The purpose of the government is to preserve individual freedom. Protecting citizens from themselves is not the purpose of the government. Last I checked I didn't select 'shepherd' on the ballot.
'But maybe the fault lies with the laws themselves.'
Fair enough. But it is my position that there is no such thing a law that can be successfully applied in a blanket manner. That is why juries were generally considered to be empowered to look to the merit of the law and not just whether or not an individual technically violated it. For instance, if you were picked up for having Jaywalked across the dead street to bring your neighbors some cookies and a Dudely Do-Right sort arrested you; it would be probably be tossed aside by a jury of your peers because you did nothing wrong. The law itself has an intent and while you violated the letter you were not disrupting traffic. If you strike the law itself from books then you have no recourse against those who are disrupting traffic. This power that rightfully belongs to Juries has basically been absorbed by the relevant District Attorney's. It goes without saying that a DA is even more biased on this subject than the police.
Even what is supposedly the most black and white of our laws, Murder, is not always clear cut. Attempts to patch it up has been made to create manslaughter and different degrees depending on intent. There is just no substitute for a group of impartial peers. Until we have a code of law that can cover every scenerio with a JUST response (something I consider to be impossible) I don't care to see truely effective law enforcement.
'And the statement is pretty simple: the police, by and large, are decent people trying to do a job.'
I'm sorry but that is extremely naive. People in general are not by and large decent and no sub-group of them is. If people by and large were good and decent then Communism would be the most effective economic system. People are greedy, mean, and cruel people driven by sugar-coated base instincts for which they have come up with extremely elaborate justifications over several thousand years.
The position of police officer is an easily obtained position of ever increasing power with very little day to day oversight. For instance, a police officer could pull you over tonight for no reason at all and require you to walk 20 ft off the side of a low traffic road. If you refuse that officer can beat you with a baton and point a gun at you. Once he has you off the road he can sodomize you with the baton because he has a whim. Should you resist at any point the situation will basically degrade into a case of it being your word against his and believe me nobody takes the word of the offender over the word of the good police officer.
Now you claim that they wouldn't do this because they are by and large good and decent people. After all, the people who are drawn to a position with that sort of power would never be the same kind of people who would want that sort of power. They would be the people who wouldn't want that kind of power, right? I mean really, there are more people who wouldn't suffer from typical human weakness and abuse great power than typical people right?
The scenerio I listed would be an extreme but the kind of sadistic sexual pervert who would desire a scenerio like that isn't even uncommon let alone unheard of. It would stand to reason that those want to abuse power are more likely to seek out positions of power than those who do not want to abuse it. Even those with honest intentions will take on group behaviors and probably end up breaking rules to catch those they believe are bad guys.
I have a unique perspective. I am now a business owner in a good neighborhood. I am well connected and highly respected in the community. The police do not usually pull me over because they do not believe I am 'up to something'. Recently a police officer did pull me over to courteously let me know my tags had expired and that I should get it taken care of as soon as possible. He called me sir and addressed me with respect.
As a teen I was a rebellious youth to who smoked pot and listened to heavy metal. I dressed accordingly. The police questioned, searched, and harassed me and my friends regularly. The searches usually didn't have probable cause and if the police found something they would just lie about the circumstances. Now, usually an 'incident' would involve several police officers but any other officers would just back up whatever was in the report (no matter what really happened). In one case a friend was out past curfew on a bike, he also had a bench warrant for a pipe the police had previously found when stopping him for speeding some time before. The police checked his ID, saw he was of age, and sent him on his way. Just a few moments later the car started to come after him so he fled on the bike, figuring he could get away and carry on with his life since he lived in another state. The police officer chased him a couple blocks and then actually hit him with the car. They refused to let him be examined by the hospital and held him in a choke hold while strip searching him (he did not resist before they began choking him).
Several officers 'witnessed' him wreck the bike on his own. All his bruises, scraps, and other marks were from that incident. It was also made clear to him that should he speak with a lawyer they would hear of it and his life would not be pleasant after that.
