature superconductors come out cheap and feasible:
Problem solved... in the scheme of things, the Mojave will always be "cheap".
Virtualization presents no overhead when chips with that technology built in and enabled.
Don't know where you get that idea.
VMWare, which is practically synonymous with "virtualization" basically doesn't benefit much at all from having VT enabled in the BIOS. Most of the overhead is associated with I/O, can be as much as 50% of the bandwidth and 65% of the latency, and for which turning on VT will help not at all. Don't believe me? Just run a database benchmark, like the Postgrest OSDB test. Or just try ftp'ing large files to/from a virtual machine.
As for compute, the overhead is 5% at most, WITHOUT VT AT ALL.
VT has practically no affect on virtualization performance.
The main benefit of VT is that if you enable it in the BIOS, then Xen and technologies like it can virtualize non-paravirtualized operating systems.
Obviously it comes down to the question of whats worst, decrypting the hard drive for them, or being accused of withholding evidence?
One would think one would argue that one could not be compelled to produce evidence against oneself.
Course, if they really want to get you, they plant keystroke loggers on your box and get your cipher codes that way. Silly, these self-styled masterminds who think that they can defeat a group of talented law enforcement officers who know enough to know they need to take you down...
Slashdot Mirror
It takes Slashdot to think of "SuperMicro" when thinking of a hum under the desk.
C//
But how can you argue with what revolutionary socialists who devoted their whole lives to Marxism said about Marxism?
Like this: the inevitable result of attempting to intersect Marxism with a government is oppressive State communism.
I.e., the "communism" that we see is simply the only result one can reasonably expect of any attempt to generate the communism on paper, in the real world, on any national scale.
C//
I don't really agree that it's a "workaround". See, I think sales runs all those companies. Telling sales you're really pissed about customer support is much, much, much more effective than telling customer support you're pissed about customer support. The sales guys at the top of the tree talk directly with all the executives and can be very influential in the company. They can say things like "a big buyer is looking at Juniper instead of us because our India BPO for Customer Service is executing incompetently and treating them rudely (subtext: Maybe I should offer to help them switch their account their and go to Juniper myself, eh?)". Sales, not customer service, is the direct line of the customer to the company.
C//
A router? An SGI? Was this an enterprise class situation? I would have called up my CISCO sales rep or what not, and suggest that he and perhaps his boss get on a plane and discuss the situation with me. We did this to Dell, recently, when DRAC manifested some apparent problems. Those sales guys... they have more power than you think. Helps being a big buyer, of course.
BTW, not all consumer level support sucks. I buy my DSL from Speakeasy (http://www.speakeasy.net). While they cost maybe 25% more than your local Baby Bell carrier, two things: 1) their tech support is top notch, 2) you own your connection... they don't care what servers you run, the bandwidth is yours, NAT, firewall, whatever. I got really, really tired of the utterly incompetent script readers once at Time Warner Cable, and I fired them. Went to speakeasy, and I'll never look back.
C//
Well I agree with you, although I would have stated it as "with room for argument, within the category of thing the founding fathers had in mind." For that matter, my post a couple levels up about "should be killed" wasn't far from the way they thought as well. I have nothing but disdain for the police officer who made this arrest. He should be killed, too. Too many people these days are saluting the jack boots, or more pathetically, looking away and pretending not to see them.
C//
The notion that a police officer, interacting with the general public in the course of his duties for ANY REASON, has an "expectation of privacy" is utterly obnoxious.
C//
That's interesting. Occasionally in situations like this, judges get irked by police misbehavior. By inappropriately arresting this individual for something that apparently is not a crime in PA, the police officer in question (possibly) and the local government (more possibly) can expose itself to civil liability. I'd suggest that once this is all sorted out, the 18 year kid in the article get himself a good shark (err, attorney) and sue.
C//
It is *NOT* illegal to film the police.
