I think that's why the recommendation is for an encrypted volume within your encrypted drive. They can tell you have TrueCrypt installed, they see you unlock it for them, and then have no way of knowing there's another encrypted volume there at all.
A one-day-old baby has no free will, no rational mind, no choice, and is not independent. Are you saying that it's okay to kill one? And if so, at what age is the cutoff? And if not, at what age in the womb is the cutoff? And why?
But I'm digressing. It's one thing to argue your point, which you've done, and it's another to claim that There Is No Debate, and that rational people cannot disagree. I still claim that it's consistent to believe in an absolutely minimal government which bans abortions.
Are you for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, the Department of Education, making abortion legal, getting the church out of the state, reducing the role of the government down to its only proper role: to uphold and protect the rights of the citizenry, and that's it?
(emphasis mine)
I am for every one of those, except the bolded one. Well, at the Federal level, even that one. But that one does not fit with the others, because it's really a debate about the definition of "citizenry". One can hold to your last ideal, that the government has that one role, and still believe abortion should be illegal (at the State level).
If the government had simply made a decision one way or the other on the bailout. Credit was frozen while the bailout was pending, because nobody knew what the value of their assets was. An answer, one way or the other, would have fixed things. Too bad the answer was "yes".
Because government-funded research is inherently free of any and all bias. It is never politically motivated, and areas to research and not to research are chosen purely on scientific merit by a government bureaucrat, whose #1 goal is not to increase and extend his own power. </sarcasm>
Seriously though, there are a lot of people who believe exactly that, and even if the commercial research may be biased, at least that's known and out in the open.
I accounted for that; many of the above are "mixed" or otherwise undetermined. In other cases a person contributed to both parties but more to one than the other, which was also noted.
You are not the arbiter of who is and isn't a Democrat. I've done plenty of work here; how about you prove that yacht clubs are mainly Republican?
By "we", you don't actually mean yourself personally. You mean using the power of government to take from one person and give to somebody else.
I have no objection to deep moral obligations to take care of people who for some reason can't. But that doesn't give me the right to spend other people's money on it, not by force.
It's easy to be generous with something that doesn't belong to you.
Democrats are joiners; they consider groups rather than individuals; they believe that centralized power in the hands of a large organization is the best way to run things, while the peons have no responsibility for themselves. They like to receive healthcare, pensions, and womb-to-tomb "care" from such an organization, and believe the rest of us should as well.
Republicans are more likely to be self-sufficient go-getters, to work at startups where they have a hand in the direction, focus, and success of their endeavor. They expect to have to earn everything they get.
It may well be that the fate of all companies is either success or patent trolling. A company in a death spiral pretty much will become a patent troll. Sad.
The best example of this is how people of both major parties continue to believe in government.
Witness the current crisis, whose root cause is the concentration of power in Washington, D.C. Everybody proposes all kinds of solutions, and every one of them is to increase the power of government, which caused the problem in the first place!
That's just one example; this vicious cycle of government growth, especially at the federal level, happens in pretty much every area.
is when you use the power of government to hold a gun to people's heads in order to fund programs that you think are important, especially ones unauthorized by the Constitution.
as good as Wine is, it will never compete with a browser which is designed to run natively on a platform
I don't know that that's true. WINE is not an emulator, it's an implementation of the Windows API. It's certainly possible for it to be a better-performing implementation.
If you were talking about virtualization, or even pseudo-virtualization like VMWare, where I/O is the serious bottleneck, then you'd be right.
I'd definitely like to see the benchmarks you suggest.
Slashdot Mirror
They still present a block device to the kernel. At least all the ones I've seen.
I think that's why the recommendation is for an encrypted volume within your encrypted drive. They can tell you have TrueCrypt installed, they see you unlock it for them, and then have no way of knowing there's another encrypted volume there at all.
A one-day-old baby has no free will, no rational mind, no choice, and is not independent. Are you saying that it's okay to kill one? And if so, at what age is the cutoff? And if not, at what age in the womb is the cutoff? And why?
But I'm digressing. It's one thing to argue your point, which you've done, and it's another to claim that There Is No Debate, and that rational people cannot disagree. I still claim that it's consistent to believe in an absolutely minimal government which bans abortions.
Are you for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac, the Department of Education, making abortion legal, getting the church out of the state, reducing the role of the government down to its only proper role: to uphold and protect the rights of the citizenry, and that's it?
(emphasis mine)
I am for every one of those, except the bolded one. Well, at the Federal level, even that one. But that one does not fit with the others, because it's really a debate about the definition of "citizenry". One can hold to your last ideal, that the government has that one role, and still believe abortion should be illegal (at the State level).
