Let's go with the 1M killed, Saddam has been in power since 1979, 25 years. So that would be:
(1*10^6)/(25*365) = 109 killed/day
If we go with the 500k figure, it'd be 54/day obviously.
The US has been in Iraq for 1 year and 9 months now. If we presume Iraq under US control has matched Saddam's 'death rate' (reasons aside, the US has had some cause to conduct military operations in Iraq obviously, and many deaths have not been due direclty to US actions), at 54/day:
54*(1*365+3*28) = 24246
at 109/day, that'd be 48k people dead.
Note that 24k is the very lower bound of the number of people believed killed in this conflict. So the lower bound of death rate in *this* conflict matches a mid-estimate of the death rate under Saddam. The upper bound of the recent report on mortality rates in Iraq since the conflict was 100k. Which'd be 222/day death rate.
Saddam killed a lot of people, he was an evil man. But the instability in Iraq since the US invasion is killing people there at least as quickly, if not at twice or quadruple the rates as under Saddam.
"... but hey Iraq is now a peaceful democracy,.. "
And even that has not been accomplished. Dozen or more Iraqis die each day at presently in bombings. The violence is worse than ever. The elections later this month might end up boycotted by most Sunnis, if they can even take place. There's a distinct chance of civil war if the USA were to withdraw it's troops , and hence even further violence. OTOH, as long as US troops are actively involved in Iraq's security, there will be violence (insurgents against US and Iraqi National Guard troops, and the resulting retaliatory measures).
Moral arguments aside, on a purely statistical basis, it seems a safe bet Iraqis are more at risk of violent death now than under Saddam. Which makes it very hard to justify this regime-change, especially with the bleak prospect for stability in near-term in Iraq.
First, younger than that age kids should be developing their motor skills, so I wouldn't encourage them to be couch/computer potatoes.
Kids can do both surely? There's enough time in the day for them to be out playing games with friends, and spend some time in early evening with parents learning to read?
Second, although children begin to learn to read younger than seven, there's a certain degree of foundational literacy that they won't pick up until around seven.
If you delay teaching them to read, sure. Hence why the child should be taught to read as early as possible. At age 7 I entered primary second class in Ireland, and the curriculum expected us all to already be able to read properly. (ok, our vocabularies were still obviously limited, but that's a different matter).
I dont know, but focusing a child's learning on motor/coordination skills at an early age seems as unbalanced as focusing solely on reading. You want both I'd think, you want to introduce kids to as many different things as possible at an early age.
That said, I'm not a parent, and it's been far too long since I was a little kid.:)
I don't think computers are an advantage until the child can read, so before seven is probably too early.
Err, what part of the modern developed world do you come from where kids younger than 7 definitely can't read? We were taught to read in first class at age 5ish. I could already read to an extent as my parents had started teaching me the basics when I was younger.
Reading ability is a wonderful skill to develop as early as possible. Hence, to the extent a computer can help children become familiar with text, computer usage at as early an age as possible would be a good thing. (As part a healthy, balanced upbringing obviously).
Anyway, at age 7 an average child should already have developed basic reading skills. If they have not they will be at a huge disadvantage. Both of the primary school systems I have experience of (dutch and irish, i moved from NL to IE at age 7) are predicated on teaching basic reading comprehension before the age of 7.
Essentially, the original poster was spouting rubbish and probably had very little clue as to what he was on about..;)
Oops, that was you.;)
Anyway, be aware that you cant portably expect a pipe/fifo to hold more than PIPE_BUF AFAIK. If you know of systems that can buffer hundreds of MiB in pipes, I'd be interested to hear which.
Named pipes are...well..."named" FIFO structures on the filesystem whose contents reside in memory. Check this article for some more information.
Yes, I know the difference between anonymous and named pipes - mostly none other than one being present in the filesystem namespace.
That's not what he's suggesting here - he's suggesting using a named pipe as a temporary repository for your data stream, which is a bad idea, both for the strain on your memory, and the lack of integrity should your computer burp.
I dont know exactly what he's suggesting. In neither case can one use a pipe as temporary storage, other than the notional idea of some data being in flight.
Anyway, on most systems, a pipe simply will not buffer arbitrary amounts of data. The traditional case is that the pipe will buffer up to PIPE_BUF data at a time (blocking the writer when pipe is full), I think it's allowed to buffer more, but it's nuts to think one could use a pipe to buffer hundreds of megs of data as original poster suggested, you can't count on more than PIPE_BUF (which likely will == PAGE_SIZE, 4kiB on i386), and you might find some systems with higher upper bounds, but still unlikely to exceed a small number of pages. Definitely not hundreds of megabytes. That was my only point really.
Note that Linus intends eventually to have Linux be able to 'buffer' pipes to arbitrary data sizes, however by doing zero-copy, using a new 'splice' syscall. So again, no magic ability to be able to store hundreds of megs of data in temporary kernel buffers - it'll have to be either mapped in the writer and/or reader.
Essentially, the original poster was spouting rubbish and probably had very little clue as to what he was on about..;)
Linux was 64bit before Solaris. The first Solaris/SunOS release to run on a 64bit platform was Solaris 2.5 on UltraSPARC I in 1995, but TTBOMK it was still a 32bit port (TTBOMK).
I dont think Solaris was fully 64bit capable until Solaris 7, released in 1998, when it gained ability to export 64bit VM to userspace (on UltraSPARC only, and, IIRC, hardware problems with some early UltraSPARCs precluded ability to run 64bit userspace on those CPUs).
See, eg: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/solaris/versions/solar is/
Linux was ported to the 64 bit DEC Alpha, one of the first ports of Linux (first by Linus anyway, but there were earlier ports to, I think, m68k by others), over a decade ago.
Linux has been 64 bit for ten years. Before many *proprietary* OSes!
