This is especially idiotic considering GPS satellites that are currently in orbit are beginning to fail, and no country wants the responsibility of modernizing them, or repairing them.
Except the US.
So what happens when GPS doesn't work anymore?
Given the military use of GPS, that's unlikely.
Further, what if a GPS receiver goes offline on a ship?
If A GPS receiver goes offline on a ship, you turn on any of the leventy-dozen other GPS receivers on board, including the handheld you bought for a hundred dollars that outperforms the models available just five years ago.
You simply can't get the handheld performance from LORAN that you can from GPS, and it is no big loss for the US LORAN chains to be turned off.
From a quick scan of the program catalog, no. Not even SA courses.
I know a few years ago they used to have what I expect would be an excellent SA course. I know the guy who taught it, and he was an excellent SA whose attitude towards the process was extremely infective. He had people setting up systems and mail servers and what not and tearing them down to see how they ran. The impression I got from him and others was that those who took the course loved it, but he and the course weren't highbrow enough for "computer science". He wasn't a PhD so he had to go...
The main OSU computer stuff is all run by professional staff, as is our college's. One upside compared to "free" student labor is continuity. (I've been running my systems for 18 years -- grad students are here for 3-4 and then poof!)
As far as "system admin" and "CS" at OSU, here's an anecdote that conveys my opinion. One prof here hired a CS MS student to write code to process his data. He would show me copies of his qaulifier exams and we'd chat about linked lists and all the typical CS kinds of things. Then one day he asks me "how do you rename a file"?
Seriously - how many people are so eager to watch the released movies that they can't wait a month but weren't going to buy the movie? Yeah so they are going to piss off a lot of people...
Seriously, how many people are so eager to see a movie that they'll be pissed by a thirty day delay in being able to rent it and yet didn't bother seeing it when it first hit the theaters?
If you are pissed off because you had to wait thirty days to rent a specific movie that you didn't care enough about to see in the theater, you need a life.
So none of these products compared the actual email address being used with the displayed one in the message? That would seem to me to be about the most obvious security check one could think of with regards to email.
Huh? Which one of the "displayed one[s] in the message" must match the From header? And why would you consider it any more secure if there is a match, since the sender can simply insert the same address in the body of the message...
Thus it ensures that the strongest and fittest of our species survive and reproduce.
And yet, we go out of our way every day to try to keep that from being true. We use miracle medical procedures and drugs to keep people alive well past puberty who would have otherwise died and their genetic abnormalities gone with them.
Just look at the percentage of people who wear glasses. Do you imagine that the only reason people in, say, caveman days didn't wear glasses was because they hadn't been invented? No, it was because those who had poor eyesight didn't get to reproduce -- they got eaten by the grue. Natural selection called for good eyesight. So, when eyeglasses were invented to help with old-age, wham, they started showing up on youngsters too, and suddenly the inability to differentiate Susie Who from Sally What at more than ten paces didn't become a procreational roadblock.
If someone is too retarded to realize these things on their own why do we protect them?
To this day i wonder what the parents were thinking about, or doing, instead of driving, that was worth the life of their children. It may be disrespectful to the dead, and I admit I cannot know the circumstances around the incident, but I do certainly hold those parents in low regard.
What those parents were doing that was worth the life of their children was DRIVING THEM TO SCHOOL so they could turn out to be self-appointed judges for other people's mistakes, just like YOUR parents drove YOU to school so you could be here today.
You make the point for this thread better than anything anyone else has said. You have NO IDEA what happened, but you'll happily assume that the parents were grossly negligent ("instead of driving") and condemn them for an accident that may very well not have been their fault. In case you missed the point, the only difference between your saintly parents and "those parents" who are obviously scum for killing their children is that YOUR parent's child didn't die in a traffic accident and their's did. There's a saying that some civilized people use: "There but for the grace of God go I". In case you don't understand, it means "whatever it was that happened to THEM could have happened to ME, instead."
I expect you've never seen black ice form on an overpass, or a sleepy 18-wheel driver try to use your lane, or any of a thousand other things that could have caused the accident without it being the fault of "those parents" you regard so lowly. But obviously, they were negligent somehow, because YOU know they were, even after you admit you know NOTHING about what happened.
They are. Give it time, people just need to adjust.
Our nitwit city council tried installing a few roundabouts to try to "calm" traffic. They've been in place for several years now, in the same place. People have had time to adjust.
Two nights ago, I came up to one of them. Two cars coming from the left. The first made it into the circle before I did, so I yielded (stopped). The second one STOPPED. He SAT THERE until I gave up on him and started up. That's when he started up.
One night, approaching the circle, one car coming from the opposite direction. He didn't stop, he turned LEFT and went the wrong way around the circle.
And a week ago, I get to the circle, nobody in it, I enter. A guy coming in from the right saw me coming and pulled into the circle anyway.
My theory on why people hate them is, the anarchy of the traffic circle forces people to pay attention in ways that simple straight lanes don't.
Well, you can have your theories, but I'll tell you up front why I hate them. I hate them because people who didn't learn how to drive with them don't know how to treat them, so they tend to act in unexpected and usually incorrect ways when confronted with one. That means that people who DO know how they are supposed to work are put in danger, and it's inconvenient in any case.
In fact, I only hate the poorly designed ones, like the ones that our city decided to stuff into the same space a four way stop used to be. When I drive in places with correctly designed circles, they're great.
In practice, the people on 16 are flying in fast, but see the rotary from way back and know how to act, and if you trust them to yield, they do.
