As for the Republicans "misexecuting" their platform, I'd more say that they sold out to the neocons and the PWIFs and are executing their joint plan perfectly.
Republicans have long harkened to the cry of "fiscal conservancy," but having both houses and the presidency, and having not executed on this front proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that they aren't what they claim. Big lie. I tell them that occasionally, when they call and ask for donations. Did you ever get the "one question survey" thing from the Republican fundraisers, that was actually a solicitation? Seems like lying is becoming part of the party.
I'm willing to give the Democrats a try for a while, I suppose. They're talking balanced budgets, and I'd rather go with the pseudo-socialists, insofar as they get away from this chickenhawk shit, and at least try to balance the budget. And frankly, in relative valuation, I'm willing to live with the Dems just to get us out of Iraq and the sacrifice everything for the War on Terror mantra.
I get my panties in a bunch when the word "Treason" is abused, though, precisely/because/ the very camp you and I agree are a hazard has attempted to abuse it for their personal agendas. "You're not supporting our War Agenda! That's Treason!" Well, more or less. Deeply annoying.
I found it deeply relieving to have the House and Senate changed out, and am looking forward to a change of house in the Presidency as well. Ironically, I have conservative leanings. As far as I can tell, the Republicans have just misexecuted their entire platform. The fiscally conservative party? What a total lie.
Fortunately this sort of thing tends to get tossed out in court, however it is very messy and expensive to get to that point...
Depends on the State. In some states, those agreements are outright illegal, and if your prior employer attempts to take you to court over them, they will be very, very sorry. I haven't bothered even mentioning the illegal contractual terms in past employment. There is simply no point.
As for States where the agreements are legal, but often not binding, you have a point. "Noncompete agreements," for example. Those will get tossed for an ordinary worker. Of course, if you are an executive or special hire (or they force you to review the contract with an attorney), you are zipped up good and proper.
Sentiments like yours, where you attempt to twist the Sovereign Law of the United States around to fit your own personal agenda, are as evil as theirs. Reconsider.
Mind you, I'd agree if you'd said "we'd all be better off if he were DEAD." That's different. You just can't twist the Constitution around the way you are and claim to hold it sacred in the same breath.
The only crime that I know of that the Constitution expressly spells out is the crime of Treason. It's definition wouldn't include the holding to idiotic interpretations of the Constitution itself, alas.
Not to mention federal drug laws. It required an Amendment to make alcohol illegal in the states. Where's the Amendment authorizing federal drug laws??? There is none.
Conclusion: we barely have a Constitution any more. It's hanging on by a mere thread.
Consider the following scenario you send a signed email to somebody. You receive a reply saying something like "thank you for your email, but we need the signature on a postscript version, could you please sign the attached file?", and you find attached a postscript file containing the exact text you originally wrote. Would you sign that postscript file?
Reading along here. What's the right answer to this question, and why? It appears to me that you are implying there are risks to signing minor variations of the same message. Is that so? How real is this risk?
I was maybe 11 when Jaws came out. That scarred me, man, I couldn't go in swimming pools without hearing duh-dund... duh-dund, duh-dund, duh-dund! About maybe when I was 13 I found some pornos hidden away in a local cubby hole in a gully. I absconded with my find, and had them for a week or two until my gramps found them. When he found them, that scarred me.
I don't think adults understand what scars kids very well, man.
I do not accept your analogy of the non working poor to the "idle rich," and find your "see some real poverty and get back to us" quip, with it's (false) implication that I have not seen "real poverty" to be both perjorative and useless.
"Real poverty," as you put it is exactly why I don't believe in income inequality and prefer to think that there is an element of absolute need that is unsatisfied. In Mexico, "real poverty" means that the roofs don't work particularly well, the houses are made from sheet metal, there's no insulation, often no plumbing, no heating to speak of, so and so forth. There's also a real, constant question about whether or not one may or may not be fed today. In "real poverty" communities that you pretend to be the sole understander of, many basic necessities are entirely unmet.
Income inequality is not the source of their bitterness. They have lots more than that to be bitter about, believe me.
Research has shown that there is no satisfaction point when it comes to material wealth.
Research has "shown" no such thing. Asking me to believe that it has "shown" that is asking me to believe that any current finding is representative of all future findings. Fact is though, I don't believe research has even shown that with the current population.
As I said before, I know lots and lots of people (by far the most of them!) that have their material needs basically entirely met; they have some things they would "like," but are hardly bitter about not having them. Would it be grand to live in a 10,000 sq foot mansion? Certainly. Am I bitter about not having it? Not at all. You?