I'm sure those police think of themselves as being by and large decent people trying to do a job. In their minds those kids are troublemakers and hoodlems and they are doing a good thing
There is something we all talk around. Juries are no longer advised that they are to interpret whether the law in a good law as applied to a case in addition to whether the individual is technically guilty of the law. The reasons for that are historical and I won't go into them here but there is no question that is how the system was designed to work. The reason is that lawmakers can not envision every instance. Breaking the law is not wrong in and of itself. In fact, there are many times that breaking the law might be the only moral course of action.
Our justice system only works because the police do not have the capability to catch every offender. EVERYONE breaks the law and I the average lawbreaker does not really deserve the prescribed punishment. The law is really only good as an excuse to punish 'bad people' and nobody wants 'good people' who break it to be locked up. With the current level of police effectiveness they fail to catch the criminal in 99% of instances (trust me, I was a wild teenager) and the law of averages makes sure that it is usually those who break the law on a regular basis.
Would you like to be fined everytime you cross the street illegally, go over the speed limit, fail to signal when switching lanes or turning, come to a rolling stop, make a techical error in accounting or taxation when first starting your business, committed some sort of prank as a child? If everyone were GPS tracked with their cell phone and a computer analyzed the data it would only take a year or two to develop an effective system to automatically fine everyone who violates most traffic laws or fails to cross at a crosswalk.
That is why nobody wants a police state. Nobody really wants everyone who commits to a crime to be punished. We only want 'bad people' who commit crimes to be punished. Even 'good people' commit crimes where there is a victim so that isn't even an acceptable standard.
You cell phone already has a GPS in it. People keep talking as if the police would actually need to bug you or something. Most people already have a tracking device. The police already have access to the information through the 911 emergency systems (which are controlled by the police in case you didn't know) so they don't need to ask anyone.
That is what probable cause is for. If the police are absolutely certain that justification exists to perform a search or to track someone in this case then they go ahead and do it. They still have to answer to a judge for their actions later but they can act on the spur of the moment.
For the 10,000th time, the need for warrants (which really translate into judicial oversight) does NOT prevent law enforcement from doing what needs done. It only means they have to be able to justify their actions.
'Why the hell would you need a warrant for tracking a criminal with GPS?'
They aren't criminals in the United States, you can not be a criminal without being proven guilty in a court of law. A warrant means that a neutral citizen who has been chosen to make these decisions believes there is some kind of reason to believe you may have committed crimes. Law enforcement is by definition biased and can not appropriately decide when there is enough reason to justify intruding upon the lives of innocent citizens; we have judges for that. If it would be inappropriate to take an action against every innocent citizen in the United States then a warrant should be required so that a judge may determine when it is appropriate to take that action.
'That's like saying they need a warrant to shoot someone, or they need a warrant to drive down your street.'
I think driving down a street is in a slightly different class than searching a person, monitoring their movement and an entirely different universe from shooting someone. If police believe they have probable cause they can perform a search, track someone, or even shoot them when time does not allow the formal process; you can bet your ass they still have to answer to a judge or review board after the fact or face severe consequences for misconduct.
'And it's not like they'll plant that stuff in your shoes.'
Your right, they are in your cell phones and contrary to popular belief they are active while your phone is off. Yes you could leave your phone at home but most people wouldn't have any reason to believe they need to.
'Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill.'
It's not worth trading rights for more effective law enforcement. It is better to let every homocidal manic go (what all 10 serial killers in the last century?) than to wrongfully imprison and harass innocent citizens. I would rather roam the streets freely knowing that there are risks in life than not be able to roam the streets at all for fear of the sadistic controling personality types that are naturally drawn and empowered by law enforcement roles.
There is nothing useless about pointing someone directly at the information they are seeking. If someone asks you how the whole molecular biology thing works and you refer them to a specific book or course; was your answer useless? Of course not, you just told them to RTFM. If they aren't happy with that then tough, you do not exist to teach them molecular biology. They should be grateful that you were willing to set them on the right path to learn for themselves.