That assumption will get people killed, and is a perfect example of why people hate roundabouts. You have to trust them to yield. If you do and they don't, WHAM! If you don't and they do, you get WHAM from behind from someone who did trust them. And every one of those people on 38 who thinks they have to merge with 16 is demonstrating deadly ignorance of roundabouts.
Those simple instrusive screenings are, if I'm not mistaken, exactly part of the security theater that Schneier objects to. They don't *really* make us safer, they just seem to.
As I recall, immediately following the blossoming of TSA after 9/11, some fellow got himself arrested on a flight for demonstrating to the waitress, ummm, I mean "flight attendant", how to turn an empty coke can into a pretty good flesh cutter.
Why is it that airlines still carry cans of drinks instead of plastic bottles? Seems like a no-brainer. Less weight, less dangerous. And if you haven't noticed, those first class meals are coming with metal knives and forks these days.
we'd all have to board planes naked... or even restrained
Ah, sorry, don't think that will get you far. Most people can probably carry an amount of explosives rectally, and I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility that they could learn to trigger it with sphincter muscles.
No need to learn anything. Put a pressure sensor on it and wait for the pressure to drop to 6000 foot elevation for five minutes.
To get anywhere close to safety:
All checked baggage flies on a cargo plane separate from people.
No carryon of any kind. You won't need it.
You arrive at the terminal, you remove and put everything into a "checked" bag.
You get full anesthesia.
Prior to being put into a shipping box with anesthesia/oxygen, you are xrayed and cat scanned to detect any non-body parts. Anything odd, you are ejected from the terminal. No exceptions.
You are "shipped" to your destination.
You have a pin in your hip? Tough. You have a metal plate in your arm? Tough. You swallowed ten baggies of heroin as a mule? Tough. You get cancer from the xray? Tough.
And, unfortunately, you still rely on the loaders not to have loaded a bomb some other way, or the pilots not to go jihad on you. So, no, absolute safety is impossible. "Do whatever it takes to make us feel safe" is the chant of the moron.
do you suggest us generals man the front lines? if us generals won't do that, does that nullify their legitimacy in the eyes of their troops?
I suggested nothing of the sort, and you know it.
Generals are not trying to be martyrs. Your attempt at equating Bin Laden as a martyr and military generals is either ignorance beyond any reasonable measure or deliberately insulting.
The message I replied to was talking about Bin Laden and how he'd probably kill himself when he was about to be caught because of his desire to be a martyr. He has no intention of being a martyr or else he'd already be dead, and publicly so. He's the kind of person who talks the talk and talks other people into paying for it. He's no different than Hussein, who talked the talk and then hid like a small furry rodent from the big, bad US troops who captured him.
however, if in the position between capture and death, he would choose death. its simple image management. his image is more important than his life, and he knows that
In who's opinion is his image more important than his life? Certainly not his. It's interesting how some people talk about sacrifice and image and then choose life when it comes down to it. If Bin Laden wanted to make his image last forever, he'd be on the airplane when it blows up, not pulling someone else's strings to get them to die for his purposes. He's "martyr" in name only; separated from reality by the inconvenient truth that he's still breathing and wants to keep it that way.
Now, what I WOULD believe is that someone close to him will kill him and try to pin it on the approaching troops, in order to continue the "name". Once again, that's one person choosing life over death when the chickens come home to roost, but if it were Bin Laden's choice, we know which he'd pick.
manson's and dahmer's names ARE dead.
Right. And that's why so many people know who they are. More people know about them because they were caught and tried than before. "Trial" is some great way to have your name "dead", huh?
there's no government in the world that would put bin laden in a positive light.
Yes, it's now clear that you have completely ignored what I wrote and are heading off in your own private little universe. I didn't say anything about a government, I spoke ONLY of the press. Perhaps in your corner of the world where Bin Laden is a martyr who'd die for a cause and not someone who's hiding in the tiniest crevice he can find, "press" and "government" are equated, but in the rest of the world they aren't.
It doesn't matter if a government puts Bin Laden in a positive light, if the press that the people read on a daily basis wouldn't report on his trial, then the trial is as good as non-existant. You can't make a man's name "dead" with a trial that the people don't hear about. And letting bin Laden rant in a courtroom, as the original poster suggested as a way of showing his lunacy, won't do a damn thing for people who don't have a free and unbiased press reporting what is going on.
the audience for the trial are those where bin laden's humbling is an issue that will cause them to grow disillusioned with him.
And without a free press reporting his "humbling", that audience will hear exactly what Bin Laden will want them to hear. The "trial" will accomplish nothing positive anywhere it is necessary. At BEST, the people will know their loyal leader is standing up to the brutish American despots and their appointed shill prosecutors. At worst, they won't hear about the trial at all. In either case, it won't stop people from being recruited for more attacks.
he'll kill himself if near capture
Nonsense. He'll kill himself no more than Hussein or any of Bin Laden's already captured associates have killed themselves. He values his own life too much, and he's proven that through his actions.
...but he would probably kill himself if he saw his capture as imminent, well knowing himself that his status as a martyr is preferable
Preferable to whom? If "martyr" was his preferred status, HE'D be the one with a bomb tied to himself. People who want to BE martyrs do it. People who talk a good martyr status send others out to die in their place.
the point is, you shouldn't just kill the man. you should kill his name. and you can only do this with a trial.