But let's take this further. Imagine a future day in which _everyone_ is effectively "the idle rich". I don't know how such a society could come to exist, where no one had to provide labor, but somehow everything still functioned, but supposing for a moment that such a society could exist, I'm incredulous that the "poor" (cough!) would rebel against the upper classes with their material needs so very well met.
I simply do not accept that you can project these "studies" forward in the fashion that you are doing. And, I'll say, you have quite an argument to make if you continue to do so.
I know lots and lots of people who are quite satisfied with their lives. They have large homes, can go on several vacations a year, eat good food, feel that they won't be paupers when they're old.
The "greedy," as you put it, those who are targeting the pinnacle of human success, are notably a small bunch.
This is all based on the speculation that there isn't some arbitrary satisfaction point where such doesn't matter any more. For example, if every man on earth had a 5,000 sf home, a fast car, and a 19 year old blond to give him blows, he might not care at all if one or two men had 1,000 of those things.
It's very simple. Big businesses generally don't like to upgrade Windows until the first service pack. Basically. They want all the major kinks worked out, and have lots of larger scale integration issues to worry about. A new OS install can smash the IT department. It's in the details.
And there are many details to worry about. Application compatibility is just one (important) detail. In the past, there have been issues with things as fundamental as networking, and consequences to corporate LANS. Scary stuff. The wise IT manager steers clear, takes it easy, and upgrades in due time.
You know, I have to say: thank you for taken the time to write up this meaningful reply.
As it so happens, we at my company are in the midst of a giant virtualization study (and prototype), starting first with a large VI3 deployment, to follow shortly by Xen deployments and likewise some Virtuozzo. Your comment on paravirtualization perhaps not having the performance on x86-64 systems as might be expected was interesting enough that I'll now have something to pay close attention to when we get there early next year. Would the issue extend to I/O or it confined to compute?
(FYI, we are currently using Woodcrest systems with VT, and do not have any AMD-V systems planned, although I am aware of the nested page tables subject).
Current test facility is twenty 4 core Dell 1955 blades with 16 gigabytes each, 4 ports of GE on the back of each blade, fully interwoven (bonded/etherchannel) through CISCO 4948 switches.
4 socket market. I currently have 20 Dell 1955 Blades with Two 5160's each. That 2 sockets, 4 cores, all running 3.0GHZ. This is one fuckin' ass kicker of a blade set! I mean, like, I go to type compile, and I get output before I hit return.:)
When I click on the Dell page, I cannot buy anything faster than a 1.86GHZ quad core Intel chip. Nor has anyone submitted benchmarks. I think you'll have to admit that "can I buy it from Dell?" is sort of the definitive IT reality in many corporations today. I.e., of the systems that I can buy today, if I am going to have 8 cores in them, AMD is (likely) the better buy.
I agree, though, that those would be some fast ass chips. Who's selling them? Would be fun to buy some for our labs.:)
I suspect that you are underestimated the impact of memory bandwidth on end server systems, but be that as it may. Agree with you on general principle that Intel has a significant lead right now, is doing very interesting things. Makes me wish I'd sold my AMD at $45.:)
AMD will take back power on their 65nm leap, I predict. Whether or not it will be power-performance, I do not know. Possibly. AMD's process, on an nm-to-nm basis, is better than Intel's because of SOI.
Other possible (future) advantage for AMD is Pacifica. Assuming that they can get it out before Intel comes out with a second generation VT.
Intel seems to have figured out that concentration of firepower on Itanium was gigantically stupid. A good thing, wouldn't you say?
Don't get me started on the mobile and 2-8 core server market, Intel has completely decimated AMD's offerings there for now. ---------------
8 core? Haven't seen any evidence there. At 8 cores, you're talking 4 sockets, where AMD's four busses and the linear increase in bandwidth rules the day... aren't you?
I'd think if you're looking at an Intel Quad Core, you could only be comparing it to an AMD four-socket/8 core, which I'd be surprised to not see pretty far in the lead due to the memory bandwidth issues.
I think it likely that if a good were shown to be infringing, US customs might take a dire eye to it. Regardless of this speculation, once a patent-infringing item is imported, its domestic resellers are fully subject to litigation. Actually, so are the owners and users of such devices, its just that all to often these are little guys who aren't worth litigating.
Slashdot Mirror
As for the Republicans "misexecuting" their platform, I'd more say that they sold out to the neocons and the PWIFs and are executing their joint plan perfectly.
Republicans have long harkened to the cry of "fiscal conservancy," but having both houses and the presidency, and having not executed on this front proves to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that they aren't what they claim. Big lie. I tell them that occasionally, when they call and ask for donations. Did you ever get the "one question survey" thing from the Republican fundraisers, that was actually a solicitation? Seems like lying is becoming part of the party.
