Actually, the popularity of a law is its/very basis/ for legitimacy, at least in a democratic society. Who gets to decide what policy can "better service society" except the very members of that society? The law should reflect common morality, not some notion three guys in a room decided was best.
Every time the law has been used as a club to force the public to accept a minority moral position, it's failed to have the desired effect. Remember learning about the prohibition?
IANAEE, but the total bandwidth is still limited no matter how you slice it up. When demand exceeds supply, the interference will be so great as to make the spectrum useless for everyone. It's a textbook tragedy of the commons example, and regulation is necessary to prevent human nature from ruining it completely.
The problem is that ID and evolution are not sparring equals. Creationism/ID is a fraud, and should NOT be given equal standing. Were the situation reversed, we would be cheering: and rightfully so!
You are the idiot here. Read up on something called a "unified buffer cache." It's a VM subsystem design that every modern OS uses; disk is the primary storage, and RAM is used to cache it. "Free" RAM is empty cache.
I bet that if we could measure the L1 cache, we'd have idiots complaining it was too full.
Ah, another armchair VM architect. I assume you're talking about readahead, not caching -- merely caching the results of reads won't cause additional disk activity.
Read-ahead is still a win on a laptop. The disk is spinning anyway, and that's what's consuming the bulk of the energy. You might as well read a bit more than you need if you can then wait longer before having to spin it back up at all.
The system doesn't page to disk because it feels like it.
If the kernel is paging your programs out, it's because something else is paging data in. The correct solution is to fix the offending programs*, not to lobotomize the VM.
Don't do that. "But I want to keep my applications in memory!" you might say. That's wrong. Virtual memory systems these days basically use main memory as a cache for the disk. It doesn't matter whether a page came from a file, an anonymous application allocation, or anywhere else. The kernel automatically keeps the most frequently used blocks in RAM and pages everything else out to disk. By using 0 for swappiness, you defeat that automatic management and force the kernel to treat application pages specially. You don't want to do that.
cite on the security hole in man? A little bit of googling couldn't turn it up. man has no special privileges and it doesn't listen on the network. How can it have a security problem?
As for GNU stuff bloatware -- You remind of "ed is the standard editor". Sheesh. bash uses a heck of a lot less memory than xterm, coming in at around 400k unshared.
The only thing I miss in OpenBSD 4.1's ksh (versus bash) is bang-expansion. !$ is particularly useful.
That said, I don't see why bash or bloated or scary. It's got quite a few nice features, but nothing that's not necessary, and it runs plenty fast. And scary? It's just a shell.
So how is that the fault of rpm? If you'd tried to compile the latest gaim (well, Pidgin) yourself, it wouldn't have even finished the configuration process. rpm did you a favor by telling you what the missing dependencies were.
It's not as if the latest Windows programs run on Windows 95.
Conservative GC scares the hell out of me too, but it *seems* to work well enough in practice. Still makes me nervous. The Boehm GC leaks like crazy, but something that's mostly-precise, like SBCL's garbage collector, seems to do okay.
Oh, and the linked article seems wrong; SBCL's GC is both conservative and generational.
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
From the GPL (v2.1, because the wording is clearer in that version):
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
On the other hand, when you buy a product off the shelf, you by default have the right to do what you want with that product, limited by copyright law, unless you sign a contract stating otherwise.
And anyone who has studied anthropology.:-) The term "sympathetic magic" comes from Frazer, who wrote The Golden Bough.
Like science, magic is concerned with causal relations, but unlike science, it does not distinguish correlation from causation.
It's interesting how the same basic kind of magical beliefs appear over and over again throughout human history, often with dire consequences. Prehistoric cave-paintings*, medieval potions and relics, and modern homeopathy all fit the same basic mold.
The human mind seems hard-wired to believe in magic; it seems to require a great deal of intelligence or education to override that behavior. It's a by-product of reasoning about the world, however. As a professor of mine put it, "the proto-human that didn't react when a predator stirred the bush next to him wasn't our ancestor."
* some people hypothesize that depictions of herd animals in caves were meant to attract these animals in times of famine, or to guarantee a good hunt.
