Honestly I don't give a fuck about whether the people in jails and prisons are in there for "victimless" crimes or not, or "violent" crimes or not. Have you ever been locked up, or ever sit through arraignment court? While I wouldn't advise getting arrested for the educational value, I would recommend sitting through arraignment court for a day, so you get an idea of who the police are actually arresting and why.
I can tell you this: a very large number of people who are arrested are released without charge, at their arraignment. I've heard estimates that at times- especially when for political reasons the police have an "all hands on deck" in DC it's around half of the people who are arrested are released without charge. They arrest them to boost their statistics (part of the reason I don't worry about the statistics too much: metrics can be gamed) for arrests and to keep people off of the street for a day or two. And I can tell you of those who are charged with crimes, most of them are there for some silly probation or parole violation (I saw a woman get her probation revoked because she violated a condition of her probation that she was not allowed to be in any automobile - what a condition!), or a nonviolent drug offense (typically simple possession), and once in awhile they'll bring around some sex workers on solicitation charges.
There are people who get locked up for things that actually hurt people. There'll be a couple DUIs, and maybe a couple domestic violence cases. There may be a couple people who are there for the (nonviolent) offense of selling drugs. But, these are the minority.
I will also tell you this: I don't think I've ever seen people go to jail for crimes that others don't get away with on a daily basis. They lock up people who use heroin but people who can afford to shop for a doctor can get oxycontin, which is basically the same damn thing but in pill form. The CEOs, managers, and stockholders of Endo and Purdue make a killing off of it, but they'll never get in trouble (especially the shareholders!), and the number of doctors who get in trouble is really low relative to the number of doctors that are engaged in the process. And when any of these people get in trouble, it'll usually be civil penalties, civil damage, perhaps probation, or criminal fines. Very very rarely would any of these people get sent to prison, which is where most of the people end up in the heroin world. Lend your car to someone who may end up using it to buy or sell heroin, however - and you may find yourself getting locked up on accessory or revocation charges.
(I will add, because I'm unsure of how to work it into my post, that many people have an assumption that people turn to prescription drugs when they have a medical problem, and that therefore people who are abusing prescription drugs are more likely to have a "good" reason to be on drugs. I think that's bull: many, if not most, people who are addicted to any form of drugs turned to them as a way of medicating real physical or emotional problems. The rich can afford to find doctors who prescribe the pills. The poor are left to self-medicate. I don't believe self-medicating makes you any worse than finding a doctor who will medicate you in the way you want)
It's not just the drug war where the system reeks of hypocrisy, either. People will get locked up for weapons charges while the weapons dealers rarely come under scrutiny. To say nothing of the amount of times around the world that the US itself functions as a weapons dealer to despots and ruthless killers. And I won't even talk about the level of hypocrisy with what will get you arrested for a "violent offense" versus what the police (or military) get away with doing in every city in the world, every day.
Drug abuse and addiction is a problem, sure, and there are problems as well related to access and proliferation of weapons. But society has chosen to deal with some of these manifestations of these problems in some segments of society - typically the poor
State prisons held a total of 1,274,600 inmates on all charges at yearend 2004. In absolute numbers an estimated 633,700 inmates in State prison at yearend 2004 (the latest year for which offense data is available) were held for violent offenses: 151,500 for murder, 178,900 for robbery, 129,400 for assault, and 153,800 for rape and other sexual assaults. In addition, 265,600 inmates were held for property offenses, 249,400 for drug offenses, and 88,900 for public-order offenses.
Source:
Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 24, Appendix Table 9.
1.2 million people in state prisons,.6 million in for violent offenses, and you'll see that it's around half.
Federal prisons were estimated to hold 176,268 sentenced inmates as of Sept. 30, 2006. Of these, 16,507 were incarcerated for violent offenses, including 2,923 for homicide, 9,645 for robbery, and 3,939 for other violent crimes. In addition, 10,015 inmates were serving time for property crimes, including 519 for burglary, 6,437 for fraud, and 3,059 for other property offenses. A total of 93,751 were incarcerated for drug offenses. Also, 54,336 were incarcerated for public-order offenses, incluging 19,496 for immigration offenses and 24,298 for weapons offenses.
Source:
Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 26, Appendix Table 13.