I'm willing to give the Democrats a try for a while, I suppose. They're talking balanced budgets, and I'd rather go with the pseudo-socialists, insofar as they get away from this chickenhawk shit, and at least try to balance the budget. And frankly, in relative valuation, I'm willing to live with the Dems just to get us out of Iraq and the sacrifice everything for the War on Terror mantra.
C//
I get my panties in a bunch when the word "Treason" is abused, though, precisely
I found it deeply relieving to have the House and Senate changed out, and am looking forward to a change of house in the Presidency as well. Ironically, I have conservative leanings. As far as I can tell, the Republicans have just misexecuted their entire platform. The fiscally conservative party? What a total lie.
C//
Fortunately this sort of thing tends to get tossed out in court, however it is very messy and expensive to get to that point...
Depends on the State. In some states, those agreements are outright illegal, and if your prior employer attempts to take you to court over them, they will be very, very sorry. I haven't bothered even mentioning the illegal contractual terms in past employment. There is simply no point.
As for States where the agreements are legal, but often not binding, you have a point. "Noncompete agreements," for example. Those will get tossed for an ordinary worker. Of course, if you are an executive or special hire (or they force you to review the contract with an attorney), you are zipped up good and proper.
C//
Sentiments like yours, where you attempt to twist the Sovereign Law of the United States around to fit your own personal
agenda, are as evil as theirs. Reconsider.
Mind you, I'd agree if you'd said "we'd all be better off if he were DEAD." That's different. You just can't twist the Constitution around the way you are and claim to hold it sacred in the same breath.
C//
I was quite serious. The Constitution doesn't make it Treason to have an idiotic interpretation of the Constitution.
C//
The only crime that I know of that the Constitution expressly spells out is the crime of Treason. It's definition wouldn't include the holding to idiotic interpretations of the Constitution itself, alas.
C//
Not to mention federal drug laws. It required an Amendment to make alcohol illegal in the states. Where's the Amendment authorizing federal drug laws??? There is none.
Conclusion: we barely have a Constitution any more. It's hanging on by a mere thread.
C//
Consider the following scenario you send a signed email to somebody. You receive a reply saying something like "thank you for your email, but we need the signature on a postscript version, could you please sign the attached file?", and you find attached a postscript file containing the exact text you originally wrote. Would you sign that postscript file?
Reading along here. What's the right answer to this question, and why? It appears to me that you are implying there are risks to signing minor variations of the same message. Is that so? How real is this risk?
C//
Influenza variations concern the CDC more than any other disease vector.
FYI.
C//
Maybe it's one giant literary case of mixed metaphors.
:)
Steep as in "hill," and "curve" as in "WTF are you mixing your metaphors for"?
C//
I was maybe 11 when Jaws came out. That scarred me, man, I couldn't go in swimming pools without hearing duh-dund... duh-dund, duh-dund, duh-dund! About maybe when I was 13 I found some pornos hidden away in a local cubby hole in a gully. I absconded with my find, and had them for a week or two until my gramps found them. When he found them, that scarred me.
I don't think adults understand what scars kids very well, man.
C//
I do not accept your analogy of the non working poor to the "idle rich," and find your "see some real poverty and get back to us" quip, with it's (false) implication that I have not seen "real poverty" to be both perjorative and useless.
"Real poverty," as you put it is exactly why I don't believe in income inequality and prefer to think that there is an element of absolute need that is unsatisfied. In Mexico, "real poverty" means that the roofs don't work particularly well, the houses are made from sheet metal, there's no insulation, often no plumbing, no heating to speak of, so and so forth. There's also a real, constant question about whether or not one may or may not be fed today. In "real poverty" communities that you pretend to be the sole understander of, many basic necessities are entirely unmet.
Income inequality is not the source of their bitterness. They have lots more than that to be bitter about, believe me.
C//
Research has shown that there is no satisfaction point when it comes to material wealth.
Research has "shown" no such thing. Asking me to believe that it has "shown" that is asking me to believe that any current finding is representative of all future findings. Fact is though, I don't believe research has even shown that with the current population.
As I said before, I know lots and lots of people (by far the most of them!) that have their material needs basically entirely met; they have some things they would "like," but are hardly bitter about not having them. Would it be grand to live in a 10,000 sq foot mansion? Certainly. Am I bitter about not having it? Not at all. You?
But let's take this further. Imagine a future day in which _everyone_ is effectively "the idle rich". I don't know how such a society could come to exist, where no one had to provide labor, but somehow everything still functioned, but supposing for a moment that such a society could exist, I'm incredulous that the "poor" (cough!) would rebel against the upper classes with their material needs so very well met.
I simply do not accept that you can project these "studies" forward in the fashion that you are doing. And, I'll say, you have quite an argument to make if you continue to do so.