RTFM gained common usage because the vast amount of questions that grounded in ignorance. Rather than explain why the question either doesn't make sense or is a bad question; it is easier to direct someone to the appropriate documentation so they can come back with real questions later. There are 4000 questioners and 5 question answerers, RTFM (when the answer is contained in the table of contents or with direction to the appropriate place if it is not) is a way to rapidly deliver all the information a questioner needs and to be able to answer more questions.
'One of the moderation systems purposes is to raise the level of discussion, so that debating can occur at a sophisticated level. Not slapfights and name-calling.'
As a consistent moderator let me assist you. The purpose of moderation is to raise the level of discussion by highlighting unique and constructive comments. The purpose of moderation is NOT to highlight or silence those the mods do not feel were civil while making undeniably constructive comments that add to the discussion.
I do find it highly amusing that you would compare my constructive comments with name-calling because you did not appreciate the tone. The amusing part is that throughout this offtopic subthread you started; the only actual content in your posts has been to call me rude and obnoxious and then attempt to defend your supposedly righteous name-calling.
'No, but being rude and obnoxious can certainly qualify as flamebait'
Only if you are wrong. Unless you mean the language. If you have some sort of illogical emotion that supports a belief in 'bad' language then you should read and post on a family forum.
'If a n00b, who is curious about Linux but is not making a "legitimate effort", hears "RTFM" (or "RTFA", in this case), and is put off Linux, possibly forever, is that appropriate?'
Yup. Perhaps you want to see freeloaders of that sort in the linux community or the computing world in general for that matter but I do not.
'Where did you get that idea? I never said anything of the sort.'
You said it by implication. If it is not appropriate to refer someone, someone that has enough technical knowledge to ask a question that could only interest the technically literate in the first place, back to the article (which they have already been referred to for their answer) then there is never an appropriate time. Particularly when the answer they seek is found at the beginning of the article with a heading that could not be misunderstood that makes clear it is found there in rather large pronounced bold letters.
'You've really got to consider how your help is going to be received (if your goal is actually to help, which it's clear it was).'
My goal was mixed. Ultimately, yes I wanted to help and did in fact provide the answer. There is no way that following my referal could have failed to yield the answer. But I certainly intended to reprimand as well. The question was on the par of asking how to construct a paper airplane immediately after seeing 10 posts pointing to articles on paper airplane making. The poster just wanted someone else to look for him. The only reason I answered at all is because I am a fairly lazy individual myself.
We are straying off-topic here but I still must say this. Reading your post it sounds as if there is never a situation where it is appropriate to refer someone to the manual at all. It is generally inappropriate to slap a 600 page book in front of someone in response to a question but when the answer to their question is contained in the title it is a different story. RTFM is only inappropriate when directed at someone who is making a legitimate effort. It is still the correct response for those who want free support in lieu of reading the documentation.
Someone who didn't read the link they were referred to because experience caused them to anticipate a changelog would be justified. Everyone else (regardless of their n00bishness) deserves a RTFM response. RTFM is only wrong if it directed at someone who is making a legitimate effort, it is the correct response to give someone who is seeking free support in lieu of reading documentation.
The last few people who posted 'linux is just a kernel' in response to this got modded up, so mod me up too! Oh and you will find pretty colors if you take LSD.
That doesn't really apply here. He doesn't sound like a n00b to me. He sounds like a competent individual with a question about the details who was just too damn lazy to actually follow the link in the summary for those details. I also helpfully advised him that those details were readable and not a bland changelog litany in case he assumed that is what he would find and skipped it for that reason.
Since pointing people to the relevent document is apparently flamebait; I will copy and paste what you get if you click on the fourth heading in giant print from the changes article.
Relocatable kernel support for x86
This feature (enabled with CONFIG_RELOCATABLE) isn't very noticeable for end-users but it's quite interesting from a kernel POV. Until now, it was a requeriment that a i386 kernel was loaded at a fixed memory address in order to work, loading it in a different place wouldn't work. This feature allows to compile a kernel that can be loaded at different 4K-aligned addresses, but always below 1 GB, with no runtime overhead. Kdump users (a feature introduced in 2.6.13 that it triggers kexec in a kernel crash in order to boot a kernel that has been previously loaded at a 'empty' address, then runs that kernel, saves the memory where the crashed kernel was placed, dumps it in a file and continues booting the system) will benefit from this because until now the "rescue kernel" need to be compiled with different configuration options in order to make it bootable at a different address. With a relocatable kernel, the same kernel can be boot at different addresses.
