Be fair -- the Civil War started because a good chunk of the South seceded simply because Lincoln was elected -- way before he took the oath or made a single action. Unless you think he should have just let half the nation walk out (which wouldn't be a great presidency either), I don't think you can really say he "allowed" the Civil War.
Context matters. The quote given was when what became the Emancipation Proclamation was beginning to take shape. Abolitionists in the North (primarily New England) were clamoring for Lincoln to come down firmly for abolition (who knew?) -- but Northwestern Democrats and border state Unionists [remember -- the border states still had slavery until the 13th Amendment (Dec. 6, 1865)] were adamant that the war was about preserving the Union, NOT about forcing abolition (couched as "property rights" by the genteel... but with some flagrant race baiting of 'the poor black men are going to come North to take your jobs and daughters' as well). Lincoln pretty clearly in private statements and writings was on the abolitionist side but the political environment of the time dictated that:
1) He couldn't come out and say that the war was against slavery (in 1862) without taking a big risk that Union support in the border states would evaporate... and suddenly the Confederacy would get that much bigger or at least have stronger bases to raid Union areas.
2) He didn't have clear constitutional authority to make a decision of that nature anyway -- Congress should have addressed the issue. [He worked around this in the Emancipation Proclamation with some groundwork laid in legal opinion pieces from abolitionists prior by categorizing the slaves in the Confederacy as both property of citizens in rebellion (easy enough) and materially contributing to the rebellion war effort (by virtue of either providing materiel or doing forced labor to build entrenchments, etc.). As there is legal precedent for suppression of a rebellion to include seizing property (arms, horses, wagons, etc.) which is being used in furtherance of the rebellion... this gave a clear way for the Commander-in-Chief to mandate that all such property be seized by the North (explicitly or implicitly). Once seized -- Lincoln stated on several occasions that it would only be logical for them to remain free. [Full citizenship was more hotly contended and remained for the 14th Amendment].
That said -- he was both human and a man of his time. I don't think it at all surprising that he had some of society's biases. I think calling him a "racist" is doing him an injustice given the differences between his viewpoints and the predominant ones, however.
I don't remember exactly when I hit it -- but it was about 1/5th of the way through sidequests [I stopped worrying about the Main quest after finding out where Dad when post-Megaton]. Pretty easy to do if you:
+ Explore the map / try to do all sidequests + Pick every lock you can (even allowing for my Good character not stealing very often from towns), hack every terminal. [Note: usually you can do both if there's a terminal for a safe... just hack the terminal and don't unlock the safe, then pick the safe].
This was playing on "Normal".
Part of me wonders if they did some of this to encourage a replay run -- once you get into the game (or through it), you realize that setting any stat (or raising a skill) to the max before you find a Bobblehead is a waste, how common armor is that gives you +1 to Perception, etc... leaving you more options to direct points more effectively. In the level case -- the "more XP" perks seem a total waste, etc.
Because it is a minor waste if you *don't* need the extra registers and address space? If they're seriously designing this to be more fleet on 1Gb of RAM (and hence possibly older systems as well as the more "netbook" style very low power/slim portables, quite a few of which may not even be x64) why *not* release a 32-bit compilation as well as the 64-bit build for newer systems?
It isn't like everything has to be the One Right Answer, you know.
32-bit drivers maybe -- but there's a lot of working 32-bit apps in 64-bit Vista. (Pretty much everything I run is still 32-bit). The 16-bit installers got shut out, but that isn't the same thing.
And the default user *isn't* admin (and that's why UAC pops up so much when they install older apps that want to write to System wide areas). Nagging the user so that they nag their vendor _is_ how they tried to force application developers to break bad old habits (I'd second the "get your DLLs out of global space" from above, though).
Seriously -- what are you trying to persuade them to break backward compatibility for here? Because you're either very misinformed or rather unclear.
I've got two systems that installed this update and only this update as the sole action post-reboot with nothing else running that disagree with you. Got the fun little "Installing Phase 2" on shutdown and Phase 3 on restart that's typical of this type of "critical system library being patched" behavior, too.
Unless the system in question supports large page virtual-to-physical translations beyond just the base page size translation.
Then physical memory fragmentation can prevent you from being able to construct said large pages, and the TLB miss rate goes up when the working set spans the constituent virtual ranges... which does impact performance. (And yes, it can be appreciable).