Religion... has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not. If someone votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it.... But on the other hand, if somebody says "' mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say 'I respect that.'... We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard [Dawkins] creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.
The whole idea of removing the group because some people are offended is insane; some people will be offended by almost anything Hell, I'm offended that the barbaric sharia law is still practiced in some areas. But they're just words, and I wouldn't support the removal of a facebook group advocating imposing, say, sharia on the United States!
Words, even offensive words, harm nobody. Censorship, either by individuals or the government, is always wrong. Censoring criticism (no matter how bigoted) of religion is even worse, though, because it spreads this idea that religious thought is somehow special.
The only special quality about religious thought is the effectiveness with which it spreads itself by removing reason from the mind of the believer.
The biggest problem with corporations, as I see it, are monopolies and unfortunately many monopolies exist because of government interference in the marketplace.
If monopolies were the result of government interference in the marketplace, the late 19th century should have been the golden age of capitalism, not the festering pit of cronyism it actually was. Human misery has seldom reached the heights it did under the robber barons. THAT is what unbridled free-market capitalism does.
The government is also vulnerable to the effects of popular opinion, and chances are that a government will be deposed if it does something vile enough. A corporation, with its sacrosanct property rights, has no such accountability. What is your recourse if the private-highway company, which has become a national monopoly, refuses to allow people of your particular nationality to use the roads? Who are YOU to demand the use of ITS property?
The point was that the DRMed part on the other side of the communication barrier (in this case, a VM) might be considered a derivative work of the GPLv3d part on the other side. It would be integrally tied to the purpose of the system, so the system as a whole would be considered a derivative of the GPLv3d part.
I'm arguing that's just not true, and I've presented arguments as to why that can't be the case. Or if it is the case, than a great deal of software today is in violation. In my example, I'm claiming that the Firefox plugin that actually interfaces with the dog-tag printer is NOT a derivative work of Firefox, and is not covered by its license.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the popularity of a law is its /very basis/ for legitimacy, at least in a democratic society. Who gets to decide what policy can "better service society" except the very members of that society? The law should reflect common morality, not some notion three guys in a room decided was best.
Every time the law has been used as a club to force the public to accept a minority moral position, it's failed to have the desired effect. Remember learning about the prohibition?
IANAEE, but the total bandwidth is still limited no matter how you slice it up. When demand exceeds supply, the interference will be so great as to make the spectrum useless for everyone. It's a textbook tragedy of the commons example, and regulation is necessary to prevent human nature from ruining it completely.
The problem is that ID and evolution are not sparring equals. Creationism/ID is a fraud, and should NOT be given equal standing. Were the situation reversed, we would be cheering: and rightfully so!
You are the idiot here. Read up on something called a "unified buffer cache." It's a VM subsystem design that every modern OS uses; disk is the primary storage, and RAM is used to cache it. "Free" RAM is empty cache.
I bet that if we could measure the L1 cache, we'd have idiots complaining it was too full.
Ah, another armchair VM architect. I assume you're talking about readahead, not caching -- merely caching the results of reads won't cause additional disk activity.
Read-ahead is still a win on a laptop. The disk is spinning anyway, and that's what's consuming the bulk of the energy. You might as well read a bit more than you need if you can then wait longer before having to spin it back up at all.
The system doesn't page to disk because it feels like it.
If the kernel is paging your programs out, it's because something else is paging data in. The correct solution is to fix the offending programs*, not to lobotomize the VM.
* I'm looking at you, updatedb(8).
Don't do that. "But I want to keep my applications in memory!" you might say. That's wrong. Virtual memory systems these days basically use main memory as a cache for the disk. It doesn't matter whether a page came from a file, an anonymous application allocation, or anywhere else. The kernel automatically keeps the most frequently used blocks in RAM and pages everything else out to disk. By using 0 for swappiness, you defeat that automatic management and force the kernel to treat application pages specially. You don't want to do that.
I'm a skeptic, but at least it has the social engineering thing going for it.
"Hey, Susan. I'm Bob from IT. We're doing a company-wide password security survey, and I need to get yours down. Can you let me know what it is?"
