I think you completely fail to understand something very specific about server administration: You don't own the boxes. Your employer does. Your knowledge of passwords, etc. is so that you can do your job. In every company I've ever worked for I never have the authority to grant or revoke access to a system. I had the capability since I had root access, but that didn't grant me authority. It's not the job of an administrator to decide who does and doesn't have access any more than it is the job of a security guard to decide who has the privilege of entering the building. You are the implementor of the policy, not the creator of the policy.
I don't think you get it. These are pull updates, not push updates. No one forces you to upgrade. It is opt in.
And by the way this horrible, terrifying new plugin that has everyone cowering in fear -- you know, the one that preloads a bit of the JVM so that applets and whatnot start up faster -- is part of the JVM. It's exactly like any other new feature in an upgrade.
Stop crying and recognize that it is the user that chooses to click the update button in the notifier.
Um, JVM have always included plugins for browsers. Being shocked or surprised at this is like being flabbergasted and croggled by Mozilla Corp adding a "know your rights" bar rather than a click through EULA in version 3.05. Or like the FSF including a getwchar() in libc.
The post you reply to is written by a numbskull. Compiling software doesn't even begin to ensure that all possible memory locations accessed and bit values are written. The vast majority of what is going on during a compile and/or md5 sum is going to happen in the processor's L1 & L2 caches.
On the other hand memtest86(+) has a methodology that includes disabling cache and ensures that all possible locations are written to and read from. Additionally there is a mixture of patterns used, from random patterns for general testing to specific patterns (both bit value & access ordering) for exercising known failure modes of DRAM.
Finally the idea that you can "stress" you RAM is nuts. Outside of running the device out of spec (e.g. overclocking), the only "stress" possible is heat and just being on will get it into the normal operating temperatures. Anything else is what it's designed to do, there is no ubermagic access pattern driven by that "well known" gcc that causes DRAM to fall over dead.
Put them into a Solaris ZFS pool as the logging device or the l2arc. For working set sizes in the area of fifty or sixty gigabytes, it'll make your three or four terabytes across ten spindles act like three or four terabytes across one hundred spindles. Sounds worth it to me.
Do the article author and the slashdot editor not actually get it? The problem wasn't the game play, it was the theme involved. "Sugar coating" it exactly solves the problem. So why does anyone think they've reached some massive cleverness by sneaking their drug game through the censors?
It's like that idiot lady that snuck "gun powder" (components) through airport security showing how terrible they are. (I'm not claiming any magic profiling ability in the TSA here.) But if you don't blow up an airplane they didn't fail. If they can determine that you aren't a threat, you being on a plane with a stick of dynamite rammed up your backside isn't an issue.
WTF? Where is all this hate coming from? You're like the little kid in preschool who when asked if he wants to play with the blocks or the ball, freaks out and goes into some bizarre, deranged screaming fit about the dinosaurs and the slide and cheerios. Other than you, who brought up republicans or democratics?
I responded to a dumbass who said "clinton...blowjob...traitor" and "Bush... lied" with actual factual information. Nobody said Clinton is a traitor other than the original poster. He was however impeached for perjury. He was fined $90,000 for contempt of court. He did agree to give up his law license for five years. He did resign from the Supreme Court bar. He did pay Paula Jones $850,000.
There's been a Democratic majority in Congress for the last two years and they haven't seen fit to impeach Bush. So all the ranting about his lying, etc. is just BDS.
So you think it's ok for someone to get a billion dollar handout then turn around and take advantage of all the loopholes available.
There is no such thing as a loophole. Calling something a loophole is just a way of saying, "they aren't doing what I think they should be doing." The law is the law and they are obeying it. If they aren't then they should be prosecuted.
They would be paying their fair share if they were earning all that income from the citizens of Ireland, but they're not. They just say they are. That is the difference.
US corporations pay income taxes regardless of where the money is made, so your accusation, in addition to being unfounded, just makes no sense.
You are now in a higher tax bracket, paying %25. So you take home $24,765 in that year. Whoa. You got a raise and you take home less? Your weekly check is now $476.25. You got a raise, so you take home less.
No. Really you don't. Tax brackets don't work like that. The fact that you don't even understand how taxes work, makes me believe that you've never paid taxes in your life. So why would we take tax advice from someone who doesn't understand the current system, and probably doesn't even pay taxes?