(NT for Alpha was not 64 bit, it was a 32bit port.).
There's nothing that says amount of work CPUs can do must scale with (and only with) clock frequency. Eg, Ancient SGI O2's can do real-time MJPEG PAL or NTSC encoding, despite clocking between 175 to 400MHz. Ok, the encoding is done on a seperate dedicated chip (a 66MHz clocked 128bit SIMD vector unit)[1], but with todays transistor budgets no reason that kind of functionality couldnt be integrated into a CPU (already has to an extent - the various SIMD instruction extensions for PC CPUs).
1. Hmm, a UMA system with MIPS CPU with additional MIPS derived vector processing units, that sounds familiar
You realise that pipes typically buffer only a few pages of data? (ie 4kB to 16kB). They certainly cant buffer hundreds of megs worth. In the case grandparent mentioned, mplayer is (in a sense) simply streaming to lame, which writes the mp3. The amount of data in flight will be tiny.
It's a reasonable small file for an mpeg, less than 1MB. There is no other Airbus crash I know of that'd fit any kind of "crashing on autolanding" scenario (misconceived notion thereof or not).
Also note that the voice-over on that video is misleading "this is the first fully-automated plane flown by a computer" is utter bovine-faeces. The A320 simply brought to civil aviation technology which was pioneered in military aviation - "fly by wire" (eg the General Dynamics F16 from the 1970s). And while it requires a computer (3 actually, for redundancy) to fly, it's still a human making the decisions who is well-trained (or should be) in the features and limitations of the technology of his aeroplane. Eg, in the Airbus fly-past accident, the pilot had to actually to disable a safety-feature (auto-thrust) in order to make the fly-past, as the flight software by default would not have allowed the pilot to make that fly-past in landing configuration. Initial suspicion in that accident had centred around whether the EFCS (flight software) had somehow gotten confused, thought the plane was meant to land and not allowed the pilot to recover, however this suspicion proved unfounded mostly - the problem was with much older technology, the wetware in the cockpit and, possibly, aerodynamic stall of one engine.
PS: My father was a pilot too, retired from civil aviation (everything from banner towing in his younger days to business jets across the world to jet airliners to trucking cargo..) a few years ago. It's fun growing up with a father who's a pilot isn't it? (well, you dont see them that often, but that aside.);)
Please, that video is not of Airbus demonstrating auto-landing. It's of an Air France 'demo' slow, low-level fly-past at an airfield (ie fly along the runway and continue on), in 'unclean' configuration (flaps and gear down, similar to landing configuration - but it's not doing an auto-landing.).
The accident report blamed human error, particularly the captain. He was ill-prepared, partly Air France's fault as the airfield map they gave him did not show the trees, and was responsible for several errors. The barometric altimeter was miscalibrated by 67 feet, the captain then ignored the voice-sounded warning of 100feet from the (very accurate) radio altimeter and trusted the barometric altimeter instead. He then flew the plane in an attitude and configuration in which it could not recover quickly from, and finally, he applied power to recover too late (big turbofans take time to spool up from idle and start producing power).
The captain maintains the plane did not respond as it should have done. Firstly, he claims one engine did not respond within the time it should have (which is plausible) and secondly that the flight software malfunctioned and did not respond correctly to flight-control input (which is slightly less plausible). There also claims that the FDR was tampered with after the accident (claims are that 4s were cut, to make it seem like the captain applied power 4s too late).
The captain may be right, however even so he was negligent and made the crucial mistake of misjudging his altitude. Had he flown the fly-past at the intended AGL of 100 feet, the accident would never have occured, regardless of the other factors.
PS: "Autoland" has been around a long time, Cat-III equipped runways have been around since the 1970s i think, possibly the 1960s. It still requires a human to eyeball the runway though and make the final decision, to 50feet above runway or so for Cat-IIIb.
Solaris 10 betas at moment have Mozilla 1.7 and GNOME 2.6 (or is it GNOME 2.8?). What you're doing is akin to judging Linux by the state of Debian Woody, rather than Debian Sarge.
AMD solved most of these with the Athlon-MP and HyperTransport,
Athlon used the EV6 bus, from DEC. HyperTransport debuted in the K8, is PtP like EV6 but expands on it to allow for SMP with less need for external glue logic (like the 760MP chipset, which had to act as an EV6 hub). AMDs evolution of EV6 -> HyperTransport intergrated into the CPU pretty much follows what DEC did with the EV bus, they integrated inter-cpu routing functionality into the 21364 Alpha.. HyperTransport didnt quite go that far, but same trend.
Surely the Ati FireGL 8800/8700 would be better? Hard to find though. Or what about the Radeon 9200? That's surely available clocked higher than the older 8500.
They spent some time in POW camps(often eating better food than what they had before). Except for specific individuals, they've pretty much been released.
I agree, they've been treated well. As for food, well that's what the GCRTPOW demands, you give them the best food you practically can of the choices of the food they're used or the food your own soldiers eat.
I have some names for you: Nicholas Berg, Kim Sun-il, Paul M. Johnson Jr., Eugene Armstrong.
How many is that? Can you name Iraqi's or Afghanis who've died in US custody - there have been quite a few cases, but they barely get reported. Now obviously they're just dirty Arabs or Pashtuns or whatever, lives not as worthy as our western ones, by virtue of them being muslim like the terrorists who destroyed the twin towers or bombed the trains in Madrid, but...
(ok, the sarcasm is possibly slightly heavy there, but there is a huge disparity in reporting of this conflict between the evils visited on innocent western civilians and the evils visited, intentionally or not, on the Afghanis and Iraqis).