No but the feature was a freebie not a manpower waste. Sony had their own coders write the PS3 support (which if you read the changes you will find doesn't actually provide support for the PS3).
'If there were ANY life here, it would be no more advanced than the fish which exist today.'
That conclusion doesn't follow anything else you've said. Is there some reason you feel that being a land-dweller is prerequisite to being an advanced lifeform? I wouldn't even consider it a safe assumption that land dwelling creatures on earth (including man) are the most advanced to have evolved on our own planet. Unless of course you define 'advanced' strictly on the basis of tool usage and not on the basis of intellect, self-awareness, or communication.
Obviously land provides more raw materials for the manufacture of tools and on earth the only manually capable creatures we have discovered dwell on land. Gee maybe the availability of materials to manufacture tools out of how has a direct relation to whether or not manually capable mutations succeed to pass on the gene!
You are putting the QoS at the wrong level. The ISP shouldn't be doing anything special to make your low latency protocol work, you need to tailor your choices to network realities. My packets (regardless of protocol) should be given equal priority to your own. There is no justification for another customer getting the higher network priority than me simply because he chooses to run a service that only works if his traffic is treated specially.
QoS is an extremely valuable tool however and I will certainly use it within the confines of MY own pipe to ensure that my bittorrents do not interfere with MY voip and browsing usage. It is very simple, each customers traffic gets equal priority to with as they please. This way nobody has their toes stepped on and everyone can use QoS effectively.
Slashdot Mirror
The purpose of the government is to preserve individual freedom. Protecting citizens from themselves is not the purpose of the government. Last I checked I didn't select 'shepherd' on the ballot.
'But maybe the fault lies with the laws themselves.'
Fair enough. But it is my position that there is no such thing a law that can be successfully applied in a blanket manner. That is why juries were generally considered to be empowered to look to the merit of the law and not just whether or not an individual technically violated it. For instance, if you were picked up for having Jaywalked across the dead street to bring your neighbors some cookies and a Dudely Do-Right sort arrested you; it would be probably be tossed aside by a jury of your peers because you did nothing wrong. The law itself has an intent and while you violated the letter you were not disrupting traffic. If you strike the law itself from books then you have no recourse against those who are disrupting traffic. This power that rightfully belongs to Juries has basically been absorbed by the relevant District Attorney's. It goes without saying that a DA is even more biased on this subject than the police.
Even what is supposedly the most black and white of our laws, Murder, is not always clear cut. Attempts to patch it up has been made to create manslaughter and different degrees depending on intent. There is just no substitute for a group of impartial peers. Until we have a code of law that can cover every scenerio with a JUST response (something I consider to be impossible) I don't care to see truely effective law enforcement.
'And the statement is pretty simple: the police, by and large, are decent people trying to do a job.'
I'm sorry but that is extremely naive. People in general are not by and large decent and no sub-group of them is. If people by and large were good and decent then Communism would be the most effective economic system. People are greedy, mean, and cruel people driven by sugar-coated base instincts for which they have come up with extremely elaborate justifications over several thousand years.
The position of police officer is an easily obtained position of ever increasing power with very little day to day oversight. For instance, a police officer could pull you over tonight for no reason at all and require you to walk 20 ft off the side of a low traffic road. If you refuse that officer can beat you with a baton and point a gun at you. Once he has you off the road he can sodomize you with the baton because he has a whim. Should you resist at any point the situation will basically degrade into a case of it being your word against his and believe me nobody takes the word of the offender over the word of the good police officer.
Now you claim that they wouldn't do this because they are by and large good and decent people. After all, the people who are drawn to a position with that sort of power would never be the same kind of people who would want that sort of power. They would be the people who wouldn't want that kind of power, right? I mean really, there are more people who wouldn't suffer from typical human weakness and abuse great power than typical people right?