Now granted, in the context of Windows on x86 [even x86-64 desktops] I haven't heard of this being a big issue.
(The Wikipedia entry never says it -- but "The Pax" was the compound introduced by the Alliance to Miranda. Yes -- the nomenclature was doubtlessly deliberate on their part).
Easy enough -- absorbing the time vortex (via Rose) from the heart of the TARDIS could easily have restarted the entire regeneration cycle. (The Master planned to regenerate similarly by drawing power from the Eye of Harmony via the Sash of Rassilon in "The Deadly Assassin" after all). They don't even need the Doctor to realize that it happened... just go to regeneration 14 when its time and have him figure it out then.
Ok. I caught that there was some skipping around between sub-Golden age listings, but this seemed bigger than that (coming after the second dark age and all... and with both titles in the series out of sequence, I find myself at more than a bit of a loss as to why it would only come up by Platinum... but hey, whatever). Thanks for the clarification.
Apparently the author met a purple "h" in the mines on the way to writing the book. Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss was in 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Underworld:_The_Stygian_Abyss), not "the period of time from 1996 to 2001". The above summary would put this smack at the end of the "Second half of the Golden Age".
(Knew it sounded odd because I remembered playing it in my first round of college... ). Kind of makes you wonder what else they got wrong, frankly.
Most Enterprise-class Unix OSs by default want swap "just in case". The defaults are that each new virtual object created (malloc / anon mmap, etc.) reserves the equivalent amount of swap so that if the system ever does get under pressure -- the OS will have to figure out what disk block/FS range/whatever it will use to page the memory object, but it will be guaranteed that it will find the appropriate resources available. As such - the OS is unlikely to ever really need that actual disk space (the performance would really stink if you're under that much memory pressure), but it does want to have plenty of room for swap-backed virtual objects... folks don't like their malloc() to fail when they don't think they're out of resources.
When you don't do things this way (by changing the defaults, etc.... and Linux I know is more flexible about this, though I don't know what's the urrent default state) you run the risk of needing swap when the system is already under pressure. Then either you fail paging out (which means that you're pretty well stuck... if you are desperately low on memory and can't make more -- you're headed for a perceived hang) or you start forcing memory objects to go away [typically by killing processes... and woe unto the poor process picked to die].
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Leopard is setting things up for this state (swap reservation requirements). As cheap as memory is, on a per Mb or GB basis... disks are still a whole lot cheaper... so you might as well try to plan for both safety from an application standpoint (i.e. not random death) and a large virtual address space consumption.
Seems unlikely to be all that power efficient to me... hauling around that huge bulk, and it sure didn't seem like Executor really made all that difference at the Battle of Endor from a capital ship perspective. (Probably because most turbolaser batteries seem to have really lousy guidance, after all).
Because in general folks know how to do it (so you're not adding code complexity in most cases) -- and it seamlessly handles the odd folks who *do* eat all of their RAM in a workload and end up needing it. (And since the folks with big working sets relatively to current states also tend to be the folks paying more money... they do get listened to -- and these are the same folks that would require a perfect patch in 24 hours when they're unhappy, so you're much better off having a little planning pre-release than trying to crowbar this in post).
The thing to do is to make the virtual memory subsystem as efficient as possible about handling swap statistics just in case you need it so that the folks who really don't need it aren't aggressively impacted.
(Note: I am a virtual memory subsystem kernel engineer -- but not on Windows. I make no claim about how efficient or inefficient Windows is at doing this as a result. I would seriously expect that since they're designing the core kernel to operate from laptops up through Windows Server Whatever -- they have to accommodate cases beyond the 4Gb in your laptop should be enough to keep everything in core, though. )
Perhaps the idiot was the one who made the default be "Pull up the reconfiguration instead of a expanded clock+calendar with a button to go to the reconfiguration when running as a less privileged user"? (And I'll note -- since I happen to be running Vista at the moment (and am therefore less privileged by default;) ) -- a single left click on the time in the taskbar... pulls up a calendar and clock with a link to "Change time and date settings" in the bottom of the window.
The state exists as a social contract because it is expedient for groups of humans to organize themselves this way, yes. But if the contract is onerous or worthless to an individual -- they will work to form a new state which is not onerous, either externally (secession) or internally (agitation). Suppression of the individual is of course possible -- but only in the relative short term.
