That would really suck as a solution due to the distances involved and the resulting latency. You want a friendly machine in US/other free space and to use SSH. Maybe Tor would work.
Well, that would be my immediate choice. I do it from work sometimes if I don't their filters catching me.
You need a cooperative machine outside the firewall. Then you ssh to it. SSH can act as a SOCKS proxy if you give it the "-D" option and a port number.
Firefox and IE can both be set to browse using the proxy. Firefox even has a setting (in about:config or whatever it is) to do DNS through the proxy as well. Then everything is encrypted and travelling over a tunnel to the friendly box outside.
"A scholar or student of natural history, the science of the natural world; see also natural science. It may also refer to a Wildlife enthusiast or a Conservationist"
If you want people to continue to treat you as an honest trade partner then either:
1) Stick to the treaty terms you signed 2) Don't sign/withdraw from treaties
OTOH, if you think it's in your best interests to sign treaties, bash other people over the head with them and then ignore them yourselves then there's another two options:
3) Start to be regarded as untrustworthy to trade with 4) propagandise about "world governmewnt", discredit the treaties and spoil the game for everyone
Now, options 2, 3 mean that the US doesn't play in the world free trade game and 4 means that world trade suffers barriers. These are bad for the US (especially 3) and bad for the rest of the world too (especially 4) as free trade benefits everyone*. 1 is, suprisingly, in the best interests of the US too. There is no option "5) one rule for me, one for everyone else", because that's just option 3 in disguise.
*ok, everyone with stuff to trade, the poor get screwed as usual
Whilst I agree with the meat of your post - that's free trade, either do it or don't, but don't whine when you're on the receiving end - but that last bit:
"And if you want laws changed, contribute to your congressman."
Makes me a very sad panda. It shouldn't be about the money. Many things in life are about the money but getting fair political representation really shouldn't be one.
Actually I'm pretty much in the same boat - I think government in the UK needs to be torn to pieces and rebuilt with just the essentials (in which I include the NHS). The "Socially Liberal" bit is currently more important to me though.
I live in a Labour/Lib Dem area, so the choice is obvious.
"hurts the Democrat who would have otherwise recieved that vote"
That's the bit I have the problem with I guess. What I'm saying is that I'm not sure that's necessarily the case, and I don't think that that attitude is healthy for democracy.
"I find it amazing that Parliament ever does ANYTHING."
Frankly there's a lot of us that would like proportional representation to go ahead, meaning many more coalitions and a totally crippled government. Then you have to have broad agreement to get *any* legislation through. A lot of folks like the idea of a government that can't really do very much:)
"Bullshit - you HAVE to accept this fact that if you cast a vote IN THIS ELECTION for Ralph Nader... you would be better off voting directly for McCain."
How?
Please tell me how, if I feel that neither of the two main parties is trustworthy or worthwhile, that not voting for either of them is like voting for one of them? You presuppose that the voter has more sympathy with one or other of the two main dishes on offer and doesn't distrust and disregard both.
Even if we presuppose that very thing, which is a big assumption, lets look at the mathematical side. My not voting for the Democrats decreases their relative score to the Reps by one. Voting for the Reps decreases the Dems relative score by two. So no, if you really really hate the Reps then voting TP isn't the same as voting for McCain, it has less of an impact on the race between those two parties. How you then say you'd be better off voting Mccain.... Well, think before you post boy.
"Ralph Motherfucking Douchbag Nader and all the idiot hippies that thought he was a good choice
The Dems need solidarity like..."
Err, sorry. You've just demonstrated your two-party mindset again. They're not "Dems". They don't feel the Democrats represent them. There are more than two possible outlooks on the multi-issue field that is politics.
Do you understand this? In the UK I vote liberal democrat. Why? Because their policies seem to be well considered and have a lot in common with my outlook. if they weren't there, would I vote for Labour or conservative, the very rough anaologs of the US Rep/Dem? No. I wouldn't vote for either of them because one is a high nanny-state insanity party and the other is a bunch of right wing arsebags.
The LDs most likely won't win any election soon. Doesn't bother me. I'm not giving my electoral mandate to anyone I don't agree with.
Is one of the two main parties slightly less out of tune with me than the other? Probably. So what?
I still find it weird that the party on the further-right of US politics is "red", what with the whole communist thing. In europe red means left, usually actually socialist and/or union based politics.
"So for this election at least, voting 3rd party is equivalent to not voting at all."
So is voting for the loser of the other two parties. We should all decide ahead of time who's going to win, then we can vote for that guy and everyone's vote counts, right? Everyone's represented?
Add to that the fact that the more people break from this poisonous two part mindset, the more people will see third parties as viable and it seems to me to be a damned good option.
"So essentially you'll be voting for McCain then? Good luck with that."