As for the POW's being held, I meant three more years. As in they've already been held for three years
In close confinement, shackled, drugged and tortured, or at least subjected to some quite coercive treatments - all without any kind of due process to even ensure they werent actually innocent civvies. If you were a Muslim, could you not see how this would make you really anti-american, just as much as the WTC attacks made americans so anti-muslim that US citizens have no problem with the deportion of arbitrary Muslim civilians to, effectively a torture camp (you can call it coercion as Rumsfeld does, but that's picking nits), without any right to due process? I can understand americans being angry about 9/11, but can you not see that by the same measure, the USes actions in the middle east since then might, in the same way, have provoked even greater hatred in return?
And that's ignoring the fact that muslims, particularly in the middle-east, already had some long-standing grievances with the USA anyway - possibly not utterly unjustified either. Eg, the USA has been promising successive members of the House of Saud that the USA will push strongly for a palestinian state - going back to Roosevelt promising this to King Fahd *during* WWII in return for King Fahd giving his blessing to the creation of the state of Israel. (And King Fahd pretty much spoke for the Arab middle east back then). And lets ignore the mistakes made by the USA as part of the games played with USSR during cold war (eg Iran.. the reason the Iranians despise the US so much is cause they remember the Shah - and that resentment transfers to most of the rest of the Shia muslim world. The US has never apologised for its role in Iran to the Iranians, but instead treats them as pariahs to this day.).
Please, when the USA starts chopping off heads in Gitmo, and the terrorists start speaking harshly at their prisoners, we'll talk again.
Firstly, under the auspices of the US military, following policy which looks to have come from Rumsfeld, far more has been done than just talk harshly at prisoners. Did you read the report by General (i cant remember his name right now) into Abu Ghraib which was presented to the senate earlier this year? That general concluded there was systemic abuse, and that it was ordered by military intelligence.
There are other reports since then, including investigations into execution of prisoners, along with torture, in prisons all across Iraq, not just Abu Ghraib - and I think Guantanamo too. The people who have been released from those facilities are talking too - it doesnt get reported as much as beheadings of western civilians, but if you look you'll find them. The UK High Court has ruled that British soldiers actions are tryable under UK law for violations of human rights, and cases are being brought against the UK govt in England by Iraqis regarding cases of abuses wh
I'd love to be treated like we treat prisoners at Gitmo.
Oh please... If US soldiers taken POW were shackled, drugged, interrogated and confined in open cells there would be uproar from the USA. Imagine if US soldiers were treated in same way as those in Abu Graib and other US military run prisons in Iraq.. Indeed, there was uproar at the photos of the dead US soldiers shown by Saddam's govt - even though every day on TV there were pictures of Iraqi soldiers either POW or dead.
As it is, I know there is a 95% chance I'll end up with my head sawed off with a knife if I'm captured by those we're currently in conflict with.
You mean like Jessica Parker (or whatever her name was), who when captured was taken to a local hospital by Iraqi soldiers? Or you mean like the systemic abuse, rape and torture of prisoners held by the US military in Iraq? Ask yourself how the US' conduct in Iraq has contributed to the high probability that US soldiers captured now would be murdered..
As for the people we've released, it takes time to decide if you have a case or not.
Indeed it could do. And, unsurprisingly, the GCRTPOW has this covered, see article 103.
If you were a German soldier captured near the beginning of WWII, you'd still have three more years before you'd be returned home.
Err, of course. You are allowed to detain POWs in suitable POW camps, (??) for as there is conflict. That's the point.
Further, 3 years? (joking) I know sometimes Americans have trouble with the concept that the rest of the world exists and functions even when the US' attention is not upon it, but WWII started ~3 years before the US got involved!;) There were germans who were held as POWs in the UK for more than 3 years, eg german airman shot down over england or scotland and captured.
I've also read that a number of them have been spotted/caught running with terrorist organizations after their release, in some theater (not necessarily american, some have been found fighting the russians).
In the mess of Chechnya you mean? Thank Yeltsin and Putin for that. However, that doesnt change the fact that innocent civilians have been kept detained, and undoubtedly been subject to interrogation bordering on torture, for years at gitmo.
Like has been said, the geneva conventions are a poor fit for terrorists.
Rubbish. Read the bloody conventions. The Geneva Conventions have gone through several iterations since their conception in the late 1800s. Many countries are contracted parties and each undoubtedly has had their counsel review and work on them. The United States, interestingly, btw is *not* a contracted party to the most recent round of Geneva Conventions in the 1970s - the US is a signatory, but never ratified by Congress. I think the US might be fully contracted to the 1949-1950 round of the conventions, but I do not know for sure.
Anyway, the Geneva Conventions do have these things covered. The conventions provide for judicial proceedings against POWs. See Section VI, Chapter III, "PENAL AND DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS", Part III "Judicial proceedings". The GCRTPOW does not directly cover terrorism, because it has no need to - it merely provides the standards required for the Detaining Power to prosecute POWs unders its own laws. Which ought to be sufficient.
Please note Articles 99 and 102, which essentially mandate that the detaining power must apply the same laws and judicial standards as it would to a member of its own armed forces. Which means that if you argue "the GCRTPOW doesnt fit well for terrorism", then what you're really saying is "US Law and the US UMC dont fit well for terrorism" - which is rubbish.
We aren't holding many Iraqis in Gitmo. We're holding people foreign to the area of conflict there.
Rubbish, a lot may not be afghani, but some (of those released at least) were.
That Michael Dorf article is fascinating, and just goes to show that eminent qualifications are no barrier to spreading crap about requirements of GCRTPOW (indeed, obviously they make the crap he spouts more effective). He rests his conclusions entirely on one or two of the more stricly defined categories of Article 4 and then ignores the other broader categories, but most importantly completely ignores what Article 5 has to say about what should be done if there's doubt:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
If in doubt, they're POWs, until competent tribunal says otherwise. Stated in the clearest of language. The people in Guantanemo have not had their status decided by competent tribunal, AFAIK.