Having the state make it clear that individuals are merely interchangeable resources is one of the quickest ways to have the social contract be clearly without merit. (On a smaller scale -- look at companies which treat the employees as interchangeable units... turnover is rapid - if no other company existed, eventually employee unrest and agitation/open revolt ensues... this is also endemic to human nature.) As the social contract always flows from the set of individuals to the state (NOT vice versa since the state can not abolish all individuals [without explicitly destroying itself] but the individuals can abolish the current form of the state and replace it whole cloth), rights are also inherent to the individual. Any privileges granted to the state to relax or curb those rights are concessions from the individuals, not pacification from the state.
The individual of course has quality other than the physical ability to enforce their own will, that is (if nothing else) their own self worth and pride. Their ideas and their thoughts are distinctly their own and outside the control (yes, not the manipulation -- but for now outside the direct control) of the state. Each individual is a unique perspective, font of ideas and expression and has intrinsic value as such. This is not super-natural, simply a function of being individuals.
Amusingly, it is the *state* which fundamentally is a natural outgrowth and expression of human interactions which is interchangeable and fundamentally worthless compared to the individual. Destroy the state -- and individuals will create another, identical or not. Destroy an individual and that particular human will never exist again in quite the same way. You don't need to believe in a supernatural being to see the loss.
Please. You don't need religion to realize that the State only exists for the benefits of *individuals* (i.e. we are not interchangable cogs in the machine of a social construct, folks). Therefore any restriction on the individual (master) by the State (servant) must be very well justified... and this kind of junk isn't.
When the State starts thinking it is in charge for the good of the amorphous "all" (which in practice always translates into 'For the Good of the Elitist Jerks who clawed to the top of the State') is when the State is no longer a useful social construct and must be striken and rebuilt into a form that does preserve the sovereign rights of each human to be master of themselves. Anything less is just nuanced slavery.
Slashdot Mirror
Be fair -- the Civil War started because a good chunk of the South seceded simply because Lincoln was elected -- way before he took the oath or made a single action. Unless you think he should have just let half the nation walk out (which wouldn't be a great presidency either), I don't think you can really say he "allowed" the Civil War.
Context matters. The quote given was when what became the Emancipation Proclamation was beginning to take shape. Abolitionists in the North (primarily New England) were clamoring for Lincoln to come down firmly for abolition (who knew?) -- but Northwestern Democrats and border state Unionists [remember -- the border states still had slavery until the 13th Amendment (Dec. 6, 1865)] were adamant that the war was about preserving the Union, NOT about forcing abolition (couched as "property rights" by the genteel... but with some flagrant race baiting of 'the poor black men are going to come North to take your jobs and daughters' as well). Lincoln pretty clearly in private statements and writings was on the abolitionist side but the political environment of the time dictated that:
1) He couldn't come out and say that the war was against slavery (in 1862) without taking a big risk that Union support in the border states would evaporate... and suddenly the Confederacy would get that much bigger or at least have stronger bases to raid Union areas.
2) He didn't have clear constitutional authority to make a decision of that nature anyway -- Congress should have addressed the issue. [He worked around this in the Emancipation Proclamation with some groundwork laid in legal opinion pieces from abolitionists prior by categorizing the slaves in the Confederacy as both property of citizens in rebellion (easy enough) and materially contributing to the rebellion war effort (by virtue of either providing materiel or doing forced labor to build entrenchments, etc.). As there is legal precedent for suppression of a rebellion to include seizing property (arms, horses, wagons, etc.) which is being used in furtherance of the rebellion... this gave a clear way for the Commander-in-Chief to mandate that all such property be seized by the North (explicitly or implicitly). Once seized -- Lincoln stated on several occasions that it would only be logical for them to remain free. [Full citizenship was more hotly contended and remained for the 14th Amendment].
That said -- he was both human and a man of his time. I don't think it at all surprising that he had some of society's biases. I think calling him a "racist" is doing him an injustice given the differences between his viewpoints and the predominant ones, however.
And the bear is even more confused about the situation, I'm sure.
I don't remember exactly when I hit it -- but it was about 1/5th of the way through sidequests [I stopped worrying about the Main quest after finding out where Dad when post-Megaton]. Pretty easy to do if you:
+ Explore the map / try to do all sidequests
+ Pick every lock you can (even allowing for my Good character not stealing very often from towns), hack every terminal. [Note: usually you can do both if there's a terminal for a safe... just hack the terminal and don't unlock the safe, then pick the safe].
This was playing on "Normal".