The scenerio I listed would be an extreme but the kind of sadistic sexual pervert who would desire a scenerio like that isn't even uncommon let alone unheard of. It would stand to reason that those want to abuse power are more likely to seek out positions of power than those who do not want to abuse it. Even those with honest intentions will take on group behaviors and probably end up breaking rules to catch those they believe are bad guys.
I have a unique perspective. I am now a business owner in a good neighborhood. I am well connected and highly respected in the community. The police do not usually pull me over because they do not believe I am 'up to something'. Recently a police officer did pull me over to courteously let me know my tags had expired and that I should get it taken care of as soon as possible. He called me sir and addressed me with respect.
As a teen I was a rebellious youth to who smoked pot and listened to heavy metal. I dressed accordingly. The police questioned, searched, and harassed me and my friends regularly. The searches usually didn't have probable cause and if the police found something they would just lie about the circumstances. Now, usually an 'incident' would involve several police officers but any other officers would just back up whatever was in the report (no matter what really happened). In one case a friend was out past curfew on a bike, he also had a bench warrant for a pipe the police had previously found when stopping him for speeding some time before. The police checked his ID, saw he was of age, and sent him on his way. Just a few moments later the car started to come after him so he fled on the bike, figuring he could get away and carry on with his life since he lived in another state. The police officer chased him a couple blocks and then actually hit him with the car. They refused to let him be examined by the hospital and held him in a choke hold while strip searching him (he did not resist before they began choking him).
Several officers 'witnessed' him wreck the bike on his own. All his bruises, scraps, and other marks were from that incident. It was also made clear to him that should he speak with a lawyer they would hear of it and his life would not be pleasant after that.
I'm sure those police think of themselves as being by and large decent people trying to do a job. In their minds those kids are troublemakers and hoodlems and they are doing a good thing
There is something we all talk around. Juries are no longer advised that they are to interpret whether the law in a good law as applied to a case in addition to whether the individual is technically guilty of the law. The reasons for that are historical and I won't go into them here but there is no question that is how the system was designed to work. The reason is that lawmakers can not envision every instance. Breaking the law is not wrong in and of itself. In fact, there are many times that breaking the law might be the only moral course of action.
Our justice system only works because the police do not have the capability to catch every offender. EVERYONE breaks the law and I the average lawbreaker does not really deserve the prescribed punishment. The law is really only good as an excuse to punish 'bad people' and nobody wants 'good people' who break it to be locked up. With the current level of police effectiveness they fail to catch the criminal in 99% of instances (trust me, I was a wild teenager) and the law of averages makes sure that it is usually those who break the law on a regular basis.
Would you like to be fined everytime you cross the street illegally, go over the speed limit, fail to signal when switching lanes or turning, come to a rolling stop, make a techical error in accounting or taxation when first starting your business, committed some sort of prank as a child? If everyone were GPS tracked with their cell phone and a computer analyzed the data it would only take a year or two to develop an effective system to automatically fine everyone who violates most traffic laws or fails to cross at a crosswalk.
That is why nobody wants a police state. Nobody really wants everyone who commits to a crime to be punished. We only want 'bad people' who commit crimes to be punished. Even 'good people' commit crimes where there is a victim so that isn't even an acceptable standard.
You cell phone already has a GPS in it. People keep talking as if the police would actually need to bug you or something. Most people already have a tracking device. The police already have access to the information through the 911 emergency systems (which are controlled by the police in case you didn't know) so they don't need to ask anyone.
That is what probable cause is for. If the police are absolutely certain that justification exists to perform a search or to track someone in this case then they go ahead and do it. They still have to answer to a judge for their actions later but they can act on the spur of the moment.
For the 10,000th time, the need for warrants (which really translate into judicial oversight) does NOT prevent law enforcement from doing what needs done. It only means they have to be able to justify their actions.
'Why the hell would you need a warrant for tracking a criminal with GPS?'
They aren't criminals in the United States, you can not be a criminal without being proven guilty in a court of law. A warrant means that a neutral citizen who has been chosen to make these decisions believes there is some kind of reason to believe you may have committed crimes. Law enforcement is by definition biased and can not appropriately decide when there is enough reason to justify intruding upon the lives of innocent citizens; we have judges for that. If it would be inappropriate to take an action against every innocent citizen in the United States then a warrant should be required so that a judge may determine when it is appropriate to take that action.