Al Qaeda doesn't operate following the conventions, so technically we could treat them like spies and execute them without trial. There are other treaties, accords, and such that disallow this, but the geneva conventions don't matter.
They taught you this in the military? If so, god help us all, if not, you've drawn a conclusion which is utterly wrong. You can *not* execute them as spies until they are tried by competent tribunal, and until that time they are *POWS*. There is precedent for this, in the battle of the bulge in the Ardennes in WWII the germans sent special forces behind enemy lines dressed as US soldiers, with captured US military equipment. They caused a lot of confusion obviously. These germans when captured were held, tried as spies by military tribunal and then shot. However, until they were properly charged they were POWs.
The whole point of the Geneva Conventions is to ensure that people in theatres of war are either kept of out combat (ie civvies, medics, priests, wounded soldiers, etc) as much as possible or else (ie combatants) once captured as treated as well as security concerns allow, and, most importantly, that any other treatment must first be sanctioned by competent tribunal. Ie, treat them well and ensure they are afforded due process before any punishment can be meted out.
If you think, as a military man, that these people in "Gitmo" have been given that then woe betide you or your fellow soldiers when it happens to them. What kind of precedent do you think this sets for US soldiers who are captured in future conflicts? "Ah but the people in Gitmo are terrorists" doesnt cut it, cause many of them have , after several years of close confinement, interrogation, all without any kind of judicial supervision (either military or civilian) been released back to afghanistan or to the UK because they were indeed simply civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Precisely the kind of injustice the Geneva Conventions, if followed, were designed to protect against.
Its sad you think this is justifiable. These conventions protect you as much as anyone else. Your employer, by undermining them, endangers you, the ordinary soldier, almost as much as anyone else. But you've been brainwashed to think "ah but they're terrorists, my government says so, so its ok". Sad..
But they must be cleared identified as belonging to a sanctioned military unit of a recognized nation. Terrorists such as Al-Queada don't fall into those categories.
Absolute horse shit. No matter how many times idiots like yourself, who have certainly never read the GCRTPOW repeat this tripe, its simply not true.
If a person is not a combatant, then they're a civilian (or more rarely medical personel or clergy.). So they're either a POW, in which case you are allowed to detain them securely but you have to be nice, or they're civilians, in which case you have to be careful not to shoot them, be as nice as possible as possible. If someone is a combatant, under the GCRTPOW, the only way you can claim they are not a POW is if competent tribunal determines such - until that time, they are POWs.
Repeat after me: If it's war and they were fighting you, they're POWs and you must treat them as such, until competent tribunal says otherwise.
What do you mean "was"? Irix 6.5 still installs Sendmail as open-relay (least it did last I checked, around 6.5.19). It installs X with X security disabled, with just a +LOCAL restriction on host access and an entry in the toolchest menu to disable all access control, and listens on XDM by default.
SGI havnt even attended to the basics of security yet.
Oh, apparently some people are afraid of Radeon because of bad drivers. I'm pretty sure these experiences must be due to using ATis' binary-only drivers as the open DRI R1xx/R2xx drivers have been rock-solid for me. And 3D worked out of the box on both Fedora Core 2 and Debian Sarge for me - 0 configuration hassle.
Right now, if you want open source 3D, the only good hardware available is the Matrox G400/450/550 line, and that's over 5 years old.
Strange, my ATi Radeon 9200 RV280's disagree with you.
All of the R100 and R200 family Radeons are supported by the open DRI 3D drivers - type 'man radeon' for further information (including product names), the R300's are not supported though (but are supported for 2D by X). The fastest open-driver supported 3D card is the R200 based FireGL (careful - there's a newer R3xx based FireGL which wont work). There is work underway to reverse engineer the R3xx family and support the 3D features in the open drivers, see r300.sf.net. Also, there is an experimental R2xx Xorg kdrive Xserver featuring accelleration of XRender, and its probably where the work to move the Xserver over to 3D primitives will occur.
Anyway, go stock up on ATi Radeon 9200's. I have two, one AGP and one PCI, running happily on AMD64 and Alpha.
If anyone recalls, the Pentium was basically ripped off from DEC.
No.... it was a patent suit.
DEC alleged that Intel had infringed 10 DEC patents with some design features of (mostly) the Pentium*Pro*. Intel disagreed. The two sides eventually came to a settlement, which involved DEC essentially selling all its semiconductor interests to Intel.
The Pentium Pro wasn't too popular because... it's L2 cache was on the mainboard and thus Intel hand no QA over it and the L2 was often the cause of problems.
This is wrong.
PPro had its L2 cache integrated in the CPU package. It was the socket 7 chips which had L2 seperate and located on the mainboard. (Though, the K6-III SS7 CPU came with integrated L2, hence turning the cache on mainboard from L2 to L3).
The PentiumPro was *hugely* popular in terms of workstation and server sales - it was intel's first credible server/workstation CPU.
The P-II moved the PPro's cache from the CPU package to a seperate PCB, which meant they could use cheaper PCB surface mount of standard DRAM, and hence deliver P6 to the mass market.
MMX means nothing, firstly, MMX didnt exist until the P166MMX/P200MMX and secondly, PPro was never intended for mass consumer market, to which MMX was marketed, due to (in part) to aforementioned packaging cost and cost of the L2 cache (S7 boards cache was clocked at host bus 66MHz usually - PPro 's more expensive cache was clocked at CPU).
Slashdot Mirror
Let's go with the 1M killed, Saddam has been in power since 1979, 25 years. So that would be:
(1*10^6)/(25*365) = 109 killed/day
If we go with the 500k figure, it'd be 54/day obviously.