"Well, hi Bob. It's sort of a dopey-looking antelope with horns and big teeth."
"Ah. Thanks." *click*
cite on the security hole in man? A little bit of googling couldn't turn it up. man has no special privileges and it doesn't listen on the network. How can it have a security problem?
As for GNU stuff bloatware -- You remind of "ed is the standard editor". Sheesh. bash uses a heck of a lot less memory than xterm, coming in at around 400k unshared.
The only thing I miss in OpenBSD 4.1's ksh (versus bash) is bang-expansion. !$ is particularly useful.
That said, I don't see why bash or bloated or scary. It's got quite a few nice features, but nothing that's not necessary, and it runs plenty fast. And scary? It's just a shell.
You can also do it with a global hook. That'd force every process to load your DLL into memory.
Ah, but I bet those CentOS machines aren't supported.
So how is that the fault of rpm? If you'd tried to compile the latest gaim (well, Pidgin) yourself, it wouldn't have even finished the configuration process. rpm did you a favor by telling you what the missing dependencies were.
It's not as if the latest Windows programs run on Windows 95.
I believe the idiom is "shot on sight." Physician, heal thyself.
Conservative GC scares the hell out of me too, but it *seems* to work well enough in practice. Still makes me nervous. The Boehm GC leaks like crazy, but something that's mostly-precise, like SBCL's garbage collector, seems to do okay.
Oh, and the linked article seems wrong; SBCL's GC is both conservative and generational.
The 1993 case must not apply to current law.
See the appropriate law.
You're allowed to make copies of computer programs in order to use them.
From US Code Title 17, 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs:
On the other hand, when you buy a product off the shelf, you by default have the right to do what you want with that product, limited by copyright law, unless you sign a contract stating otherwise.
It's interesting how the same basic kind of magical beliefs appear over and over again throughout human history, often with dire consequences. Prehistoric cave-paintings*, medieval potions and relics, and modern homeopathy all fit the same basic mold.
The human mind seems hard-wired to believe in magic; it seems to require a great deal of intelligence or education to override that behavior. It's a by-product of reasoning about the world, however. As a professor of mine put it, "the proto-human that didn't react when a predator stirred the bush next to him wasn't our ancestor."
* some people hypothesize that depictions of herd animals in caves were meant to attract these animals in times of famine, or to guarantee a good hunt.
Obsolete? What would you replace it with then?
The whole idea of removing the group because some people are offended is insane; some people will be offended by almost anything Hell, I'm offended that the barbaric sharia law is still practiced in some areas. But they're just words, and I wouldn't support the removal of a facebook group advocating imposing, say, sharia on the United States!
Words, even offensive words, harm nobody. Censorship, either by individuals or the government, is always wrong. Censoring criticism (no matter how bigoted) of religion is even worse, though, because it spreads this idea that religious thought is somehow special.
The only special quality about religious thought is the effectiveness with which it spreads itself by removing reason from the mind of the believer.
With that grammar, you're obviously not a member of that group.
If monopolies were the result of government interference in the marketplace, the late 19th century should have been the golden age of capitalism, not the festering pit of cronyism it actually was. Human misery has seldom reached the heights it did under the robber barons. THAT is what unbridled free-market capitalism does.
The government is also vulnerable to the effects of popular opinion, and chances are that a government will be deposed if it does something vile enough. A corporation, with its sacrosanct property rights, has no such accountability. What is your recourse if the private-highway company, which has become a national monopoly, refuses to allow people of your particular nationality to use the roads? Who are YOU to demand the use of ITS property?
That's incredible. Did you actually build one?
I'm not claiming Firefox is a derivative work.
The point was that the DRMed part on the other side of the communication barrier (in this case, a VM) might be considered a derivative work of the GPLv3d part on the other side. It would be integrally tied to the purpose of the system, so the system as a whole would be considered a derivative of the GPLv3d part.
I'm arguing that's just not true, and I've presented arguments as to why that can't be the case. Or if it is the case, than a great deal of software today is in violation. In my example, I'm claiming that the Firefox plugin that actually interfaces with the dog-tag printer is NOT a derivative work of Firefox, and is not covered by its license.