Yeah, Charlie Manson's name is so dead. Jefferey Dahmer, too. No, the real way to "kill his name" is to find him the same way Hussein was found: hiding in a little hole in the ground. Which is how he'll probably be found.
that's way more important than killing the man: killing his ideology
The concept that "freedom of the press" will allow wide dissemination and discrediting of nutballs requires a press that is free enough to report what the nutball said and unbiased enough to report it in nutball context. While our press may meet those requirements, it is unlikely that the press in many other countries do, and highly unlikely that the people who are the prime candidates for recruitment into extremist groups will be served by a free press.
I don't think so. It was a rant about Republicans "moving the line" when you try to reach "middle ground". The only way you can call what liberals try to get to "middle ground" is if you call everything right of Rachel Maddow "radical right". And then if they get a compromise, they call the compromise position the radical right and try for a compromise of the compromise.
If my comment was a troll (which it isn't), so was the flamebait that prompted it. Just another demonstration of the falsity of the "offhand comment".
It's like calling Ohio "the midwest" and then flaming when someone in Nebraska points out that Ohio is "east." Them damn Nebraskans keep moving the line.
Most Ohio State University grads emphasize the word "The" to the point of sarcasm during the introduction.
Nothing like those Stanford folks who are "The Stanford Cardinal", even if there are 'leventy-dozen of them being referred to.
"The Stanford Cardinal has taken the field." Really, where? It's hard to see it with all those nitwits in those red uniforms cluttering up the field. And wait, isn't "the Stanford Cardinal" a TREE anyway?
A singular noun and a definite adjective. There's only one of whatever it is, not a whole team full.
because they're like Republicans in that anytime you try to find middle ground, they move the center line.
You were doing so well until you made that off-topic trollish comment.
It's a typical liberal rant, calling anything right of Rachel Maddow "radical right", and then pretending that demanding that things be done their way is "bipartisanship". No, getting weak Republicans to vote liberal is not "bipartisanship".
It's hard to negotiate with ignorant, closed-mined, intractable people.
So you admit that liberals refuse to negotiate? Or just that it's hard to do it?
I have had a very good experience with Dish Network.
I left Dish after they promised me a FREE DVR because of my long time with them, and then denied they had promised me anything when I called to take them up on it. One rep demanded I fax her a copy of the offer, and then I never heard from her again. The next rep I spoke to demanded the same thing, and then claimed I was refusing to cooperate when I told her I'd already faxed a copy (at my own expense). So I faxed again.
At that point, Dish was upping rates for providing extra "services" that I hadn't asked for nor had I agree to pay for. Syrius radio channels. (If I wanted to listen to the radio, I'd turn on the radio, not my TV, dumbass.) I gave them a drop-dead "contact me" date or I was dropping all service. That gave me two weeks to get used to not watching Dish.
The day AFTER the drop-dead date, I got a call from the second rep. No, she's not authorized to fix any problems, just to "gather data".
The day after I dropped, they bricked my receiver. MY receiver. I bought it, I paid for it, and I used it for the entire time I was a Dish sub.
Charlie Ergen can... well, it's Christmas, so I'll be kind.
Okay, obviously you need some background on x86 programming in general and the complaint against the Intel compiler in specific.
Yes, obviously, if I don't agree with you, it can't be because you are wrong.
They don't have to fully support AMD, they just have to not go out of their way to degrade AMD processors.
I've got this compiler. It has all kinds of flags to tell it what processor I'm going to be running on. All of them are INTEL processors. Based on that flag, the compiler can make use of Intel's knowledge of their own hardware to optimize execution pipelines, cache, and all kinds of esoteric things that most programmers don't care about because all they know is "binary compatible".
So, I can't tell this compiler the code is going to run on an AMD chip. It CANNOT know what optimizations to make for that AMD chip because it doesn't know it is going to run on one. As the programmer, I KNOW that it will not produce optimizations for AMD chips.
Do I blame Intel for not writing a compiler that knows all about AMD chips, or do I pick a different compiler? Yes, big bad company is big and bad, so I blame them. We likes AMD, we does, so Intel is big bad, like nasty hobbitses they steals our ring they does. Or something like that.
Yeah, what a mystery why someone would want to be able to ship the same binary to customers whose processors have different features, and give them each an optimal experience.
What part of the word "optimize" confuses you? You cannot provide an optimal program to everyone because the processors are different. The very act of selecting a "code path" slows the program down.
This is why the Intel compiler CAN BE TOLD EXACTLY WHAT PROCESSOR IT IS MAKING CODE FOR. Intel could very well have had their compiler generate code at the very start that said "I don't make code for AMD, you lied when you compiled me" and you get NOTHING done, but no, they gave you generic code instead of nothing. In fact, as I recall, I ran into exactly that when I tried running the code compiled for the Intel CPU I had on an AMD -- without the politeness of an error, just a crash.
Now, if you accept the performance degradation of two "code paths" to begin with, one of which is optimized for the processor you specified, what optimizations do you make for the other path? You don't know what it's going to run on so you can't optimize it. It could be a different Intel CPU. Why aren't you complaining that Intel is deliberately anti-competitive with Intel, because they are doing things deliberately to slow down Intel chips?
Just to hammer this point home, Intel doesn't have to reverse engineer shit. They only have to follow THEIR OWN STANDARD.
Unless you are trying to claim that AMD processors are identical in every way to Intel processors, then they would need to know AMD standards as well if they are truly going to optimize for AMD processors. Binary compatible is not identical. If they optimize one path for the processor they know, then reason says that if you are going to HAVE another path, it should be unoptimized.