Part of me wonders if they did some of this to encourage a replay run -- once you get into the game (or through it), you realize that setting any stat (or raising a skill) to the max before you find a Bobblehead is a waste, how common armor is that gives you +1 to Perception, etc... leaving you more options to direct points more effectively. In the level case -- the "more XP" perks seem a total waste, etc.
Because it is a minor waste if you *don't* need the extra registers and address space? If they're seriously designing this to be more fleet on 1Gb of RAM (and hence possibly older systems as well as the more "netbook" style very low power/slim portables, quite a few of which may not even be x64) why *not* release a 32-bit compilation as well as the 64-bit build for newer systems?
It isn't like everything has to be the One Right Answer, you know.
32-bit drivers maybe -- but there's a lot of working 32-bit apps in 64-bit Vista. (Pretty much everything I run is still 32-bit).
The 16-bit installers got shut out, but that isn't the same thing.
And the default user *isn't* admin (and that's why UAC pops up so much when they install older apps that want to write to System wide
areas). Nagging the user so that they nag their vendor _is_ how they tried to force application developers to break bad old habits
(I'd second the "get your DLLs out of global space" from above, though).
Seriously -- what are you trying to persuade them to break backward compatibility for here? Because you're either very misinformed or rather unclear.
I've got two systems that installed this update and only this update as the sole action post-reboot with nothing else running that disagree with you. Got the fun little "Installing Phase 2" on shutdown and Phase 3 on restart that's typical of this type of "critical system library being patched" behavior, too.
Unless the system in question supports large page virtual-to-physical translations beyond just the base page size translation.
Then physical memory fragmentation can prevent you from being able to construct said large pages, and the TLB miss rate goes up when the working set spans the constituent virtual ranges... which does impact performance. (And yes, it can be appreciable).
Now granted, in the context of Windows on x86 [even x86-64 desktops] I haven't heard of this being a big issue.
Ah... better link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaver_(Firefly)#Origin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_(film)
(The Wikipedia entry never says it -- but "The Pax" was the compound introduced by the Alliance to Miranda. Yes -- the nomenclature was doubtlessly deliberate on their part).
Yeah -- but there's always that 1/10th of 1% that have the opposite reaction to the Pax....
Hmm... knock me over with a feather -- not everyone laughs at the same things.
Ah well... I'll let this be my swan song and duck out.
(That's what you get for egging me on...)
[quote]I think that's half the problem that's going to see. No matter who wins, there are going to be cries of fowl.[/quote]
Chicken! What sort of hawk would devolve to such a turkey stance? You're just pigeonholing the dodos out there.
Easy enough -- absorbing the time vortex (via Rose) from the heart of the TARDIS could easily have restarted the entire regeneration cycle. (The Master planned to regenerate similarly by drawing power from the Eye of Harmony via the Sash of Rassilon in "The Deadly Assassin" after all). They don't even need the Doctor to realize that it happened... just go to regeneration 14 when its time and have him figure it out then.
Have you seen what happens to products that get endorsed by Oprah?!?!
They come up with tax plans to "spread the wealth around"?
Ok. I caught that there was some skipping around between sub-Golden age listings, but this seemed bigger than that (coming after the second dark age and all... and with both titles in the series out of sequence, I find myself at more than a bit of a loss as to why it would only come up by Platinum... but hey, whatever). Thanks for the clarification.
Apparently the author met a purple "h" in the mines on the way to writing the book. Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss was in 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Underworld:_The_Stygian_Abyss), not "the period of time from 1996 to 2001". The above summary would put this smack at the end of the "Second half of the Golden Age".
(Knew it sounded odd because I remembered playing it in my first round of college... ). Kind of makes you wonder what else they got wrong, frankly.
Most Enterprise-class Unix OSs by default want swap "just in case". The defaults are that each new virtual object created (malloc / anon mmap, etc.) reserves the equivalent amount of swap so that if the system ever does get under pressure -- the OS will have to figure out what disk block/FS range/whatever it will use to page the memory object, but it will be guaranteed that it will find the appropriate resources available. As such - the OS is unlikely to ever really need that actual disk space (the performance would really stink if you're under that much memory pressure), but it does want to have plenty of room for swap-backed virtual objects... folks don't like their malloc() to fail when they don't think they're out of resources.