176k people in federal prison, 16k for violent offenses, and it's about 90% of the people who are in for non-violent offenses.
It's also very trivial to get charged with a violent offense, the sad reality is. Often police add on resisting arrest/misdemeanor assault on a police officer (in at least one jurisdiction I've lived in - DC - the crimes are the same) to just about any arrest where the person made any attempt at all to get away.
The ridiculous prison industrial system that exists also creates a culture where violence makes more sense. If you're risking going to prison for decades, life, or more, for a nonviolent offense, you might as well use violence to get away. After all, if you aren't rich enough to afford a lawyer, being a good person - or even being innocent - might not keep you out of prison.
Often the meter supports some sort of data export mechanism, and you just need to tie into it. Hacker extraordinaire Poul-Henning Kamp did this with his gas meter.
Actually, in most cases people aren't generally aware of the arrest warrant until they've been tracked down and arrested: it's not like most people get a heads up about that kind of thing. You aren't obligated in any way to turn yourself in when you have a warrant for your arrest: it is not like failing to appear in court. Note that running may be illegal (unlawful flight to avoid prosecution), but staying still definitely isn't.
Cases where people turn themselves in come about because they have a lawyer and can arrange for a self-surrender, and the only reason to do this is because they will negotiate to be arraigned shortly after surrender, and that lets them spend as few hours as possible in a jail.
If you're debugging your kernel or are helping people to debug your kernel, and are generating crashdumps either manually or as a result of kernel panic, you need your swap to be twice as big as the memory so it all fits comfortably (You can probably get away with X times bigger, where 1X2, but 2 is a safe number).
To my understanding that's always been the reason for the rule of thumb about doubling the memory. If you can afford the disk, go for it, because you never know when you might hit a panic and need crashdumps. If you are in a live environment and are sure you will never, ever need or even want crash dumps, and the disk space is at a premium, you can size it based on need.
Another thing to keep in mind is that as you have more ram, you have more pages, and the whole point of swap is to get pages to disk as well in case you need to free up physical ram quickly.
If you were to follow carbon through decomposing, I'd imagine most of it ends up in other lifeforms (fungal, bacterial) consuming the carbon, and I believe they are using the carbon (carbohydrates) to add to their biomass. If I eat a pound of bread, I'm pretty sure I won't exhale all of that carbon as CO2, I think some of it would end up in my muscles, in my fat, etc.
Of course, eventually I will die (or so they say), but it seems to me that increasing the total amount of biomass on the planet decreases the CO2 in the air.
I guarantee you there's no net energy gain from doing 4*CO2 -> 4*O2 + C4 and then C4 + 4*O2 -> 4*CO2, so burning it to get energy would be silly, especially because the obnoxiousness of having to deal with a gas. If you want battery technology, there are better options.
You realize the reason for the human devastation of the rainforest is because people are living in poverty, and capitalizing on the natural resource that's there is the way out of it?
Gotta fix that problem first, or else you'll get nowhere asking people to do things to not survive.
Routing becomes way more complex then, because "sourceforge" and "sourceforjf" have very similar prefixes, but with your arbitrary naming scheme they could be on opposite ends of the internet. Every router with multiple links needs to decide how to route packets, and they do so now using routing tables that are maintained via a protocol like BGP (for internet-facing interfaces), and routing table size is already large, and this is a problem that IPv6 will hopefully fix by enabling more use of contiguous blocks - in a sense we are going to get to gain what was lost with CIDR: the ability to look at fewer bits to make a responsible routing decision.
Whether we represent them numerically or with letters is irrelevant to a computer. Whether they can easily be inspected for information on hierarchy/topology, is very relevant, and can't be given up.
You're right, things in the home don't generally support IPv6 yet. But in enterprise and universities, I think we're in a different boat: and I think we, especially those of us who work on university networks (which I do), should start doing preparations to set sail.
Why is everyone in the comments talking about various steps (reallocating large blocks, more widespread NAT, etc.) that would allow us to push back IPv6?
It seems that we very close to the point where every device supports IPv6 (Vista adoption is helping this) but just isn't using it. Let's start turning it on. What better way to help the adoption than by having users who are IPv6 only complaining?