If that particular Z80 was fully compatible with Intel's instruction set with no support necessary from Intel's compiler, but Intel put code in specifically to exclude Zilog even though they were fully compatible, then yeah, that'd be anticompetitive. It's a tough concept, I know, but a real programmer like you should be able to figure it out.
I'm sorry you don't understand that optimizing compilers deal with more than just "instruction set", but they do. If AMDs pipelines or caches or whatever are different, then the optimizations are going to be different. It may be as small as one less stage in a pipeline, but that can make a difference. I never got an answer to my bug report, but I suspect that it was a branch being optimized for a certain pipeline that got my result tossed before it was stored. I'll never know, and I'm well past the days when I dig that deeply into the CPU to worry about such thi
You mean because any reasonable programmer should have fully expected Intel to be engaged in anti-competitive practices?
No, I mean I don't expect a manufacturer of product A to fully support someone else's products. It's stupid to assume they will, and hardly a major revelation when it turns out they don't.
Or because it's totally reasonable that when the compiler generates code to pick between, say, SSE2 and x87 codepaths, it would check the SSE2 CPUID feature bit, but then ignore it because the manufacturer ID doesn't say Intel and use the x87 codepath even though the processor supports SSE2?
Or because it is totally reasonable not to expect manufacturer A to understand every nuance of every product produced by someone else.
Suppose they did try to optimize for every AMD chip. I suspect that you'd be the first in line to complain that they didn't do it right for some certain version, and because they didn't do it right they are obviously "anti-competitive" and should have the FTC shut them down.
By the way, a compiler that is told it is creating code for a specific chip isn't doing a very good job of optimizing its output if it has to pick AT RUN TIME what kind of code to run. That's a very poor optimizing compiler, IMNSHO. Why you WANT to use it is a mystery. Do you imagine that the CPU you are running your code on will mysteriously lose SSE2 abilities, or mysteriously gain them?
I mean, we're not talking about some minutia of optimization for some specific part of P4 microarchitecture or something,
Yeah, it's not like the Intel compiler did exactly that kind of optimization or anything. Oh, wait, that's the kind of stuff it did. Does.
It's not a matter of "optimizing for Intel", it's a matter of "deliberately de-optimizing anything but Intel".
It's a matter of not being responsible for the microarchitecture of your competitor's products and generating code that WORKS as a fall-back instead of just failing to run at all. What would you prefer -- that it produces code that doesn't run on AMD at all?
It's just sad that now that finally authorities are taking notice, so many are coming out of the woodwork to defend them.
Defend them against ridiculous claims based on ridiculous assumptions? Absolutely. Intel isn't responsible for writing optimizing compilers for other people's products. It's the INTEL compiler. If AMD wants to write an optimizing compiler for its products, fine. Do it. They are the ones who know the tricks of their CPUs, it's not Intel's responsibility to reverse-engineer every chip AMD makes so they can know what optimizations will and will not work.
What's next? OMG, Intel compiler won't produce code for my Z80! They're being anticompetitive for Zilog. And it won't produce optimized Atmel code. OMG, anti-Atmel.
I've been there with the Intel compiler and I left it a long time ago. Not because it didn't produce optimizations for AMD chips, because it didn't produce WORKING optimizations for Intel ones. I didn't expect AMD optimizations because there were no compiler flags to tell it I was USING an AMD chip in the first place. It would be stupid to assume that a compiler that you can't tell you are using a certain chip would produce optimized code for that chip.
That means it is pretty stupid to claim "anti-competitive" when a compiler you know doesn't do anything special for AMD chips doesn't actually do anything special for AMD chips.
gcc, while free and flexible (and generally "good enough"), is mildly terrible. The output tends to be substantially larger and slightly slower than that from other compiler products, like the Intel compiler mentioned.
'Slightly slower' is better than 'wrong answer'. I can't remember the last gcc bug I've had to work around to get the right answer. I do remember the helpful Intel compiler optimizing out the calculation that was the reason the program existed in the first place. And the hours it took debugging to isolate the problem.
Putting in printfs to debug steps and having the code work is usually the sign of a programmer failure to allocate sufficient memory for something. In this case it changed the number of ops in the execution pipeline or prevented pipeline branch optimization -- a purely compiler issue.
And I remember what Intel said when I reported it. "What bug?"
I have had high recommendations from some pretty smart people for the Intel compiler, which is why it's a criminal shame they chose to try to cripple the execution speed of code compiled for their binary-compatible competitor.
Binary compatible does not mean hardware identical, and the Intel compiler is so CPU-specific that it cannot be doing just binary optimization, it has to be using intimate knowledge of the hardware as well. To expect Intel to support that level of hardware specificity for AMD is silly.
Intel's compiler is actually one of the best optimizing compilers out there (when it doesn't detect an AMD processor and not bother doing the optimizations...).
Well, since it's written and designed by INTEL to optimize code for INTEL processors, I'd say that anyone who thought it was going to do anything to help an AMD processor was, well, shouldn't be programming anyway.
I used the Intel compiler when it came out and then dropped it like a hot potato when it started "optimizing" out lines of code. Like the calculation that it was supposed to be doing. When I reported this problem to Intel, with code snippet, they said "what bug?". Bye bye, Intel, bye bye any reason to use Intel CPUs.
And as I recall, even optimizing out the results only got me a 5% increase in speed.
It's used in a lot of high-performance computing environments.