You only pay the tax rate in a bracket for the money that actually falls in that bracket. In your example you'd pay 15% of the amount up to $32,500, then 25% on the $520 between $32,500 and $33,020. So the person's take home would actually go up $7.50/week to $538.75.
You know, if you knew anything about the bailouts you might not be so fed up. So far nobody has been given free money. AIG got loans at a very substantial interest rate. The banks sold portions of their companies to the US Treasury, some of them involuntarily.
If you had any connection with facts, your post would be a lot more compelling.
The exact same thing can be said about each and every one of us, we just collect taxes for the government from our employers.
Face it, everybody pays taxes and it's really hard to argue that corporations should pay an income tax since all the profit that they take in either goes into growing the company or paid out to the people who own the business where that same money is taxes *again*.
They are receiving US GOVERNMENT funds taken from US TAXPAYERS and they're stashing them in foreign tax havens.
No they aren't. First, every penny of the TARP funds is either new money or debt. Not a single penny of taxpayer funds have been given. Second, there is no point in putting cash in a tax haven. You don't get taxed on having money. If the government sticks a billion dollars in your bank account, you won't pay a cent in taxes on that billion dollars even if you let it sit there forever.
Oh and guess what? A number of the banks who received TARP money didn't want it but the US Treasury forced them to sell a portion of their operations to the treasury and accept money. Why? Because otherwise everybody would look at the banks that did get money from the treasury and they'd immediately take their business elsewhere since those are the banks on life support. Look at Wellsfargo and Citigroup, they both got TARP money. But one of them was willing to pay out of their own pocket to purchase Wachovia and the other wanted the government to pay them to take on Wachovia.
Anyway, the point is, before you go start accusing people of taking money from the public coffers you should make sure that you know who actually wanted money and who was forced to take it.
It will not help rebuild the US economy.
The only way to "fix" the US economy is for people to work at whatever they are good at and build value. Then exchange that value for goods from other people who are working. But people sitting on their asses bitching that they don't have jobs and that the government needs to do something won't fucking help. They need to get their own butts in gear and make something fucking happen.
All this government shit is doing is trying to push things back to some semblance of the status quo. The best thing that could be done for the economy is to let banks fail, let people lose their homes, and let people be productive and those who can't be productive need to learn to be.
One would imagine that you would then at least have the decency to pay the taxes you owe.
Um, they are paying all the taxes they owe. 100% of them. Oh, I see. You want them to pay more than they owe. Gotcha.
I'm curious, do you claim the standard exemption on your income taxes? Cause I sort of think you should pay all the taxes you owe. And all those people who have mortgages on their primary residences, they should probably stop claiming that deduction. And all those goddamned tax dodgers with children, don't get me started on them.
Half the people in this country don't pay any income taxes. And the amazing thing is that they go ahead and file a tax return because they get a, several hundred to several thousand dollar, rebate on their $0.00 tax bill. Talk about people not paying their fair share.
And you are complaining that corporations aren't paying their share? Even though they are following the law to the letter, you're still complaining? Please.
The problem with business is old people and I don't mean aged people just people with OLD IDEAS, like the captive audience. It's bullshit and it's gone. We are able to do anything with our constantly deteriorating free time, so why would we give YOU money when YOU treat us like we are criminals and not customers?
We'll go somewhere else, do something NEW and leave you in the DUST.
oook. oook. oook-ooooook. oook. oooook.
Now in English for the rest of the readers:
Please do go somewhere else. Do something new. Leave us in the dust. And when you finally realize you can't knit a sweater, let alone make yarn, build a road, ensure you have clean drinking water, generate electricity, light the darkness, or any of the other million things that make your "constantly deteriorating" free time possible, perhaps you will come back with a new appreciation for being productive and honoring the social contract.
I responded to the claim that there was no way to "prove" a relationship by pointing out that CA has a means to do so. Your post is entirely non-responsive to the question.
However, if you want to eliminate separate but equal, then you might want to start with the arguments made by those who are for gay marriage. There isn't a single argument in favor of gay marriage that doesn't apply 100% to incestuous or plural marriages. Until the "Equality for All" crowd actually include all in their equality or figure out an objective argument to differentiate themselves, there is no particular reason to care about their manipulative tactics and arguments.