C//
I know lots and lots of people who are quite satisfied with their lives. They have large homes, can go on several vacations a year, eat good food, feel that they won't be paupers when they're old.
The "greedy," as you put it, those who are targeting the pinnacle of human success, are notably a small bunch.
C//
This is all based on the speculation that there isn't some arbitrary satisfaction point where such doesn't matter any more. For example, if every man on earth had a 5,000 sf home, a fast car, and a 19 year old blond to give him blows, he might not care at all if one or two men had 1,000 of those things.
C//
*shrug*
It's very simple. Big businesses generally don't like to upgrade Windows until the first service pack. Basically. They want all the major kinks worked out, and have lots of larger scale integration issues to worry about. A new OS install can smash the IT department. It's in the details.
And there are many details to worry about. Application compatibility is just one (important) detail. In the past, there have been issues with things as fundamental as networking, and consequences to corporate LANS. Scary stuff. The wise IT manager steers clear, takes it easy, and upgrades in due time.
C//
You know, I have to say: thank you for taken the time to write up this meaningful reply.
As it so happens, we at my company are in the midst of a giant virtualization study (and prototype), starting first with a large VI3 deployment, to follow shortly by Xen deployments and likewise some Virtuozzo. Your comment on paravirtualization perhaps not having the performance on x86-64 systems as might be expected was interesting enough that I'll now have something to pay close attention to when we get there early next year. Would the issue extend to I/O or it confined to compute?
(FYI, we are currently using Woodcrest systems with VT, and do not have any AMD-V systems planned, although I am aware of the nested page tables subject).
Current test facility is twenty 4 core Dell 1955 blades with 16 gigabytes each, 4 ports of GE on the back of each blade, fully interwoven (bonded/etherchannel) through CISCO 4948 switches.
C//
This is if you want to run Windows guests. Linux guests are best run paravirtualized for performance reasons. But point well-taken.
C//
Mod +1, Attempting to Be Funny
C//
4 socket market. I currently have 20 Dell 1955 Blades with Two 5160's each. That 2 sockets, 4 cores, all running 3.0GHZ. This is one fuckin' ass kicker of a blade set! I mean, like, I go to type compile, and I get output before I hit return. :)
Joe.
When I click on the Dell page, I cannot buy anything faster than a 1.86GHZ quad core Intel chip. Nor has anyone submitted benchmarks. I think you'll have to admit that "can I buy it from Dell?" is sort of the definitive IT reality in many corporations today. I.e., of the systems that I can buy today, if I am going to have 8 cores in them, AMD is (likely) the better buy.
:)
:)
I agree, though, that those would be some fast ass chips. Who's selling them? Would be fun to buy some for our labs.
I suspect that you are underestimated the impact of memory bandwidth on end server systems, but be that as it may. Agree with you on general principle that Intel has a significant lead right now, is doing very interesting things. Makes me wish I'd sold my AMD at $45.
AMD will take back power on their 65nm leap, I predict. Whether or not it will be power-performance, I do not know. Possibly. AMD's process, on an nm-to-nm basis, is better than Intel's because of SOI.
Other possible (future) advantage for AMD is Pacifica. Assuming that they can get it out before Intel comes out with a second generation VT.
Intel seems to have figured out that concentration of firepower on Itanium was gigantically stupid. A good thing, wouldn't you say?
Joe.
Performance per watt, possibly, yes. Performance? Let's take a trip to www.spec.org:
Acer Altos R520 (1.86 GHz Intel Xeon Processor E5320) 8 cores, 2 chips, 4 cores/chip 77.3 78.2
Hewlett-Packard Company ProLiant BL45p G2 (AMD Opteron (TM) 8218) 8 cores, 4 chips, 2 cores/chip 154 166
The public performance figures do not appear to back you up. Do you have some of your own?
C//
Don't get me started on the mobile and 2-8 core server market, Intel has completely decimated AMD's offerings there for now.
---------------
8 core? Haven't seen any evidence there. At 8 cores, you're talking 4 sockets, where AMD's four busses and the linear increase in bandwidth rules the day... aren't you?
I'd think if you're looking at an Intel Quad Core, you could only be comparing it to an AMD four-socket/8 core, which I'd be surprised to not see pretty far in the lead due to the memory bandwidth issues.
C//
.. you can get more violence in some religious texts than on TV, ...
-------------------
I've never heard of a TV show that actually makes rape sound like a good thing. And yes, the bible does do that.
C//
I think it likely that if a good were shown to be infringing, US customs might take a dire eye to it. Regardless of this speculation, once a patent-infringing item is imported, its domestic resellers are fully subject to litigation. Actually, so are the owners and users of such devices, its just that all to often these are little guys who aren't worth litigating.
C//