Our HPC people here use the Portland Group. On AMDs.
I used to cringe every time my ex-girlfriend ordered a pizza, because instead of asking "What's the diameter of your large pizza?" or even just "How big is the large?", she would always ask "How many slices is that?"
It took everything I had not to blurt out profane insults about her intelligence.
She's actually smarter than you, socially.
She knew if she was ordering for three, a multiple-of-three slices would give each person the same amount. That's fair if you are sharing. If ordering for four, a multiple of four. If two, an even number.
Maybe she was even more advanced than that, knowing that "Joe will probably want two, Tom probably will only eat one, Marcia another one, and my pig-assed boyfriend will suck down four slices, no matter how big or small they are. I will make do with one, so that's 9 slices..."
She knew "screw the size of each piece", what mattered was the subjective fairness of the division of the pie.
Slashdot Mirror
Except the US.
So what happens when GPS doesn't work anymore?
Given the military use of GPS, that's unlikely.
Further, what if a GPS receiver goes offline on a ship?
If A GPS receiver goes offline on a ship, you turn on any of the leventy-dozen other GPS receivers on board, including the handheld you bought for a hundred dollars that outperforms the models available just five years ago.
You simply can't get the handheld performance from LORAN that you can from GPS, and it is no big loss for the US LORAN chains to be turned off.
I believe they were based on VAX UIDs. As I recall, early CIS looked a lot like a BBS on VMS.
73765,1026
?talking it hear could you if say tachyon a would whaT ?"above out looK"
You don't fly in business class much, do you? Last flight -- two babies and three kids. And one of the babies wasn't happy at all.
From a quick scan of the program catalog, no. Not even SA courses.
I know a few years ago they used to have what I expect would be an excellent SA course. I know the guy who taught it, and he was an excellent SA whose attitude towards the process was extremely infective. He had people setting up systems and mail servers and what not and tearing them down to see how they ran. The impression I got from him and others was that those who took the course loved it, but he and the course weren't highbrow enough for "computer science". He wasn't a PhD so he had to go...
The main OSU computer stuff is all run by professional staff, as is our college's. One upside compared to "free" student labor is continuity. (I've been running my systems for 18 years -- grad students are here for 3-4 and then poof!)
As far as "system admin" and "CS" at OSU, here's an anecdote that conveys my opinion. One prof here hired a CS MS student to write code to process his data. He would show me copies of his qaulifier exams and we'd chat about linked lists and all the typical CS kinds of things. Then one day he asks me "how do you rename a file"?
Another look into the dark side of OSU EECS: http://eecs.oregonstate.edu/graduate/degreeprograms.html. Do act quickly so you don't miss the application deadline!
Seriously, how many people are so eager to see a movie that they'll be pissed by a thirty day delay in being able to rent it and yet didn't bother seeing it when it first hit the theaters?
If you are pissed off because you had to wait thirty days to rent a specific movie that you didn't care enough about to see in the theater, you need a life.
Huh? Which one of the "displayed one[s] in the message" must match the From header? And why would you consider it any more secure if there is a match, since the sender can simply insert the same address in the body of the message...
And yet, we go out of our way every day to try to keep that from being true. We use miracle medical procedures and drugs to keep people alive well past puberty who would have otherwise died and their genetic abnormalities gone with them.
Just look at the percentage of people who wear glasses. Do you imagine that the only reason people in, say, caveman days didn't wear glasses was because they hadn't been invented? No, it was because those who had poor eyesight didn't get to reproduce -- they got eaten by the grue. Natural selection called for good eyesight. So, when eyeglasses were invented to help with old-age, wham, they started showing up on youngsters too, and suddenly the inability to differentiate Susie Who from Sally What at more than ten paces didn't become a procreational roadblock.
If someone is too retarded to realize these things on their own why do we protect them?
Good question. Civilization, perhaps?
What those parents were doing that was worth the life of their children was DRIVING THEM TO SCHOOL so they could turn out to be self-appointed judges for other people's mistakes, just like YOUR parents drove YOU to school so you could be here today.
You make the point for this thread better than anything anyone else has said. You have NO IDEA what happened, but you'll happily assume that the parents were grossly negligent ("instead of driving") and condemn them for an accident that may very well not have been their fault. In case you missed the point, the only difference between your saintly parents and "those parents" who are obviously scum for killing their children is that YOUR parent's child didn't die in a traffic accident and their's did. There's a saying that some civilized people use: "There but for the grace of God go I". In case you don't understand, it means "whatever it was that happened to THEM could have happened to ME, instead."
I expect you've never seen black ice form on an overpass, or a sleepy 18-wheel driver try to use your lane, or any of a thousand other things that could have caused the accident without it being the fault of "those parents" you regard so lowly. But obviously, they were negligent somehow, because YOU know they were, even after you admit you know NOTHING about what happened.
You mean the way there is no bus service in Israel or police stations in Iraq?
Our nitwit city council tried installing a few roundabouts to try to "calm" traffic. They've been in place for several years now, in the same place. People have had time to adjust.
Two nights ago, I came up to one of them. Two cars coming from the left. The first made it into the circle before I did, so I yielded (stopped). The second one STOPPED. He SAT THERE until I gave up on him and started up. That's when he started up.
One night, approaching the circle, one car coming from the opposite direction. He didn't stop, he turned LEFT and went the wrong way around the circle.
And a week ago, I get to the circle, nobody in it, I enter. A guy coming in from the right saw me coming and pulled into the circle anyway.