The US has been in Iraq for 1 year and 9 months now. If we presume Iraq under US control has matched Saddam's 'death rate' (reasons aside, the US has had some cause to conduct military operations in Iraq obviously, and many deaths have not been due direclty to US actions), at 54/day:
54*(1*365+3*28) = 24246
at 109/day, that'd be 48k people dead.
Note that 24k is the very lower bound of the number of people believed killed in this conflict. So the lower bound of death rate in *this* conflict matches a mid-estimate of the death rate under Saddam. The upper bound of the recent report on mortality rates in Iraq since the conflict was 100k. Which'd be 222/day death rate.
Saddam killed a lot of people, he was an evil man. But the instability in Iraq since the US invasion is killing people there at least as quickly, if not at twice or quadruple the rates as under Saddam.
" ... but hey Iraq is now a peaceful democracy, .. "
And even that has not been accomplished. Dozen or more Iraqis die each day at presently in bombings. The violence is worse than ever. The elections later this month might end up boycotted by most Sunnis, if they can even take place. There's a distinct chance of civil war if the USA were to withdraw it's troops , and hence even further violence. OTOH, as long as US troops are actively involved in Iraq's security, there will be violence (insurgents against US and Iraqi National Guard troops, and the resulting retaliatory measures).
Moral arguments aside, on a purely statistical basis, it seems a safe bet Iraqis are more at risk of violent death now than under Saddam. Which makes it very hard to justify this regime-change, especially with the bleak prospect for stability in near-term in Iraq.
WMD: Nope
Democracy in Iraq: Nope (maybe next month?)
Stability in Iraq: Worse than under Saddam
Sigh..
First, younger than that age kids should be developing their motor skills, so I wouldn't encourage them to be couch/computer potatoes.
:)
Kids can do both surely? There's enough time in the day for them to be out playing games with friends, and spend some time in early evening with parents learning to read?
Second, although children begin to learn to read younger than seven, there's a certain degree of foundational literacy that they won't pick up until around seven.
If you delay teaching them to read, sure. Hence why the child should be taught to read as early as possible. At age 7 I entered primary second class in Ireland, and the curriculum expected us all to already be able to read properly. (ok, our vocabularies were still obviously limited, but that's a different matter).
I dont know, but focusing a child's learning on motor/coordination skills at an early age seems as unbalanced as focusing solely on reading. You want both I'd think, you want to introduce kids to as many different things as possible at an early age.
That said, I'm not a parent, and it's been far too long since I was a little kid.
I don't think computers are an advantage until the child can read, so before seven is probably too early.
Err, what part of the modern developed world do you come from where kids younger than 7 definitely can't read? We were taught to read in first class at age 5ish. I could already read to an extent as my parents had started teaching me the basics when I was younger.
Reading ability is a wonderful skill to develop as early as possible. Hence, to the extent a computer can help children become familiar with text, computer usage at as early an age as possible would be a good thing. (As part a healthy, balanced upbringing obviously).
Anyway, at age 7 an average child should already have developed basic reading skills. If they have not they will be at a huge disadvantage. Both of the primary school systems I have experience of (dutch and irish, i moved from NL to IE at age 7) are predicated on teaching basic reading comprehension before the age of 7.
Essentially, the original poster was spouting rubbish and probably had very little clue as to what he was on about.. ;)
;)
Oops, that was you.
Anyway, be aware that you cant portably expect a pipe/fifo to hold more than PIPE_BUF AFAIK. If you know of systems that can buffer hundreds of MiB in pipes, I'd be interested to hear which.
Named pipes are not |'s.
;)
Named pipes are...well..."named" FIFO structures on the filesystem whose contents reside in memory. Check this article for some more information.
Yes, I know the difference between anonymous and named pipes - mostly none other than one being present in the filesystem namespace.
That's not what he's suggesting here - he's suggesting using a named pipe as a temporary repository for your data stream, which is a bad idea, both for the strain on your memory, and the lack of integrity should your computer burp.
I dont know exactly what he's suggesting. In neither case can one use a pipe as temporary storage, other than the notional idea of some data being in flight.
Anyway, on most systems, a pipe simply will not buffer arbitrary amounts of data. The traditional case is that the pipe will buffer up to PIPE_BUF data at a time (blocking the writer when pipe is full), I think it's allowed to buffer more, but it's nuts to think one could use a pipe to buffer hundreds of megs of data as original poster suggested, you can't count on more than PIPE_BUF (which likely will == PAGE_SIZE, 4kiB on i386), and you might find some systems with higher upper bounds, but still unlikely to exceed a small number of pages. Definitely not hundreds of megabytes. That was my only point really.
Note that Linus intends eventually to have Linux be able to 'buffer' pipes to arbitrary data sizes, however by doing zero-copy, using a new 'splice' syscall. So again, no magic ability to be able to store hundreds of megs of data in temporary kernel buffers - it'll have to be either mapped in the writer and/or reader.
Essentially, the original poster was spouting rubbish and probably had very little clue as to what he was on about..
Nope.
r is/
Linux was 64bit before Solaris. The first Solaris/SunOS release to run on a 64bit platform was Solaris 2.5 on UltraSPARC I in 1995, but TTBOMK it was still a 32bit port (TTBOMK).
I dont think Solaris was fully 64bit capable until Solaris 7, released in 1998, when it gained ability to export 64bit VM to userspace (on UltraSPARC only, and, IIRC, hardware problems with some early UltraSPARCs precluded ability to run 64bit userspace on those CPUs).
See, eg: http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/solaris/versions/sola
Linux was ported to the 64 bit DEC Alpha, one of the first ports of Linux (first by Linus anyway, but there were earlier ports to, I think, m68k by others), over a decade ago.
Linux has been 64 bit for ten years. Before many *proprietary* OSes!
(NT for Alpha was not 64 bit, it was a 32bit port.).