If the government had simply made a decision one way or the other on the bailout. Credit was frozen while the bailout was pending, because nobody knew what the value of their assets was. An answer, one way or the other, would have fixed things. Too bad the answer was "yes".
Because government-funded research is inherently free of any and all bias. It is never politically motivated, and areas to research and not to research are chosen purely on scientific merit by a government bureaucrat, whose #1 goal is not to increase and extend his own power. </sarcasm>
Seriously though, there are a lot of people who believe exactly that, and even if the commercial research may be biased, at least that's known and out in the open.
If your DB server is swapping, either you've misconfigured things, or some process has run away with your memory.
Keep your swap file small so that the OOM killer kicks in sooner rather than later.
You're right, but you still lose. You'll get the hang of it soon; stick with it.
I accounted for that; many of the above are "mixed" or otherwise undetermined. In other cases a person contributed to both parties but more to one than the other, which was also noted.
You are not the arbiter of who is and isn't a Democrat. I've done plenty of work here; how about you prove that yacht clubs are mainly Republican?
I'm talking about giving them a place to live. Free. Until they get back on their feet.
Then give it to them! Why must you force everyone else to join you at gunpoint?
Well let's see. Here is the former board of AIG. This is going to be a quick Google of each one, and may not be correct or comprehensive.
M. Bernard Aidinoff: Democrat
Pei-yuan Chia: Democrat
Marshall A. Cohen: Can't tell. He appears to be Canadian, maybe he's not active here politically.
William S. Cohen: Democrat (2 out of 3 to Dems, also was Clinton's Sec of Defense)
Martin S. Feldstein: Republican
Ellen V. Futter: couldn't find any evidence.
Stephen L. Hammerman: Democrat (mixes it up some, likes Rudy as he was NYC police commissioner, but mostly Dems)
Carla A. Hills: mixed
Richard C Holbrooke: Democrat
Fred H. Langhammer: Republican (actually this is pretty mixed, but recently leans Republican)
George L. Miles, Jr: Republican
Morris W. Offit: Democrat
Martin J. Sullivan: Democrat
Michael H. Sutton: Democrat
Edmund S. W. Tse: Can't tell. Also not originally American.
Robert B. Willumstad: Can't tell.
Frank G. Zarb: Democrat
I believe that's 9 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 5 unknown. I don't have time to do WaMu at the moment, but you're welcome to.
The titans of high finance are Democrats.
By "we", you don't actually mean yourself personally. You mean using the power of government to take from one person and give to somebody else.
I have no objection to deep moral obligations to take care of people who for some reason can't. But that doesn't give me the right to spend other people's money on it, not by force.
It's easy to be generous with something that doesn't belong to you.
Oh, you mean like the shit stain Republicans on Wall Street right now who are encouraging Socialism via a bailout?
I think the bailout is a terrible idea, and I'd like to point out that the executives of these Wall Street firms are pretty much uniformly Democrats.
Next I suppose you'll be telling us the Democrats are the party of wealthy elites.
Allow me: The Democrats are the party of wealthy elites.
Democrats are joiners; they consider groups rather than individuals; they believe that centralized power in the hands of a large organization is the best way to run things, while the peons have no responsibility for themselves. They like to receive healthcare, pensions, and womb-to-tomb "care" from such an organization, and believe the rest of us should as well.
Republicans are more likely to be self-sufficient go-getters, to work at startups where they have a hand in the direction, focus, and success of their endeavor. They expect to have to earn everything they get.
Yes, I do expect to be modded down.
Because the rest of the market is having to compete with the GSEs.
I had no idea that I was being so generic! (Nor did I intend to be.) Thanks for pointing it out.
It may well be that the fate of all companies is either success or patent trolling. A company in a death spiral pretty much will become a patent troll. Sad.
here is a pretty good version of this argument.
The best example of this is how people of both major parties continue to believe in government.
Witness the current crisis, whose root cause is the concentration of power in Washington, D.C. Everybody proposes all kinds of solutions, and every one of them is to increase the power of government, which caused the problem in the first place!
That's just one example; this vicious cycle of government growth, especially at the federal level, happens in pretty much every area.
is when you use the power of government to hold a gun to people's heads in order to fund programs that you think are important, especially ones unauthorized by the Constitution.
On purpose? Did you go to jail?
as good as Wine is, it will never compete with a browser which is designed to run natively on a platform
I don't know that that's true. WINE is not an emulator, it's an implementation of the Windows API. It's certainly possible for it to be a better-performing implementation.
If you were talking about virtualization, or even pseudo-virtualization like VMWare, where I/O is the serious bottleneck, then you'd be right.
I'd definitely like to see the benchmarks you suggest.
That the GP was on the pro-POTS-over-Cat-5 side, although his comment is at best vague.