My theory on why people hate them is, the anarchy of the traffic circle forces people to pay attention in ways that simple straight lanes don't.
Well, you can have your theories, but I'll tell you up front why I hate them. I hate them because people who didn't learn how to drive with them don't know how to treat them, so they tend to act in unexpected and usually incorrect ways when confronted with one. That means that people who DO know how they are supposed to work are put in danger, and it's inconvenient in any case.
In fact, I only hate the poorly designed ones, like the ones that our city decided to stuff into the same space a four way stop used to be. When I drive in places with correctly designed circles, they're great.
In practice, the people on 16 are flying in fast, but see the rotary from way back and know how to act, and if you trust them to yield, they do.
That assumption will get people killed, and is a perfect example of why people hate roundabouts. You have to trust them to yield. If you do and they don't, WHAM! If you don't and they do, you get WHAM from behind from someone who did trust them. And every one of those people on 38 who thinks they have to merge with 16 is demonstrating deadly ignorance of roundabouts.
As I recall, immediately following the blossoming of TSA after 9/11, some fellow got himself arrested on a flight for demonstrating to the waitress, ummm, I mean "flight attendant", how to turn an empty coke can into a pretty good flesh cutter.
Why is it that airlines still carry cans of drinks instead of plastic bottles? Seems like a no-brainer. Less weight, less dangerous. And if you haven't noticed, those first class meals are coming with metal knives and forks these days.
Ah, sorry, don't think that will get you far. Most people can probably carry an amount of explosives rectally, and I wouldn't put it outside the realm of possibility that they could learn to trigger it with sphincter muscles.
No need to learn anything. Put a pressure sensor on it and wait for the pressure to drop to 6000 foot elevation for five minutes.
To get anywhere close to safety:
You have a pin in your hip? Tough. You have a metal plate in your arm? Tough. You swallowed ten baggies of heroin as a mule? Tough. You get cancer from the xray? Tough.
And, unfortunately, you still rely on the loaders not to have loaded a bomb some other way, or the pilots not to go jihad on you. So, no, absolute safety is impossible. "Do whatever it takes to make us feel safe" is the chant of the moron.
I suggested nothing of the sort, and you know it.
Generals are not trying to be martyrs. Your attempt at equating Bin Laden as a martyr and military generals is either ignorance beyond any reasonable measure or deliberately insulting.
The message I replied to was talking about Bin Laden and how he'd probably kill himself when he was about to be caught because of his desire to be a martyr. He has no intention of being a martyr or else he'd already be dead, and publicly so. He's the kind of person who talks the talk and talks other people into paying for it. He's no different than Hussein, who talked the talk and then hid like a small furry rodent from the big, bad US troops who captured him.
however, if in the position between capture and death, he would choose death. its simple image management. his image is more important than his life, and he knows that
In who's opinion is his image more important than his life? Certainly not his. It's interesting how some people talk about sacrifice and image and then choose life when it comes down to it. If Bin Laden wanted to make his image last forever, he'd be on the airplane when it blows up, not pulling someone else's strings to get them to die for his purposes. He's "martyr" in name only; separated from reality by the inconvenient truth that he's still breathing and wants to keep it that way. Now, what I WOULD believe is that someone close to him will kill him and try to pin it on the approaching troops, in order to continue the "name". Once again, that's one person choosing life over death when the chickens come home to roost, but if it were Bin Laden's choice, we know which he'd pick.
manson's and dahmer's names ARE dead.
Right. And that's why so many people know who they are. More people know about them because they were caught and tried than before. "Trial" is some great way to have your name "dead", huh?
there's no government in the world that would put bin laden in a positive light.
Yes, it's now clear that you have completely ignored what I wrote and are heading off in your own private little universe. I didn't say anything about a government, I spoke ONLY of the press. Perhaps in your corner of the world where Bin Laden is a martyr who'd die for a cause and not someone who's hiding in the tiniest crevice he can find, "press" and "government" are equated, but in the rest of the world they aren't.
It doesn't matter if a government puts Bin Laden in a positive light, if the press that the people read on a daily basis wouldn't report on his trial, then the trial is as good as non-existant. You can't make a man's name "dead" with a trial that the people don't hear about. And letting bin Laden rant in a courtroom, as the original poster suggested as a way of showing his lunacy, won't do a damn thing for people who don't have a free and unbiased press reporting what is going on.
the audience for the trial are those where bin laden's humbling is an issue that will cause them to grow disillusioned with him.
And without a free press reporting his "humbling", that audience will hear exactly what Bin Laden will want them to hear. The "trial" will accomplish nothing positive anywhere it is necessary. At BEST, the people will know their loyal leader is standing up to the brutish American despots and their appointed shill prosecutors. At worst, they won't hear about the trial at all. In either case, it won't stop people from being recruited for more attacks.
he'll kill himself if near capture
Nonsense. He'll kill himself no more than Hussein or any of Bin Laden's already captured associates have killed themselves. He values his own life too much, and he's proven that through his actions.
Preferable to whom? If "martyr" was his preferred status, HE'D be the one with a bomb tied to himself. People who want to BE martyrs do it. People who talk a good martyr status send others out to die in their place.
the point is, you shouldn't just kill the man. you should kill his name. and you can only do this with a trial.