Why do you think this requires GHz to do?
There's nothing that says amount of work CPUs can do must scale with (and only with) clock frequency. Eg, Ancient SGI O2's can do real-time MJPEG PAL or NTSC encoding, despite clocking between 175 to 400MHz. Ok, the encoding is done on a seperate dedicated chip (a 66MHz clocked 128bit SIMD vector unit)[1], but with todays transistor budgets no reason that kind of functionality couldnt be integrated into a CPU (already has to an extent - the various SIMD instruction extensions for PC CPUs).
1. Hmm, a UMA system with MIPS CPU with additional MIPS derived vector processing units, that sounds
familiar
You realise that pipes typically buffer only a few pages of data? (ie 4kB to 16kB). They certainly cant buffer hundreds of megs worth. In the case grandparent mentioned, mplayer is (in a sense) simply streaming to lame, which writes the mp3. The amount of data in flight will be tiny.
It's a reasonable small file for an mpeg, less than 1MB. There is no other Airbus crash I know of that'd fit any kind of "crashing on autolanding" scenario (misconceived notion thereof or not).
;)
Also note that the voice-over on that video is misleading "this is the first fully-automated plane flown by a computer" is utter bovine-faeces. The A320 simply brought to civil aviation technology which was pioneered in military aviation - "fly by wire" (eg the General Dynamics F16 from the 1970s). And while it requires a computer (3 actually, for redundancy) to fly, it's still a human making the decisions who is well-trained (or should be) in the features and limitations of the technology of his aeroplane. Eg, in the Airbus fly-past accident, the pilot had to actually to disable a safety-feature (auto-thrust) in order to make the fly-past, as the flight software by default would not have allowed the pilot to make that fly-past in landing configuration. Initial suspicion in that accident had centred around whether the EFCS (flight software) had somehow gotten confused, thought the plane was meant to land and not allowed the pilot to recover, however this suspicion proved unfounded mostly - the problem was with much older technology, the wetware in the cockpit and, possibly, aerodynamic stall of one engine.
PS: My father was a pilot too, retired from civil aviation (everything from banner towing in his younger days to business jets across the world to jet airliners to trucking cargo..) a few years ago. It's fun growing up with a father who's a pilot isn't it? (well, you dont see them that often, but that aside.)
Please, that video is not of Airbus demonstrating auto-landing. It's of an Air France 'demo' slow, low-level fly-past at an airfield (ie fly along the runway and continue on), in 'unclean' configuration (flaps and gear down, similar to landing configuration - but it's not doing an auto-landing.).
The accident report blamed human error, particularly the captain. He was ill-prepared, partly Air France's fault as the airfield map they gave him did not show the trees, and was responsible for several errors. The barometric altimeter was miscalibrated by 67 feet, the captain then ignored the voice-sounded warning of 100feet from the (very accurate) radio altimeter and trusted the barometric altimeter instead. He then flew the plane in an attitude and configuration in which it could not recover quickly from, and finally, he applied power to recover too late (big turbofans take time to spool up from idle and start producing power).
The captain maintains the plane did not respond as it should have done. Firstly, he claims one engine did not respond within the time it should have (which is plausible) and secondly that the flight software malfunctioned and did not respond correctly to flight-control input (which is slightly less plausible). There also claims that the FDR was tampered with after the accident (claims are that 4s were cut, to make it seem like the captain applied power 4s too late).
The captain may be right, however even so he was negligent and made the crucial mistake of misjudging his altitude. Had he flown the fly-past at the intended AGL of 100 feet, the accident would never have occured, regardless of the other factors.
See, eg, this safety-critical post.
PS: "Autoland" has been around a long time, Cat-III equipped runways have been around since the 1970s i think, possibly the 1960s. It still requires a human to eyeball the runway though and make the final decision, to 50feet above runway or so for Cat-IIIb.
Solaris 10 betas at moment have Mozilla 1.7 and GNOME 2.6 (or is it GNOME 2.8?). What you're doing is akin to judging Linux by the state of Debian Woody, rather than Debian Sarge.
AMD solved most of these with the Athlon-MP and HyperTransport,
Athlon used the EV6 bus, from DEC. HyperTransport debuted in the K8, is PtP like EV6 but expands on it to allow for SMP with less need for external glue logic (like the 760MP chipset, which had to act as an EV6 hub). AMDs evolution of EV6 -> HyperTransport intergrated into the CPU pretty much follows what DEC did with the EV bus, they integrated inter-cpu routing functionality into the 21364 Alpha.. HyperTransport didnt quite go that far, but same trend.
Surely the Ati FireGL 8800/8700 would be better? Hard to find though. Or what about the Radeon 9200? That's surely available clocked higher than the older 8500.
My 9200's work quite well with FC3 btw.
They spent some time in POW camps(often eating better food than what they had before). Except for specific individuals, they've pretty much been released.
I agree, they've been treated well. As for food, well that's what the GCRTPOW demands, you give them the best food you practically can of the choices of the food they're used or the food your own soldiers eat.
I have some names for you: Nicholas Berg, Kim Sun-il, Paul M. Johnson Jr., Eugene Armstrong.
How many is that? Can you name Iraqi's or Afghanis who've died in US custody - there have been quite a few cases, but they barely get reported. Now obviously they're just dirty Arabs or Pashtuns or whatever, lives not as worthy as our western ones, by virtue of them being muslim like the terrorists who destroyed the twin towers or bombed the trains in Madrid, but...
(ok, the sarcasm is possibly slightly heavy there, but there is a huge disparity in reporting of this conflict between the evils visited on innocent western civilians and the evils visited, intentionally or not, on the Afghanis and Iraqis).