Yes, because we all know that a vote for anyone except the two major partiews is a wasted vote and that if you don't vote for the lesser evil you're effectively voting for the greater...
BULLSHIT. You've drunk so deeply of the two party Kool Aid you can't see a way out. Vote for what you actually want, vote for what actually represents you and maybe, just maybe, America can get away from the clutches of its bought and paid for political class that seem so determined to screw over the very people they're put there to serve.
Looks like I've used clustering before. In a multithreaded system. Not my finest work, but some of my first in a commercial setting.
You'd have, say, an incoming comms library that maintained a number of threads for dealing with traffic. These were only synchronised when they started up and died, otherwise were independant of each other. They used pipes or socket pairs to speak to another cluster that dealt with comms archives and a few other tasks before handing the messagfe off to yet another cluster that dealt with server comms.
Whilst this was *highly* inefficient, looking back, due to many many idle threads hanging around, it did mean that there was little to no locking overhead in normal operation.
What turned out to be a limit to the scalability, I'm sorry to say, was the pipes/socket pairs. If only I'd known about lock-free linked lists...
Now, I'd do the whole lot as a set of jobs on a thread pool, but that's hindsight for you.
I actually think that in the server space the example of throwing more women at it works well.
You can get just as big a gain learning to provide a service simultaneously to multiple clients as you can breaking down the act of providing the same service to a single client in less time.
Umm, that's a very simplistic view of it and not necessarily correct. Depending on your code you may have IO bound portions, you may have waits, synchronisation, all sorts of other reasons that any given thread might grind to a halt and be swapped out.
Too many threads are a bad thing due to context switching and cache repopulation, but if you want to use all the available hardware then you probably want more threads than cores. The OS should be a minimal impact. If it's a decent OS...
However, with the power of multiple cores, a machine should be able to run multiple jobs at the same time. Even with that said, however, the newer model does mean that you're going to run out of cache much faster.
"Do you have any idea what is statistics? Because you post suggests that you don't. So in a set 0,10,10,10,10 average is 8, but surprisingly enough only 1 is below average!"
Slashdot Mirror
That would really suck as a solution due to the distances involved and the resulting latency. You want a friendly machine in US/other free space and to use SSH. Maybe Tor would work.
SSH
Well, that would be my immediate choice. I do it from work sometimes if I don't their filters catching me.
You need a cooperative machine outside the firewall. Then you ssh to it. SSH can act as a SOCKS proxy if you give it the "-D" option and a port number.
Firefox and IE can both be set to browse using the proxy. Firefox even has a setting (in about:config or whatever it is) to do DNS through the proxy as well. Then everything is encrypted and travelling over a tunnel to the friendly box outside.
Extremely simple.
You can be both! You can be both!
Not only did I get the point. I had a chuckle at the idea of naked naturalists, hanging out (literally) in the forest trying to spot wildlife...
A naturalist is -
"A scholar or student of natural history, the science of the natural world; see also natural science. It may also refer to a Wildlife enthusiast or a Conservationist"
Not a naturist or nudist.
If you want people to continue to treat you as an honest trade partner then either:
1) Stick to the treaty terms you signed
2) Don't sign/withdraw from treaties
OTOH, if you think it's in your best interests to sign treaties, bash other people over the head with them and then ignore them yourselves then there's another two options:
3) Start to be regarded as untrustworthy to trade with
4) propagandise about "world governmewnt", discredit the treaties and spoil the game for everyone
Now, options 2, 3 mean that the US doesn't play in the world free trade game and 4 means that world trade suffers barriers. These are bad for the US (especially 3) and bad for the rest of the world too (especially 4) as free trade benefits everyone*. 1 is, suprisingly, in the best interests of the US too. There is no option "5) one rule for me, one for everyone else", because that's just option 3 in disguise.
*ok, everyone with stuff to trade, the poor get screwed as usual
Whilst I agree with the meat of your post - that's free trade, either do it or don't, but don't whine when you're on the receiving end - but that last bit:
"And if you want laws changed, contribute to your congressman."
Makes me a very sad panda. It shouldn't be about the money. Many things in life are about the money but getting fair political representation really shouldn't be one.
Actually I'm pretty much in the same boat - I think government in the UK needs to be torn to pieces and rebuilt with just the essentials (in which I include the NHS). The "Socially Liberal" bit is currently more important to me though.
I live in a Labour/Lib Dem area, so the choice is obvious.
"hurts the Democrat who would have otherwise recieved that vote"
That's the bit I have the problem with I guess. What I'm saying is that I'm not sure that's necessarily the case, and I don't think that that attitude is healthy for democracy.
"I find it amazing that Parliament ever does ANYTHING."