There is merely a great deal of temperance... most, if not all, of the terrorist acts in the last decade have been performed by Muslims;
That's just because of your definitions. What do you call the routine bombing of Iraqi airspace between Desert Storm and 2002, and the imposition and enforcement of sanctions that kept medicine and food out of Iraq? The estimate in 1998 for the number of children under 5 who were killed because of the sanctions was 500,000. Do you call that terrorism?
Do you call it terrorism that the US imprisons a larger percentage of its population than any other country in the world? Do you call it terrorism when police officers shoot a kid in the back, killing them? Do you call it terrorism when police routinely use tasers on people who aren't even violent, and often, haven't broken the law?
Do you call it terrorism when a kiloton bomb is dropped from 35,000 feet? When a home is bulldozed in occupied territories for not having the proper permits, despite the fact that no Arabs have ever been giving building permits for large swaths of land? Do you call it terrorism when the CIA arms both sides of a conflict? Call it terrorism when the CIA installs the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein of Iraq?
Did you call it terrorism when law enforcement threatened to shoot anyone who attempted to leave New Orleans by foot when Katrina struck?
The reality is the term "terrorism" is subjective, emotional, and largely bullshit. We could sit here and discuss semantics but I wouldn't want to. We could argue about definitions, but what does it matter? Or we could talk about who is oppressing and who is being oppressed (and surviving!), and I assure you, the majority of oppressors aren't Muslims.
I'm a little saddened that I see no response (at my threshold, at least) that contains the obvious: if you want to optimize something, anything, the most important thing to do is profile. Don't optimize the 99% of the process you spend 1% of your time in, optimize the 1% of the code you spend 99% of your time in.
The better you can figure out what your bottleneck is, the better you'll be able to improve performance. Other advice: watch graphs of system load and resource utilization over time, especially as you make changes. I enjoy munin for this purpose. Get comfortable with the output of programs like vmstat, iostat, etc. and use them when your server is loaded.
It doesn't induce massive currents if the EMP is far away and/or very weak. For example, turning on a radio antenna 100 feet away for a moment will create an electromagnetic pulse. Granted when we're discussing an EMP weapon we generally mean on a wide range of frequencies at once, but work with me here.
If the EMP is weak and/or distant then you may just induce enough current to screw up all of the gates momentarily, and a power cycle most certainly would resolve that. And of course if it's sufficiently powerful it's going to induce enough current to permanently fry things, regardless of whether or not they're on. In practice, "EMP weapons" are created by nuclear detonations, so things that are really close to the EMP probably will be physically destroyed, anyway.
This is one weapon that science fiction (Matrix, anyone?) seems to screw up consistently.
Standing holding a banner isn't violent? Why, if I wanted to walk right through where they were standing with a banner, are they just going to let me through?
Are you aware that you just asserted that if someone stands somewhere and is prepared to defend themselves, they've committed an act of violence? What a crazy definition...
Why does Flash on Linux suck? Because there's no free authoritative specification. That leaves only partial documentation (API documentation is not everything) and a closed source binary only reference implementation.
The lack of diversity of flash implementations means that even if you wrote down a good specification, if there were any difference between the implementation that everyone used and the specification, really the reference implementation would "win" the political value.
This is why projects like gnash are left to do a lot of black box analysis as a prerequisite for building a new implementation, and it'll always be a catch-up game.
And if anyone things flash on Linux is bad, try flash on FreeBSD... sheesh.
The parent didn't claim no other serious incidents, they claimed no other serious incidents pre-Apollo 11. 14, 16, and 13 all happened after Apollo 11.
You fail.
Well, I didn't claim that. I just think it's bullshit to draw conclusions on the health or past/current performance of a company based on a dropping stock price.
The main reason that oil costs in dollars are rising is that the value of the dollar is falling, and that oil was artificially cheap in the US before, due to what amounts to government subsidies of the industry (predominately in the form of write-offs).
As for who profits when the cost of oil rises? Anyone with a reserve of oil, and anyone who can continue to extract oil without their expenses rising at the same rate that the price rises. This should be obvious.
The stock price for XOM is not a good indicator of whether or not the company is making money. The value of the stock is determined by the market, which is largely making projections about the future. The company itself is doing quite well, as the statistics indicate.
Oh, well, in that case, I guess I'm wrong. I guess it's MissionAccomplished all over again. Way to go!