Finally, something you might want to think about: forming a relationship is something you can do just because you exist, having everyone else recognize that relationship is a privilege. There is no right to have the rest of the world recognize every personality trait as equal in nature to every other personality trait.
Other than five months between June and November, there was no gay marriage in California. But I'm almost certain that lots of gays were in California before that time. So I'm not sure what is different? I mean, prior to May 15, 2008 everybody understood that California only recognized marriages between a man and a woman. So what is different now than on May 14, 2008?
...and keep the people there who lifestyle/future plans are in trouble.
This sounds like hyperbole. Gay marriage was only possible for about four or five months. Realistically, nothing is different now, re. lifestyle/future plans, than it was in March of last year. And it's better now than it was in March of, say 2002 since there are domestic partnerships that didn't exist before.
But as far as marriage...well, aside from the finanical aspect of it, since it has been around, sure...grandfather it in, but, I don't want to make more 'special' unions out there. What's next? People that are just roommates (no sex) need special provisions. Are we limiting it to just people that fornicate with each other? That seems hardly fair? And why just 2 people? Why not allow people with bigamist beliefs in on the party, and give them special rights and tax breaks?
This is the only reason I'm in favor of Prop 8: Gays are asking for "equality" while denying it to other pairings that they cannot present a coherent argument against. What I mean is that, other than "we say so", they cannot present a reason why two men should be able to marry but two siblings should not. As long as the argument is treat us special, but don't treat them special -- then I see no reason to make the marriage clubhouse any bigger than it is now.
I'd be really interested in seeing an analysis of your "most gays are usually quite well educated" (I'm ignoring the weasel worsd of "most" and "usually", either you have a point or you don't.) My guess is that you probably don't hang out with a lot of poorly educated individuals across all walks of American life. If you did, I suspect that you'd find that gays or no better educated than any other group.
On a different topic, I'm curious as to why Google would think that Prop 8 would prevent them from offering any benefits they desired? All it does is define what a marriage is. If Google wants to offer insurance benefits that include gay partners, well they can do so.
Yeah. Funny stuff, since it has nothing to do with memory and everything to do with TCP window size, selective acks and network latency.
In the future we can hope that Robbie and co. are smart enough to get their "benchmark" stories from people who have some understanding of the technologies involved.
Because a lot of people who participate "as they please" are living on other people's money and have a lot more spare time to "contribute" to ensuring that they can continue to live on other people's money.
I think you missed my point. It isn't that some form of each of those are functional under some linux distro. It's that users don't want to have to fuck around with shit to make it work.
And gnomemeeting? I'm thinking you don't actually use it, as it's been called Ekiga since March of 2008. And you want to compare Ekiga with the simplicity of MSN messenger? And mplayer with iTunes or Windows Media Player? I'm fond of mplayer, and have contributed code, but get real.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you completely fail to understand something very specific about server administration: You don't own the boxes. Your employer does. Your knowledge of passwords, etc. is so that you can do your job. In every company I've ever worked for I never have the authority to grant or revoke access to a system. I had the capability since I had root access, but that didn't grant me authority. It's not the job of an administrator to decide who does and doesn't have access any more than it is the job of a security guard to decide who has the privilege of entering the building. You are the implementor of the policy, not the creator of the policy.
Childs is totally wrong here.
I don't think you get it. These are pull updates, not push updates. No one forces you to upgrade. It is opt in.
And by the way this horrible, terrifying new plugin that has everyone cowering in fear -- you know, the one that preloads a bit of the JVM so that applets and whatnot start up faster -- is part of the JVM. It's exactly like any other new feature in an upgrade.
Stop crying and recognize that it is the user that chooses to click the update button in the notifier.
Um, JVM have always included plugins for browsers. Being shocked or surprised at this is like being flabbergasted and croggled by Mozilla Corp adding a "know your rights" bar rather than a click through EULA in version 3.05. Or like the FSF including a getwchar() in libc.
It is what it is.
Hmm. I dunno. How about.... fusion?
The post you reply to is written by a numbskull. Compiling software doesn't even begin to ensure that all possible memory locations accessed and bit values are written. The vast majority of what is going on during a compile and/or md5 sum is going to happen in the processor's L1 & L2 caches.
On the other hand memtest86(+) has a methodology that includes disabling cache and ensures that all possible locations are written to and read from. Additionally there is a mixture of patterns used, from random patterns for general testing to specific patterns (both bit value & access ordering) for exercising known failure modes of DRAM.