Yeah, Charlie Manson's name is so dead. Jefferey Dahmer, too. No, the real way to "kill his name" is to find him the same way Hussein was found: hiding in a little hole in the ground. Which is how he'll probably be found.
that's way more important than killing the man: killing his ideology
The concept that "freedom of the press" will allow wide dissemination and discrediting of nutballs requires a press that is free enough to report what the nutball said and unbiased enough to report it in nutball context. While our press may meet those requirements, it is unlikely that the press in many other countries do, and highly unlikely that the people who are the prime candidates for recruitment into extremist groups will be served by a free press.
I don't think so. It was a rant about Republicans "moving the line" when you try to reach "middle ground". The only way you can call what liberals try to get to "middle ground" is if you call everything right of Rachel Maddow "radical right". And then if they get a compromise, they call the compromise position the radical right and try for a compromise of the compromise.
If my comment was a troll (which it isn't), so was the flamebait that prompted it. Just another demonstration of the falsity of the "offhand comment".
It's like calling Ohio "the midwest" and then flaming when someone in Nebraska points out that Ohio is "east." Them damn Nebraskans keep moving the line.
Nothing like those Stanford folks who are "The Stanford Cardinal", even if there are 'leventy-dozen of them being referred to.
"The Stanford Cardinal has taken the field." Really, where? It's hard to see it with all those nitwits in those red uniforms cluttering up the field. And wait, isn't "the Stanford Cardinal" a TREE anyway?
A singular noun and a definite adjective. There's only one of whatever it is, not a whole team full.
You were doing so well until you made that off-topic trollish comment.
It's a typical liberal rant, calling anything right of Rachel Maddow "radical right", and then pretending that demanding that things be done their way is "bipartisanship". No, getting weak Republicans to vote liberal is not "bipartisanship".
It's hard to negotiate with ignorant, closed-mined, intractable people.
So you admit that liberals refuse to negotiate? Or just that it's hard to do it?
I left Dish after they promised me a FREE DVR because of my long time with them, and then denied they had promised me anything when I called to take them up on it. One rep demanded I fax her a copy of the offer, and then I never heard from her again. The next rep I spoke to demanded the same thing, and then claimed I was refusing to cooperate when I told her I'd already faxed a copy (at my own expense). So I faxed again.
At that point, Dish was upping rates for providing extra "services" that I hadn't asked for nor had I agree to pay for. Syrius radio channels. (If I wanted to listen to the radio, I'd turn on the radio, not my TV, dumbass.) I gave them a drop-dead "contact me" date or I was dropping all service. That gave me two weeks to get used to not watching Dish.
The day AFTER the drop-dead date, I got a call from the second rep. No, she's not authorized to fix any problems, just to "gather data".
The day after I dropped, they bricked my receiver. MY receiver. I bought it, I paid for it, and I used it for the entire time I was a Dish sub.
Charlie Ergen can ... well, it's Christmas, so I'll be kind.
Yeah, but the battlefield info is a picture of them getting blown up.
To use a Civil War (US) reference, it would be the equivalent of having the Confederate army cavalry give copies of their reports to the Union army.
No, it would be the equivalent of the Confederates giving General Grant a picture of himself.
Yes, obviously, if I don't agree with you, it can't be because you are wrong.
They don't have to fully support AMD, they just have to not go out of their way to degrade AMD processors.
I've got this compiler. It has all kinds of flags to tell it what processor I'm going to be running on. All of them are INTEL processors. Based on that flag, the compiler can make use of Intel's knowledge of their own hardware to optimize execution pipelines, cache, and all kinds of esoteric things that most programmers don't care about because all they know is "binary compatible".
So, I can't tell this compiler the code is going to run on an AMD chip. It CANNOT know what optimizations to make for that AMD chip because it doesn't know it is going to run on one. As the programmer, I KNOW that it will not produce optimizations for AMD chips. Do I blame Intel for not writing a compiler that knows all about AMD chips, or do I pick a different compiler? Yes, big bad company is big and bad, so I blame them. We likes AMD, we does, so Intel is big bad, like nasty hobbitses they steals our ring they does. Or something like that.
Yeah, what a mystery why someone would want to be able to ship the same binary to customers whose processors have different features, and give them each an optimal experience.
What part of the word "optimize" confuses you? You cannot provide an optimal program to everyone because the processors are different. The very act of selecting a "code path" slows the program down. This is why the Intel compiler CAN BE TOLD EXACTLY WHAT PROCESSOR IT IS MAKING CODE FOR. Intel could very well have had their compiler generate code at the very start that said "I don't make code for AMD, you lied when you compiled me" and you get NOTHING done, but no, they gave you generic code instead of nothing. In fact, as I recall, I ran into exactly that when I tried running the code compiled for the Intel CPU I had on an AMD -- without the politeness of an error, just a crash.
Now, if you accept the performance degradation of two "code paths" to begin with, one of which is optimized for the processor you specified, what optimizations do you make for the other path? You don't know what it's going to run on so you can't optimize it. It could be a different Intel CPU. Why aren't you complaining that Intel is deliberately anti-competitive with Intel, because they are doing things deliberately to slow down Intel chips?
Just to hammer this point home, Intel doesn't have to reverse engineer shit. They only have to follow THEIR OWN STANDARD.
Unless you are trying to claim that AMD processors are identical in every way to Intel processors, then they would need to know AMD standards as well if they are truly going to optimize for AMD processors. Binary compatible is not identical. If they optimize one path for the processor they know, then reason says that if you are going to HAVE another path, it should be unoptimized.