:)
Frankly there's a lot of us that would like proportional representation to go ahead, meaning many more coalitions and a totally crippled government. Then you have to have broad agreement to get *any* legislation through. A lot of folks like the idea of a government that can't really do very much
"Bullshit - you HAVE to accept this fact that if you cast a vote IN THIS ELECTION for Ralph Nader... you would be better off voting directly for McCain."
How?
Please tell me how, if I feel that neither of the two main parties is trustworthy or worthwhile, that not voting for either of them is like voting for one of them? You presuppose that the voter has more sympathy with one or other of the two main dishes on offer and doesn't distrust and disregard both.
Even if we presuppose that very thing, which is a big assumption, lets look at the mathematical side. My not voting for the Democrats decreases their relative score to the Reps by one. Voting for the Reps decreases the Dems relative score by two. So no, if you really really hate the Reps then voting TP isn't the same as voting for McCain, it has less of an impact on the race between those two parties. How you then say you'd be better off voting Mccain.... Well, think before you post boy.
"Ralph Motherfucking Douchbag Nader and all the idiot hippies that thought he was a good choice
The Dems need solidarity like..."
Err, sorry. You've just demonstrated your two-party mindset again. They're not "Dems". They don't feel the Democrats represent them. There are more than two possible outlooks on the multi-issue field that is politics.
Do you understand this?
In the UK I vote liberal democrat. Why? Because their policies seem to be well considered and have a lot in common with my outlook. if they weren't there, would I vote for Labour or conservative, the very rough anaologs of the US Rep/Dem? No. I wouldn't vote for either of them because one is a high nanny-state insanity party and the other is a bunch of right wing arsebags.
The LDs most likely won't win any election soon. Doesn't bother me. I'm not giving my electoral mandate to anyone I don't agree with.
Is one of the two main parties slightly less out of tune with me than the other? Probably. So what?
I still find it weird that the party on the further-right of US politics is "red", what with the whole communist thing. In europe red means left, usually actually socialist and/or union based politics.
"So for this election at least, voting 3rd party is equivalent to not voting at all."
So is voting for the loser of the other two parties.
We should all decide ahead of time who's going to win, then we can vote for that guy and everyone's vote counts, right? Everyone's represented?
Add to that the fact that the more people break from this poisonous two part mindset, the more people will see third parties as viable and it seems to me to be a damned good option.
Meh, whatever. It wasn't the folks that voted libertarian or other third party though.
"Who is responsible for George W. Bush becoming President?"
The electorate.
"So essentially you'll be voting for McCain then? Good luck with that."
Yes, because we all know that a vote for anyone except the two major partiews is a wasted vote and that if you don't vote for the lesser evil you're effectively voting for the greater...
BULLSHIT. You've drunk so deeply of the two party Kool Aid you can't see a way out. Vote for what you actually want, vote for what actually represents you and maybe, just maybe, America can get away from the clutches of its bought and paid for political class that seem so determined to screw over the very people they're put there to serve.
So, something with far less power than a cell phone system and you've bought the hype.
Quick, lets go sell them some electromagnetic wave blocking paint, we could make a fortune.
Looks like I've used clustering before. In a multithreaded system. Not my finest work, but some of my first in a commercial setting.
You'd have, say, an incoming comms library that maintained a number of threads for dealing with traffic. These were only synchronised when they started up and died, otherwise were independant of each other. They used pipes or socket pairs to speak to another cluster that dealt with comms archives and a few other tasks before handing the messagfe off to yet another cluster that dealt with server comms.
Whilst this was *highly* inefficient, looking back, due to many many idle threads hanging around, it did mean that there was little to no locking overhead in normal operation.
What turned out to be a limit to the scalability, I'm sorry to say, was the pipes/socket pairs. If only I'd known about lock-free linked lists...
Now, I'd do the whole lot as a set of jobs on a thread pool, but that's hindsight for you.
Mods been smoking crack again?
I actually think that in the server space the example of throwing more women at it works well.
You can get just as big a gain learning to provide a service simultaneously to multiple clients as you can breaking down the act of providing the same service to a single client in less time.
Umm, that's a very simplistic view of it and not necessarily correct. Depending on your code you may have IO bound portions, you may have waits, synchronisation, all sorts of other reasons that any given thread might grind to a halt and be swapped out.
Too many threads are a bad thing due to context switching and cache repopulation, but if you want to use all the available hardware then you probably want more threads than cores. The OS should be a minimal impact. If it's a decent OS...
Well played sir :)
However, with the power of multiple cores, a machine should be able to run multiple jobs at the same time. Even with that said, however, the newer model does mean that you're going to run out of cache much faster.
"Also true, but merging the result set is problematic."
I think they solved that to some extent in UT/MormOS, but I hear it requires quite a specialised mindset to work with it.
"Do you have any idea what is statistics? Because you post suggests that you don't.
So in a set 0,10,10,10,10 average is 8, but surprisingly enough only 1 is below average!"
Umm, which average are we taking?