'That's like saying they need a warrant to shoot someone, or they need a warrant to drive down your street.'
I think driving down a street is in a slightly different class than searching a person, monitoring their movement and an entirely different universe from shooting someone. If police believe they have probable cause they can perform a search, track someone, or even shoot them when time does not allow the formal process; you can bet your ass they still have to answer to a judge or review board after the fact or face severe consequences for misconduct.
'And it's not like they'll plant that stuff in your shoes.'
Your right, they are in your cell phones and contrary to popular belief they are active while your phone is off. Yes you could leave your phone at home but most people wouldn't have any reason to believe they need to.
'Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill.'
It's not worth trading rights for more effective law enforcement. It is better to let every homocidal manic go (what all 10 serial killers in the last century?) than to wrongfully imprison and harass innocent citizens. I would rather roam the streets freely knowing that there are risks in life than not be able to roam the streets at all for fear of the sadistic controling personality types that are naturally drawn and empowered by law enforcement roles.
GPS bug? Those are called cell phones. Federal law mandated all cell phones have GPS trackers implanted 'for the children' some time ago.
There is nothing useless about pointing someone directly at the information they are seeking. If someone asks you how the whole molecular biology thing works and you refer them to a specific book or course; was your answer useless? Of course not, you just told them to RTFM. If they aren't happy with that then tough, you do not exist to teach them molecular biology. They should be grateful that you were willing to set them on the right path to learn for themselves.
RTFM gained common usage because the vast amount of questions that grounded in ignorance. Rather than explain why the question either doesn't make sense or is a bad question; it is easier to direct someone to the appropriate documentation so they can come back with real questions later. There are 4000 questioners and 5 question answerers, RTFM (when the answer is contained in the table of contents or with direction to the appropriate place if it is not) is a way to rapidly deliver all the information a questioner needs and to be able to answer more questions.
'One of the moderation systems purposes is to raise the level of discussion, so that debating can occur at a sophisticated level. Not slapfights and name-calling.'
As a consistent moderator let me assist you. The purpose of moderation is to raise the level of discussion by highlighting unique and constructive comments. The purpose of moderation is NOT to highlight or silence those the mods do not feel were civil while making undeniably constructive comments that add to the discussion.
I do find it highly amusing that you would compare my constructive comments with name-calling because you did not appreciate the tone. The amusing part is that throughout this offtopic subthread you started; the only actual content in your posts has been to call me rude and obnoxious and then attempt to defend your supposedly righteous name-calling.
'No, but being rude and obnoxious can certainly qualify as flamebait'
Only if you are wrong. Unless you mean the language. If you have some sort of illogical emotion that supports a belief in 'bad' language then you should read and post on a family forum.
'If a n00b, who is curious about Linux but is not making a "legitimate effort", hears "RTFM" (or "RTFA", in this case), and is put off Linux, possibly forever, is that appropriate?'
Yup. Perhaps you want to see freeloaders of that sort in the linux community or the computing world in general for that matter but I do not.
'Where did you get that idea? I never said anything of the sort.'
You said it by implication. If it is not appropriate to refer someone, someone that has enough technical knowledge to ask a question that could only interest the technically literate in the first place, back to the article (which they have already been referred to for their answer) then there is never an appropriate time. Particularly when the answer they seek is found at the beginning of the article with a heading that could not be misunderstood that makes clear it is found there in rather large pronounced bold letters.
'You've really got to consider how your help is going to be received (if your goal is actually to help, which it's clear it was).'
My goal was mixed. Ultimately, yes I wanted to help and did in fact provide the answer. There is no way that following my referal could have failed to yield the answer. But I certainly intended to reprimand as well. The question was on the par of asking how to construct a paper airplane immediately after seeing 10 posts pointing to articles on paper airplane making. The poster just wanted someone else to look for him. The only reason I answered at all is because I am a fairly lazy individual myself.
This is the most informative post in the whole thread.