Finally the idea that you can "stress" you RAM is nuts. Outside of running the device out of spec (e.g. overclocking), the only "stress" possible is heat and just being on will get it into the normal operating temperatures. Anything else is what it's designed to do, there is no ubermagic access pattern driven by that "well known" gcc that causes DRAM to fall over dead.
Put them into a Solaris ZFS pool as the logging device or the l2arc. For working set sizes in the area of fifty or sixty gigabytes, it'll make your three or four terabytes across ten spindles act like three or four terabytes across one hundred spindles. Sounds worth it to me.
Do the article author and the slashdot editor not actually get it? The problem wasn't the game play, it was the theme involved. "Sugar coating" it exactly solves the problem. So why does anyone think they've reached some massive cleverness by sneaking their drug game through the censors?
It's like that idiot lady that snuck "gun powder" (components) through airport security showing how terrible they are. (I'm not claiming any magic profiling ability in the TSA here.) But if you don't blow up an airplane they didn't fail. If they can determine that you aren't a threat, you being on a plane with a stick of dynamite rammed up your backside isn't an issue.
WTF? Where is all this hate coming from? You're like the little kid in preschool who when asked if he wants to play with the blocks or the ball, freaks out and goes into some bizarre, deranged screaming fit about the dinosaurs and the slide and cheerios. Other than you, who brought up republicans or democratics?
I responded to a dumbass who said "clinton...blowjob...traitor" and "Bush... lied" with actual factual information. Nobody said Clinton is a traitor other than the original poster. He was however impeached for perjury. He was fined $90,000 for contempt of court. He did agree to give up his law license for five years. He did resign from the Supreme Court bar. He did pay Paula Jones $850,000.
There's been a Democratic majority in Congress for the last two years and they haven't seen fit to impeach Bush. So all the ranting about his lying, etc. is just BDS.
You don't follow politics much do you? Clinton got impeached for perjury, not for diddling the unattractive intern.
Bush made a judgment call about what the intelligence information meant.
There is no such thing as a loophole. Calling something a loophole is just a way of saying, "they aren't doing what I think they should be doing." The law is the law and they are obeying it. If they aren't then they should be prosecuted.
US corporations pay income taxes regardless of where the money is made, so your accusation, in addition to being unfounded, just makes no sense.
No. Really you don't. Tax brackets don't work like that. The fact that you don't even understand how taxes work, makes me believe that you've never paid taxes in your life. So why would we take tax advice from someone who doesn't understand the current system, and probably doesn't even pay taxes?
You only pay the tax rate in a bracket for the money that actually falls in that bracket. In your example you'd pay 15% of the amount up to $32,500, then 25% on the $520 between $32,500 and $33,020. So the person's take home would actually go up $7.50/week to $538.75.
You know, if you knew anything about the bailouts you might not be so fed up. So far nobody has been given free money. AIG got loans at a very substantial interest rate. The banks sold portions of their companies to the US Treasury, some of them involuntarily.
If you had any connection with facts, your post would be a lot more compelling.
The exact same thing can be said about each and every one of us, we just collect taxes for the government from our employers.
Face it, everybody pays taxes and it's really hard to argue that corporations should pay an income tax since all the profit that they take in either goes into growing the company or paid out to the people who own the business where that same money is taxes *again*.
No they aren't. First, every penny of the TARP funds is either new money or debt. Not a single penny of taxpayer funds have been given. Second, there is no point in putting cash in a tax haven. You don't get taxed on having money. If the government sticks a billion dollars in your bank account, you won't pay a cent in taxes on that billion dollars even if you let it sit there forever.
Oh and guess what? A number of the banks who received TARP money didn't want it but the US Treasury forced them to sell a portion of their operations to the treasury and accept money. Why? Because otherwise everybody would look at the banks that did get money from the treasury and they'd immediately take their business elsewhere since those are the banks on life support. Look at Wellsfargo and Citigroup, they both got TARP money. But one of them was willing to pay out of their own pocket to purchase Wachovia and the other wanted the government to pay them to take on Wachovia.
Anyway, the point is, before you go start accusing people of taking money from the public coffers you should make sure that you know who actually wanted money and who was forced to take it.
The only way to "fix" the US economy is for people to work at whatever they are good at and build value. Then exchange that value for goods from other people who are working. But people sitting on their asses bitching that they don't have jobs and that the government needs to do something won't fucking help. They need to get their own butts in gear and make something fucking happen.