You know the law in every state of the Union? Curious. Anyway, in the TFA it turned out to be illegal in that state to record an oral conversation without consent.
Whoever passed the law without an exception for public officials, especially police, should be killed.
And people scoff at the notion that we could become a Police State!
For shame.
C//
Well the question is whether or not we disagree completely, or agree somewhere in the middle. If you see nothing wrong with a society where a contract is entered into merely through the act of buying something, you are right: we will never agree.
I regard a contract as something special, a thing which must at a minimum take the positive actions of both parties to enter into, expressly for that purpose. The issue I have with Contracts of Adhesion is that they encourage the entrance into contracts willy nilly and without intention aforethought. I regard this as a very bad thing, whichever way you look at it. Whether or not one could move in the right direction without entirely doing away with the Contract of Adhesion is certainly an open matter to discuss. But understand me clearly: you cannot have the situation that we have come to day WITHOUT the Contract of Adhesion. It just can't be done.
BTW, Contracts of Adhesion were not recognized in the US until 1919.
C//
A contract shouldn't be made with mere mortal citizens, without representation present, unless it is clear, concise, and can be readily understood by a layperson with a high school education. Failing that, go to an agent. Failing that, don't have a contract TO BEGIN WITH. If the terms of the contract involve legal jargon, there should be an attorney present. If one can't manage all that, try a contract that is very simply worded.
The notion of a "Meeting of the Minds" has its roots in English Common Law... hardly my invention! It's been continuously eroded, leading the contracts becoming an instrument to abuse the unwary or unable, especially the half of the population that has an IQ of less than 100.
As for the terms "complex," this is not a proposal for the words of black letter law.
I feel that contracts should be like this: as the contract is proposed, either the proposer or an agent describes every last detail of the contract in complete detail. Failing that: NO CONTRACT.
C//
A straw-man argument isn't a personal attack? I'd say that it is. To avoid these situations in the future, avoid the behavior.
Be that as it may, look in my response to your first message. An agent, verbally explaining the terms of the contract, assures that both the terms are understood, and that a claim that they were not would not be credible unless the terms were very complex. If the terms are very complex, then I would elevate even further and state that such a contract shouldn't be a contract at all unless an attorney assists with in its agreement.
Note that you can get out of any contract today simply by getting a jury to believe you were drunk when you signed it. Contracts aren't valid if one lacks "Legal Capacity" at the time the contract is made.
C//
But why should I bother if you cannot bother yourself read what is already written?
I said why in my first reply to you.
C//
There's nothing complicated about it at all, and you've gone and redoubled your efforts, now asserting that it was my opinion, which it was not. Truly obnoxious.
C//
You shouldn't be in the habit of declaring you understand what others think. I've made quite clear in my post what I think (one cannot credibly claim that a contract wherein a third party agent described all the terms to you in plain english was not understood!).
Fictionalizing my mind state is unacceptably rude behavior. KNOCK THAT SHIT OFF.
C//
Well. I'm a somewhat-libertarian, and I like contracts. Real ones. Such as the ones that require there to exists a true Meeting of the Minds between parties for there to legally exist a contract. Any situation in which a contract is so lengthy that some agent cannot go over every single term with you in utter clarity is no contract at all.
The modern concept that thwarts what I think is the way it ought to be done is the "Contract of Adhesion"... the notion that says that once a contract is signed, insofar as the terms are reasonable and similar to other such provisions in like contracts, whether or not you knew about the terms is of no concern. I find the Contract of Adhesion to be a villainous development in our laws; it should be done away with entirely in all circumstances.
With the Contract of Adhesion done away with, even Mortgages Agreements would have to be shortened. Why? The mortgage companies would have to consider the costs of their hourly time in explaining the contract, and the relative merits of their competitors who don't bear such expenses. And so forth.
The EULA obviously couldn't exist at all. It would require a human in the store at the point of sale to go over it with you.