As for the POW's being held, I meant three more years. As in they've already been held for three years
In close confinement, shackled, drugged and tortured, or at least subjected to some quite coercive treatments - all without any kind of due process to even ensure they werent actually innocent civvies. If you were a Muslim, could you not see how this would make you really anti-american, just as much as the WTC attacks made americans so anti-muslim that US citizens have no problem with the deportion of arbitrary Muslim civilians to, effectively a torture camp (you can call it coercion as Rumsfeld does, but that's picking nits), without any right to due process? I can understand americans being angry about 9/11, but can you not see that by the same measure, the USes actions in the middle east since then might, in the same way, have provoked even greater hatred in return?
And that's ignoring the fact that muslims, particularly in the middle-east, already had some long-standing grievances with the USA anyway - possibly not utterly unjustified either. Eg, the USA has been promising successive members of the House of Saud that the USA will push strongly for a palestinian state - going back to Roosevelt promising this to King Fahd *during* WWII in return for King Fahd giving his blessing to the creation of the state of Israel. (And King Fahd pretty much spoke for the Arab middle east back then). And lets ignore the mistakes made by the USA as part of the games played with USSR during cold war (eg Iran.. the reason the Iranians despise the US so much is cause they remember the Shah - and that resentment transfers to most of the rest of the Shia muslim world. The US has never apologised for its role in Iran to the Iranians, but instead treats them as pariahs to this day.).
Please, when the USA starts chopping off heads in Gitmo, and the terrorists start speaking harshly at their prisoners, we'll talk again.
Firstly, under the auspices of the US military, following policy which looks to have come from Rumsfeld, far more has been done than just talk harshly at prisoners. Did you read the report by General (i cant remember his name right now) into Abu Ghraib which was presented to the senate earlier this year? That general concluded there was systemic abuse, and that it was ordered by military intelligence.
There are other reports since then, including investigations into execution of prisoners, along with torture, in prisons all across Iraq, not just Abu Ghraib - and I think Guantanamo too. The people who have been released from those facilities are talking too - it doesnt get reported as much as beheadings of western civilians, but if you look you'll find them. The UK High Court has ruled that British soldiers actions are tryable under UK law for violations of human rights, and cases are being brought against the UK govt in England by Iraqis regarding cases of abuses wh
I'd love to be treated like we treat prisoners at Gitmo.
;) There were germans who were held as POWs in the UK for more than 3 years, eg german airman shot down over england or scotland and captured.
Oh please... If US soldiers taken POW were shackled, drugged, interrogated and confined in open cells there would be uproar from the USA. Imagine if US soldiers were treated in same way as those in Abu Graib and other US military run prisons in Iraq.. Indeed, there was uproar at the photos of the dead US soldiers shown by Saddam's govt - even though every day on TV there were pictures of Iraqi soldiers either POW or dead.
As it is, I know there is a 95% chance I'll end up with my head sawed off with a knife if I'm captured by those we're currently in conflict with.
You mean like Jessica Parker (or whatever her name was), who when captured was taken to a local hospital by Iraqi soldiers? Or you mean like the systemic abuse, rape and torture of prisoners held by the US military in Iraq? Ask yourself how the US' conduct in Iraq has contributed to the high probability that US soldiers captured now would be murdered..
As for the people we've released, it takes time to decide if you have a case or not.
Indeed it could do. And, unsurprisingly, the GCRTPOW has this covered, see article 103.
If you were a German soldier captured near the beginning of WWII, you'd still have three more years before you'd be returned home.
Err, of course. You are allowed to detain POWs in suitable POW camps, (??) for as there is conflict. That's the point.
Further, 3 years? (joking) I know sometimes Americans have trouble with the concept that the rest of the world exists and functions even when the US' attention is not upon it, but WWII started ~3 years before the US got involved!
I've also read that a number of them have been spotted/caught running with terrorist organizations after their release, in some theater (not necessarily american, some have been found fighting the russians).
In the mess of Chechnya you mean? Thank Yeltsin and Putin for that. However, that doesnt change the fact that innocent civilians have been kept detained, and undoubtedly been subject to interrogation bordering on torture, for years at gitmo.
Like has been said, the geneva conventions are a poor fit for terrorists.
Rubbish. Read the bloody conventions. The Geneva Conventions have gone through several iterations since their conception in the late 1800s. Many countries are contracted parties and each undoubtedly has had their counsel review and work on them. The United States, interestingly, btw is *not* a contracted party to the most recent round of Geneva Conventions in the 1970s - the US is a signatory, but never ratified by Congress. I think the US might be fully contracted to the 1949-1950 round of the conventions, but I do not know for sure.
Anyway, the Geneva Conventions do have these things covered. The conventions provide for judicial proceedings against POWs. See Section VI, Chapter III, "PENAL AND DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS", Part III "Judicial proceedings". The GCRTPOW does not directly cover terrorism, because it has no need to - it merely provides the standards required for the Detaining Power to prosecute POWs unders its own laws. Which ought to be sufficient.
Please note Articles 99 and 102, which essentially mandate that the detaining power must apply the same laws and judicial standards as it would to a member of its own armed forces. Which means that if you argue "the GCRTPOW doesnt fit well for terrorism", then what you're really saying is "US Law and the US UMC dont fit well for terrorism" - which is rubbish.
We aren't holding many Iraqis in Gitmo. We're holding people foreign to the area of conflict there.
Rubbish, a lot may not be afghani, but some (of those released at least) were.
you are allowed to question POW's
I
That Michael Dorf article is fascinating, and just goes to show that eminent qualifications are no barrier to spreading crap about requirements of GCRTPOW (indeed, obviously they make the crap he spouts more effective). He rests his conclusions entirely on one or two of the more stricly defined categories of Article 4 and then ignores the other broader categories, but most importantly completely ignores what Article 5 has to say about what should be done if there's doubt:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
If in doubt, they're POWs, until competent tribunal says otherwise. Stated in the clearest of language. The people in Guantanemo have not had their status decided by competent tribunal, AFAIK.