All this government shit is doing is trying to push things back to some semblance of the status quo. The best thing that could be done for the economy is to let banks fail, let people lose their homes, and let people be productive and those who can't be productive need to learn to be.
Um, they are paying all the taxes they owe. 100% of them. Oh, I see. You want them to pay more than they owe. Gotcha.
I'm curious, do you claim the standard exemption on your income taxes? Cause I sort of think you should pay all the taxes you owe. And all those people who have mortgages on their primary residences, they should probably stop claiming that deduction. And all those goddamned tax dodgers with children, don't get me started on them.
Half the people in this country don't pay any income taxes. And the amazing thing is that they go ahead and file a tax return because they get a, several hundred to several thousand dollar, rebate on their $0.00 tax bill. Talk about people not paying their fair share.
And you are complaining that corporations aren't paying their share? Even though they are following the law to the letter, you're still complaining? Please.
oook. oook. oook-ooooook. oook. oooook.
Now in English for the rest of the readers:
Please do go somewhere else. Do something new. Leave us in the dust. And when you finally realize you can't knit a sweater, let alone make yarn, build a road, ensure you have clean drinking water, generate electricity, light the darkness, or any of the other million things that make your "constantly deteriorating" free time possible, perhaps you will come back with a new appreciation for being productive and honoring the social contract.
I responded to the claim that there was no way to "prove" a relationship by pointing out that CA has a means to do so. Your post is entirely non-responsive to the question.
However, if you want to eliminate separate but equal, then you might want to start with the arguments made by those who are for gay marriage. There isn't a single argument in favor of gay marriage that doesn't apply 100% to incestuous or plural marriages. Until the "Equality for All" crowd actually include all in their equality or figure out an objective argument to differentiate themselves, there is no particular reason to care about their manipulative tactics and arguments.
Finally, something you might want to think about: forming a relationship is something you can do just because you exist, having everyone else recognize that relationship is a privilege. There is no right to have the rest of the world recognize every personality trait as equal in nature to every other personality trait.
Other than five months between June and November, there was no gay marriage in California. But I'm almost certain that lots of gays were in California before that time. So I'm not sure what is different? I mean, prior to May 15, 2008 everybody understood that California only recognized marriages between a man and a woman. So what is different now than on May 14, 2008?
This sounds like hyperbole. Gay marriage was only possible for about four or five months. Realistically, nothing is different now, re. lifestyle/future plans, than it was in March of last year. And it's better now than it was in March of, say 2002 since there are domestic partnerships that didn't exist before.
This is the only reason I'm in favor of Prop 8: Gays are asking for "equality" while denying it to other pairings that they cannot present a coherent argument against. What I mean is that, other than "we say so", they cannot present a reason why two men should be able to marry but two siblings should not. As long as the argument is treat us special, but don't treat them special -- then I see no reason to make the marriage clubhouse any bigger than it is now.
California has civil unions, so your argument is flawed.
I'd be really interested in seeing an analysis of your "most gays are usually quite well educated" (I'm ignoring the weasel worsd of "most" and "usually", either you have a point or you don't.) My guess is that you probably don't hang out with a lot of poorly educated individuals across all walks of American life. If you did, I suspect that you'd find that gays or no better educated than any other group.
On a different topic, I'm curious as to why Google would think that Prop 8 would prevent them from offering any benefits they desired? All it does is define what a marriage is. If Google wants to offer insurance benefits that include gay partners, well they can do so.
Yeah. Funny stuff, since it has nothing to do with memory and everything to do with TCP window size, selective acks and network latency.
In the future we can hope that Robbie and co. are smart enough to get their "benchmark" stories from people who have some understanding of the technologies involved.
Because a lot of people who participate "as they please" are living on other people's money and have a lot more spare time to "contribute" to ensuring that they can continue to live on other people's money.
I think you missed my point. It isn't that some form of each of those are functional under some linux distro. It's that users don't want to have to fuck around with shit to make it work.
And gnomemeeting? I'm thinking you don't actually use it, as it's been called Ekiga since March of 2008. And you want to compare Ekiga with the simplicity of MSN messenger? And mplayer with iTunes or Windows Media Player? I'm fond of mplayer, and have contributed code, but get real.