To me, if it's not sufficiently important to justify human intervention, it's simply not sufficiently important to justify a contract.
C//
We -know- there's a limited amount of fuel in the world.
It not so much the fixed supply as the astronomically increasing demand... the third world is first-world-ifying... and energy use is increasing at a breakneck pace. This dramatic increase in energy demands coming from what is actually the vast majority of the world population is what to really be concerned about.
C//
Well. One might quip that California is so Democrat, that even the Republicans sometimes think they're Democrats. For a Republican, the Governator is socially fairly liberal. Not a "real" Republican at all, really. More of a modern Republocrat.
C//
It would be lovely if it did. We could resolve the bathymetry problem. Sigh, alas, no.
If you have 2 gigs of ram in a machine, but then install a second OS, if that OS plus the primary OS each have memory utilization profiles greater than one gig, the machine will start to swap. Performance will drop catastrophically. "20% performance boost" for VMWare is inconsistent with both what VMWare has said publicly and what my lab findings verify. For one, with or without VT enabled, VMWare is 95% efficient for CPU. VT doesn't improve I/O at all. Which virtualization technology are you using? Which benchmarks have you run?
My findings are for VMWare ESX (which of course, will not readily so much as install on a laptop), using Dell 1955 blades (Intel Woodcrest 5160 CPUs... which offer VT). I've validated with the OSDB benchmark, SPEC int/fp, and a variety TCP/IP benchmarks as well as an NFS benchmark. My conclusions to date have been firmly this: CPU efficiency doesn't matter (VMWare already 95% efficient), and I/O can use a lot of help (50% inefficient for network bandwidth, 65% latency hit). Xen does better on this last, but that's a different matter.
The other issue is, of course, storage. If one is using the host OS and guest OS at the same time, disk performance will be effectively 50% for each, being that there is only one drive to subdivide. That can hurt ya where it counts.
C//
What they plan to do in three years, with technology not yet fielded, and what is true today are different things.
You were talking in the present, about current BIOS settings. Chances are, your clients experiencing problems with virtualization performance didn't have enough memory. The VT settings are hardly relevant to VMWare deployments today. Virtually all performance problems with virtualization can be traced to insufficient memory or insufficient storage fabric speed.
C//
Well yay and nay. There's not a shortage on space insofar as the roof above you is sufficient space.
But I think the shortage is, in the end, really about money. It's just that the cost function isn't always as simple as the solar cells purchase, installation, and life long maintenance. There is, namely, the value of the land one places beneath it.
Putting solar cells in downtown Tokyo is an altogether different proposition than in the Mojave Desert.
Let's just hope those room temperature superconductors come out cheap and feasible:
Problem solved... in the scheme of things, the Mojave will always be "cheap".
C//
Virtualization presents no overhead when chips with that technology built in and enabled.
Don't know where you get that idea.
VMWare, which is practically synonymous with "virtualization" basically doesn't benefit much at all from having VT enabled in the BIOS. Most of the overhead is associated with I/O, can be as much as 50% of the bandwidth and 65% of the latency, and for which turning on VT will help not at all. Don't believe me? Just run a database benchmark, like the Postgrest OSDB test. Or just try ftp'ing large files to/from a virtual machine.
As for compute, the overhead is 5% at most, WITHOUT VT AT ALL.
VT has practically no affect on virtualization performance.
The main benefit of VT is that if you enable it in the BIOS, then Xen and technologies like it can virtualize non-paravirtualized operating systems.
C//
I really can't count the number of times I've seen oracle:oracle accounts.
C//
Obviously it comes down to the question of whats worst, decrypting the hard drive for them, or being accused of withholding evidence?
One would think one would argue that one could not be compelled to produce evidence against oneself.
Course, if they really want to get you, they plant keystroke loggers on your box and get your cipher codes that way. Silly, these self-styled masterminds who think that they can defeat a group of talented law enforcement officers who know enough to know they need to take you down...
C//