We are straying off-topic here but I still must say this. Reading your post it sounds as if there is never a situation where it is appropriate to refer someone to the manual at all. It is generally inappropriate to slap a 600 page book in front of someone in response to a question but when the answer to their question is contained in the title it is a different story. RTFM is only inappropriate when directed at someone who is making a legitimate effort. It is still the correct response for those who want free support in lieu of reading the documentation.
Someone who didn't read the link they were referred to because experience caused them to anticipate a changelog would be justified. Everyone else (regardless of their n00bishness) deserves a RTFM response. RTFM is only wrong if it directed at someone who is making a legitimate effort, it is the correct response to give someone who is seeking free support in lieu of reading documentation.
The last few people who posted 'linux is just a kernel' in response to this got modded up, so mod me up too! Oh and you will find pretty colors if you take LSD.
I didn't see much in the changelog that was useful outside of a server farm.
P.S. There is no such thing as GNU/Linux.
That doesn't really apply here. He doesn't sound like a n00b to me. He sounds like a competent individual with a question about the details who was just too damn lazy to actually follow the link in the summary for those details. I also helpfully advised him that those details were readable and not a bland changelog litany in case he assumed that is what he would find and skipped it for that reason.
Since pointing people to the relevent document is apparently flamebait; I will copy and paste what you get if you click on the fourth heading in giant print from the changes article.
Relocatable kernel support for x86
This feature (enabled with CONFIG_RELOCATABLE) isn't very noticeable for end-users but it's quite interesting from a kernel POV. Until now, it was a requeriment that a i386 kernel was loaded at a fixed memory address in order to work, loading it in a different place wouldn't work. This feature allows to compile a kernel that can be loaded at different 4K-aligned addresses, but always below 1 GB, with no runtime overhead. Kdump users (a feature introduced in 2.6.13 that it triggers kexec in a kernel crash in order to boot a kernel that has been previously loaded at a 'empty' address, then runs that kernel, saves the memory where the crashed kernel was placed, dumps it in a file and continues booting the system) will benefit from this because until now the "rescue kernel" need to be compiled with different configuration options in order to make it bootable at a different address. With a relocatable kernel, the same kernel can be boot at different addresses.
People complained that this was slashdotted so here is the cache
: kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_20+http://kernelnewbie s.org/Linux_2_6_20&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client =firefox-a
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:DeB7M2cAS8gJ
I just loaded the new kernel up in my guest virtual machine and according to my benchmarks I experienced a 100% performance increase. That is HUGE!
'Anyone running on PS3 as a day-to-day desktop?'
No but the feature was a freebie not a manpower waste. Sony had their own coders write the PS3 support (which if you read the changes you will find doesn't actually provide support for the PS3).
Read the fucking changes. They explain it there. That isn't a link to the usual changelog; it is actually readable.
'If there were ANY life here, it would be no more advanced than the fish which exist today.'
That conclusion doesn't follow anything else you've said. Is there some reason you feel that being a land-dweller is prerequisite to being an advanced lifeform? I wouldn't even consider it a safe assumption that land dwelling creatures on earth (including man) are the most advanced to have evolved on our own planet. Unless of course you define 'advanced' strictly on the basis of tool usage and not on the basis of intellect, self-awareness, or communication.
Obviously land provides more raw materials for the manufacture of tools and on earth the only manually capable creatures we have discovered dwell on land. Gee maybe the availability of materials to manufacture tools out of how has a direct relation to whether or not manually capable mutations succeed to pass on the gene!
Why do I read comments under science threads? Why!!!
You are putting the QoS at the wrong level. The ISP shouldn't be doing anything special to make your low latency protocol work, you need to tailor your choices to network realities. My packets (regardless of protocol) should be given equal priority to your own. There is no justification for another customer getting the higher network priority than me simply because he chooses to run a service that only works if his traffic is treated specially.
QoS is an extremely valuable tool however and I will certainly use it within the confines of MY own pipe to ensure that my bittorrents do not interfere with MY voip and browsing usage. It is very simple, each customers traffic gets equal priority to with as they please. This way nobody has their toes stepped on and everyone can use QoS effectively.