If that particular Z80 was fully compatible with Intel's instruction set with no support necessary from Intel's compiler, but Intel put code in specifically to exclude Zilog even though they were fully compatible, then yeah, that'd be anticompetitive. It's a tough concept, I know, but a real programmer like you should be able to figure it out.
I'm sorry you don't understand that optimizing compilers deal with more than just "instruction set", but they do. If AMDs pipelines or caches or whatever are different, then the optimizations are going to be different. It may be as small as one less stage in a pipeline, but that can make a difference. I never got an answer to my bug report, but I suspect that it was a branch being optimized for a certain pipeline that got my result tossed before it was stored. I'll never know, and I'm well past the days when I dig that deeply into the CPU to worry about such thi
No, I mean I don't expect a manufacturer of product A to fully support someone else's products. It's stupid to assume they will, and hardly a major revelation when it turns out they don't.
Or because it's totally reasonable that when the compiler generates code to pick between, say, SSE2 and x87 codepaths, it would check the SSE2 CPUID feature bit, but then ignore it because the manufacturer ID doesn't say Intel and use the x87 codepath even though the processor supports SSE2?
Or because it is totally reasonable not to expect manufacturer A to understand every nuance of every product produced by someone else.
Suppose they did try to optimize for every AMD chip. I suspect that you'd be the first in line to complain that they didn't do it right for some certain version, and because they didn't do it right they are obviously "anti-competitive" and should have the FTC shut them down.
By the way, a compiler that is told it is creating code for a specific chip isn't doing a very good job of optimizing its output if it has to pick AT RUN TIME what kind of code to run. That's a very poor optimizing compiler, IMNSHO. Why you WANT to use it is a mystery. Do you imagine that the CPU you are running your code on will mysteriously lose SSE2 abilities, or mysteriously gain them?
I mean, we're not talking about some minutia of optimization for some specific part of P4 microarchitecture or something,
Yeah, it's not like the Intel compiler did exactly that kind of optimization or anything. Oh, wait, that's the kind of stuff it did. Does.
It's not a matter of "optimizing for Intel", it's a matter of "deliberately de-optimizing anything but Intel".
It's a matter of not being responsible for the microarchitecture of your competitor's products and generating code that WORKS as a fall-back instead of just failing to run at all. What would you prefer -- that it produces code that doesn't run on AMD at all?
It's just sad that now that finally authorities are taking notice, so many are coming out of the woodwork to defend them.
Defend them against ridiculous claims based on ridiculous assumptions? Absolutely. Intel isn't responsible for writing optimizing compilers for other people's products. It's the INTEL compiler. If AMD wants to write an optimizing compiler for its products, fine. Do it. They are the ones who know the tricks of their CPUs, it's not Intel's responsibility to reverse-engineer every chip AMD makes so they can know what optimizations will and will not work.
What's next? OMG, Intel compiler won't produce code for my Z80! They're being anticompetitive for Zilog. And it won't produce optimized Atmel code. OMG, anti-Atmel.
I've been there with the Intel compiler and I left it a long time ago. Not because it didn't produce optimizations for AMD chips, because it didn't produce WORKING optimizations for Intel ones. I didn't expect AMD optimizations because there were no compiler flags to tell it I was USING an AMD chip in the first place. It would be stupid to assume that a compiler that you can't tell you are using a certain chip would produce optimized code for that chip.
That means it is pretty stupid to claim "anti-competitive" when a compiler you know doesn't do anything special for AMD chips doesn't actually do anything special for AMD chips.
'Slightly slower' is better than 'wrong answer'. I can't remember the last gcc bug I've had to work around to get the right answer. I do remember the helpful Intel compiler optimizing out the calculation that was the reason the program existed in the first place. And the hours it took debugging to isolate the problem.
Putting in printfs to debug steps and having the code work is usually the sign of a programmer failure to allocate sufficient memory for something. In this case it changed the number of ops in the execution pipeline or prevented pipeline branch optimization -- a purely compiler issue.
And I remember what Intel said when I reported it. "What bug?"
I have had high recommendations from some pretty smart people for the Intel compiler, which is why it's a criminal shame they chose to try to cripple the execution speed of code compiled for their binary-compatible competitor.
Binary compatible does not mean hardware identical, and the Intel compiler is so CPU-specific that it cannot be doing just binary optimization, it has to be using intimate knowledge of the hardware as well. To expect Intel to support that level of hardware specificity for AMD is silly.
Well, since it's written and designed by INTEL to optimize code for INTEL processors, I'd say that anyone who thought it was going to do anything to help an AMD processor was, well, shouldn't be programming anyway.
I used the Intel compiler when it came out and then dropped it like a hot potato when it started "optimizing" out lines of code. Like the calculation that it was supposed to be doing. When I reported this problem to Intel, with code snippet, they said "what bug?". Bye bye, Intel, bye bye any reason to use Intel CPUs.
And as I recall, even optimizing out the results only got me a 5% increase in speed.
It's used in a lot of high-performance computing environments.
Our HPC people here use the Portland Group. On AMDs.
She's actually smarter than you, socially.
She knew if she was ordering for three, a multiple-of-three slices would give each person the same amount. That's fair if you are sharing. If ordering for four, a multiple of four. If two, an even number.
Maybe she was even more advanced than that, knowing that "Joe will probably want two, Tom probably will only eat one, Marcia another one, and my pig-assed boyfriend will suck down four slices, no matter how big or small they are. I will make do with one, so that's 9 slices..."
She knew "screw the size of each piece", what mattered was the subjective fairness of the division of the pie.