Al Qaeda doesn't operate following the conventions, so technically we could treat them like spies and execute them without trial. There are other treaties, accords, and such that disallow this, but the geneva conventions don't matter.
They taught you this in the military? If so, god help us all, if not, you've drawn a conclusion which is utterly wrong. You can *not* execute them as spies until they are tried by competent tribunal, and until that time they are *POWS*. There is precedent for this, in the battle of the bulge in the Ardennes in WWII the germans sent special forces behind enemy lines dressed as US soldiers, with captured US military equipment. They caused a lot of confusion obviously. These germans when captured were held, tried as spies by military tribunal and then shot. However, until they were properly charged they were POWs.
The whole point of the Geneva Conventions is to ensure that people in theatres of war are either kept of out combat (ie civvies, medics, priests, wounded soldiers, etc) as much as possible or else (ie combatants) once captured as treated as well as security concerns allow, and, most importantly, that any other treatment must first be sanctioned by competent tribunal. Ie, treat them well and ensure they are afforded due process before any punishment can be meted out.
If you think, as a military man, that these people in "Gitmo" have been given that then woe betide you or your fellow soldiers when it happens to them. What kind of precedent do you think this sets for US soldiers who are captured in future conflicts? "Ah but the people in Gitmo are terrorists" doesnt cut it, cause many of them have , after several years of close confinement, interrogation, all without any kind of judicial supervision (either military or civilian) been released back to afghanistan or to the UK because they were indeed simply civilians who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Precisely the kind of injustice the Geneva Conventions, if followed, were designed to protect against.
Its sad you think this is justifiable. These conventions protect you as much as anyone else. Your employer, by undermining them, endangers you, the ordinary soldier, almost as much as anyone else. But you've been brainwashed to think "ah but they're terrorists, my government says so, so its ok". Sad..
But they must be cleared identified as belonging to a sanctioned military unit of a recognized nation. Terrorists such as Al-Queada don't fall into those categories.
Absolute horse shit. No matter how many times idiots like yourself, who have certainly never read the GCRTPOW repeat this tripe, its simply not true.
If a person is not a combatant, then they're a civilian (or more rarely medical personel or clergy.). So they're either a POW, in which case you are allowed to detain them securely but you have to be nice, or they're civilians, in which case you have to be careful not to shoot them, be as nice as possible as possible. If someone is a combatant, under the GCRTPOW, the only way you can claim they are not a POW is if competent tribunal determines such - until that time, they are POWs.
Repeat after me: If it's war and they were fighting you, they're POWs and you must treat them as such, until competent tribunal says otherwise.
Idiot...
Irix was famous for its lack of security.
What do you mean "was"? Irix 6.5 still installs Sendmail as open-relay (least it did last I checked, around 6.5.19). It installs X with X security disabled, with just a +LOCAL restriction on host access and an entry in the toolchest menu to disable all access control, and listens on XDM by default.
SGI havnt even attended to the basics of security yet.
McManus (nomen est omen -- the Latin for 'hand' is manus ;-)
Co-incidental, the Scots name Manus apparently derives from 'magnus' (latin for "great"?).
Oh, apparently some people are afraid of Radeon because of bad drivers. I'm pretty sure these experiences must be due to using ATis' binary-only drivers as the open DRI R1xx/R2xx drivers have been rock-solid for me. And 3D worked out of the box on both Fedora Core 2 and Debian Sarge for me - 0 configuration hassle.
Right now, if you want open source 3D, the only good hardware available is the Matrox G400/450/550 line, and that's over 5 years old.
Strange, my ATi Radeon 9200 RV280's disagree with you.
All of the R100 and R200 family Radeons are supported by the open DRI 3D drivers - type 'man radeon' for further information (including product names), the R300's are not supported though (but are supported for 2D by X). The fastest open-driver supported 3D card is the R200 based FireGL (careful - there's a newer R3xx based FireGL which wont work). There is work underway to reverse engineer the R3xx family and support the 3D features in the open drivers, see r300.sf.net. Also, there is an experimental R2xx Xorg kdrive Xserver featuring accelleration of XRender, and its probably where the work to move the Xserver over to 3D primitives will occur.
Anyway, go stock up on ATi Radeon 9200's. I have two, one AGP and one PCI, running happily on AMD64 and Alpha.
If anyone recalls, the Pentium was basically ripped off from DEC.
No.... it was a patent suit.
DEC alleged that Intel had infringed 10 DEC patents with some design features of (mostly) the Pentium*Pro*. Intel disagreed. The two sides eventually came to a settlement, which involved DEC essentially selling all its semiconductor interests to Intel.
The Pentium Pro wasn't too popular because ... it's L2 cache was on the mainboard and thus Intel hand no QA over it and the L2 was often the cause of problems.
This is wrong.
PPro had its L2 cache integrated in the CPU package. It was the socket 7 chips which had L2 seperate and located on the mainboard. (Though, the K6-III SS7 CPU came with integrated L2, hence turning the cache on mainboard from L2 to L3).
The PentiumPro was *hugely* popular in terms of workstation and server sales - it was intel's first credible server/workstation CPU.
The P-II moved the PPro's cache from the CPU package to a seperate PCB, which meant they could use cheaper PCB surface mount of standard DRAM, and hence deliver P6 to the mass market.
MMX means nothing, firstly, MMX didnt exist until the P166MMX/P200MMX and secondly, PPro was never intended for mass consumer market, to which MMX was marketed, due to (in part) to aforementioned packaging cost and cost of the L2 cache (S7 boards cache was clocked at host bus 66MHz usually - PPro 's more expensive cache was clocked at CPU).