When you don't do things this way (by changing the defaults, etc.... and Linux I know is more flexible about this, though I don't know what's the urrent default state) you run the risk of needing swap when the system is already under pressure. Then either you fail paging out (which means that you're pretty well stuck... if you are desperately low on memory and can't make more -- you're headed for a perceived hang) or you start forcing memory objects to go away [typically by killing processes... and woe unto the poor process picked to die].
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Leopard is setting things up for this state (swap reservation requirements). As cheap as memory is, on a per Mb or GB basis... disks are still a whole lot cheaper... so you might as well try to plan for both safety from an application standpoint (i.e. not random death) and a large virtual address space consumption.
Seems unlikely to be all that power efficient to me... hauling around that huge bulk, and it sure didn't seem like Executor really made all that difference at the Battle of Endor from a capital ship perspective. (Probably because most turbolaser batteries seem to have really lousy guidance,
after all).
Oh... you meant those SSDs.... my bad.
Because in general folks know how to do it (so you're not adding code complexity in most cases) -- and it seamlessly handles the odd folks who *do* eat all of their RAM in a workload and end up needing it. (And since the folks with big working sets relatively to current states also tend to be the folks paying more money... they do get listened to -- and these are the same folks that would require a perfect patch in 24 hours when they're unhappy, so you're much better off having a little planning pre-release than trying to crowbar this in post).
The thing to do is to make the virtual memory subsystem as efficient as possible about handling swap statistics just in case you need it so that the folks who really don't need it aren't aggressively impacted.
(Note: I am a virtual memory subsystem kernel engineer -- but not on Windows. I make no claim about how efficient or inefficient Windows is at doing this as a result. I would seriously expect that since they're designing the core kernel to operate from laptops up through Windows Server Whatever --
they have to accommodate cases beyond the 4Gb in your laptop should be enough to keep everything in core, though. )
I'm sure inflicting that many lawyers at once on the enemy would violate a Geneva convention or something...
Perhaps the idiot was the one who made the default be "Pull up the reconfiguration instead of a expanded clock+calendar with a button to go to the reconfiguration when running as a less privileged user"? (And I'll note -- since I happen to be running Vista at the moment (and am therefore less privileged by default ;) ) -- a single left click on the time in the taskbar... pulls up a calendar and clock with a link to "Change time and date settings" in the bottom of the window.
So looks like they fixed it.
The state exists as a social contract because it is expedient for groups of humans to organize themselves this way, yes. But if the contract is onerous or worthless to an individual -- they will work to form a new state which is not onerous, either externally (secession) or internally (agitation). Suppression of the individual is of course possible -- but only in the relative short term.
Having the state make it clear that individuals are merely interchangeable resources is one of the quickest ways to have the social contract be clearly without merit. (On a smaller scale -- look at companies which treat the employees as interchangeable units... turnover is rapid - if no other company existed, eventually employee unrest and agitation/open revolt ensues... this is also endemic to human nature.) As the social contract always flows from the set of individuals to the state (NOT vice versa since the state can not abolish all individuals [without explicitly destroying itself] but the individuals can abolish the current form of the state and replace it whole cloth), rights are also inherent to the individual. Any privileges granted to the state to relax or curb those rights are concessions from the individuals, not pacification from the state.
The individual of course has quality other than the physical ability to enforce their own will, that is (if nothing else) their own self worth and pride. Their ideas and their thoughts are distinctly their own and outside the control (yes, not the manipulation -- but for now outside the direct control) of the state. Each individual is a unique perspective, font of ideas and expression and has intrinsic value as such. This is not super-natural, simply a function of being individuals.
Amusingly, it is the *state* which fundamentally is a natural outgrowth and expression of human interactions which is interchangeable and fundamentally worthless compared to the individual. Destroy the state -- and individuals will create another, identical or not. Destroy an individual and that particular human will never exist again in quite the same way. You don't need to believe in a supernatural being to see the loss.
Please. You don't need religion to realize that the State only exists for the benefits of *individuals* (i.e. we are not interchangable cogs in the machine of a social construct, folks). Therefore any restriction on the individual (master) by the State (servant) must be very well justified... and this kind of junk isn't.
When the State starts thinking it is in charge for the good of the amorphous "all" (which in practice always translates into 'For the Good of the Elitist Jerks who clawed to the top of the State') is when the State is no longer a useful social construct and must be striken and rebuilt into a form that does preserve the sovereign rights of each human to be master of themselves. Anything less is just nuanced slavery.
The environmental lobby, of course.