I take it you didn't read the part, in the first paragraph, where it talked about how troop levels were still higher than they had been. You must also have missed the memo about how things are going in Afghanistan.
I think history is filled with lessons that the idea of an outside force attempting to "impose" security is inherently flawed, because typically that security comes at a cost of human rights for the occupied country, at best. There also aren't really any examples of security being imposed somewhere else by someone else that isn't straight up colonialism in all of its traditional definitions. The one exception you might try to argue is Japan, but I'm not an expert on said occupation, but I'd tend to point out two things about it - it had no shortage of human rights abuses (perhaps more notably, GIs raping women) when it was being imposed and, perhaps more importantly, it was an occupation of a former colonial power, whereas Iraq was a colonial creation of the British. I think there's a big difference there in terms of the mindset of the people.
Can you imagine how long France would have had to stay in Algeria if they decided to stay until there was security? Or how long Britain would have had to stay in Indian? Or France in Vietnam?
Terrible crimes have been committed against the Iraqi people by the West - the toppling of their democratically elected government to replace it with Saddam, their use as a military pawn in a struggle against Iran, the 91 conflict and the 10+ year sanction regime that followed, and the current war. The US owes quite a bit to the Iraqi people for what they've done, but having the US arm and train some groups is just going to create another Shah or Saddam.
Stability and security are nice, but it's hardly a measure of success. Stability and security in a regime that disregards human rights is a crime, stability and security when there is no justice is a crime.
Everybody knows that if you're fighting an asymmetric war, you make your moves at the time when you can strike and minimize your losses, and you wait patiently at all other times. Anyone who thinks the violence against US targets isn't going to go back up as soon as the surge ends OR it becomes clear by observing US political and military statements and operations that the "surge" is permanent, is kidding themselves.
I'd also like to point out that it is very unfair and biased to measure violence "in the form of attacks, and the number of US casualties in Iraq" - what about Iraqi causalities? Civilian casualties? Shouldn't those be at least as important, if not more important, now that it's clear the war isn't being fought for WMDs?
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly I don't give a fuck about whether the people in jails and prisons are in there for "victimless" crimes or not, or "violent" crimes or not. Have you ever been locked up, or ever sit through arraignment court? While I wouldn't advise getting arrested for the educational value, I would recommend sitting through arraignment court for a day, so you get an idea of who the police are actually arresting and why.
I can tell you this: a very large number of people who are arrested are released without charge, at their arraignment. I've heard estimates that at times- especially when for political reasons the police have an "all hands on deck" in DC it's around half of the people who are arrested are released without charge. They arrest them to boost their statistics (part of the reason I don't worry about the statistics too much: metrics can be gamed) for arrests and to keep people off of the street for a day or two. And I can tell you of those who are charged with crimes, most of them are there for some silly probation or parole violation (I saw a woman get her probation revoked because she violated a condition of her probation that she was not allowed to be in any automobile - what a condition!), or a nonviolent drug offense (typically simple possession), and once in awhile they'll bring around some sex workers on solicitation charges.
There are people who get locked up for things that actually hurt people. There'll be a couple DUIs, and maybe a couple domestic violence cases. There may be a couple people who are there for the (nonviolent) offense of selling drugs. But, these are the minority.
I will also tell you this: I don't think I've ever seen people go to jail for crimes that others don't get away with on a daily basis. They lock up people who use heroin but people who can afford to shop for a doctor can get oxycontin, which is basically the same damn thing but in pill form. The CEOs, managers, and stockholders of Endo and Purdue make a killing off of it, but they'll never get in trouble (especially the shareholders!), and the number of doctors who get in trouble is really low relative to the number of doctors that are engaged in the process. And when any of these people get in trouble, it'll usually be civil penalties, civil damage, perhaps probation, or criminal fines. Very very rarely would any of these people get sent to prison, which is where most of the people end up in the heroin world. Lend your car to someone who may end up using it to buy or sell heroin, however - and you may find yourself getting locked up on accessory or revocation charges.
(I will add, because I'm unsure of how to work it into my post, that many people have an assumption that people turn to prescription drugs when they have a medical problem, and that therefore people who are abusing prescription drugs are more likely to have a "good" reason to be on drugs. I think that's bull: many, if not most, people who are addicted to any form of drugs turned to them as a way of medicating real physical or emotional problems. The rich can afford to find doctors who prescribe the pills. The poor are left to self-medicate. I don't believe self-medicating makes you any worse than finding a doctor who will medicate you in the way you want)
It's not just the drug war where the system reeks of hypocrisy, either. People will get locked up for weapons charges while the weapons dealers rarely come under scrutiny. To say nothing of the amount of times around the world that the US itself functions as a weapons dealer to despots and ruthless killers. And I won't even talk about the level of hypocrisy with what will get you arrested for a "violent offense" versus what the police (or military) get away with doing in every city in the world, every day.
Drug abuse and addiction is a problem, sure, and there are problems as well related to access and proliferation of weapons. But society has chosen to deal with some of these manifestations of these problems in some segments of society - typically the poor
State prisons held a total of 1,274,600 inmates on all charges at yearend 2004. In absolute numbers an estimated 633,700 inmates in State prison at yearend 2004 (the latest year for which offense data is available) were held for violent offenses: 151,500 for murder, 178,900 for robbery, 129,400 for assault, and 153,800 for rape and other sexual assaults. In addition, 265,600 inmates were held for property offenses, 249,400 for drug offenses, and 88,900 for public-order offenses.
Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 24, Appendix Table 9.
1.2 million people in state prisons, .6 million in for violent offenses, and you'll see that it's around half.
Federal prisons were estimated to hold 176,268 sentenced inmates as of Sept. 30, 2006. Of these, 16,507 were incarcerated for violent offenses, including 2,923 for homicide, 9,645 for robbery, and 3,939 for other violent crimes. In addition, 10,015 inmates were serving time for property crimes, including 519 for burglary, 6,437 for fraud, and 3,059 for other property offenses. A total of 93,751 were incarcerated for drug offenses. Also, 54,336 were incarcerated for public-order offenses, incluging 19,496 for immigration offenses and 24,298 for weapons offenses.
Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 26, Appendix Table 13.
These facts and others at http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/62
176k people in federal prison, 16k for violent offenses, and it's about 90% of the people who are in for non-violent offenses.
It's also very trivial to get charged with a violent offense, the sad reality is. Often police add on resisting arrest/misdemeanor assault on a police officer (in at least one jurisdiction I've lived in - DC - the crimes are the same) to just about any arrest where the person made any attempt at all to get away.
The ridiculous prison industrial system that exists also creates a culture where violence makes more sense. If you're risking going to prison for decades, life, or more, for a nonviolent offense, you might as well use violence to get away. After all, if you aren't rich enough to afford a lawyer, being a good person - or even being innocent - might not keep you out of prison.
Often the meter supports some sort of data export mechanism, and you just need to tie into it. Hacker extraordinaire Poul-Henning Kamp did this with his gas meter.
Actually, in most cases people aren't generally aware of the arrest warrant until they've been tracked down and arrested: it's not like most people get a heads up about that kind of thing. You aren't obligated in any way to turn yourself in when you have a warrant for your arrest: it is not like failing to appear in court. Note that running may be illegal (unlawful flight to avoid prosecution), but staying still definitely isn't.
Cases where people turn themselves in come about because they have a lawyer and can arrange for a self-surrender, and the only reason to do this is because they will negotiate to be arraigned shortly after surrender, and that lets them spend as few hours as possible in a jail.
If you're debugging your kernel or are helping people to debug your kernel, and are generating crashdumps either manually or as a result of kernel panic, you need your swap to be twice as big as the memory so it all fits comfortably (You can probably get away with X times bigger, where 1X2, but 2 is a safe number).
To my understanding that's always been the reason for the rule of thumb about doubling the memory. If you can afford the disk, go for it, because you never know when you might hit a panic and need crashdumps. If you are in a live environment and are sure you will never, ever need or even want crash dumps, and the disk space is at a premium, you can size it based on need.
Another thing to keep in mind is that as you have more ram, you have more pages, and the whole point of swap is to get pages to disk as well in case you need to free up physical ram quickly.
Remember that an adult tree releases about as much CO2 as it releases oxygen.
Cite? I have a hard time believing this is true, as long as photosynthesis is still happening.
I'm with you 100% on burning. Decomposing?
If you were to follow carbon through decomposing, I'd imagine most of it ends up in other lifeforms (fungal, bacterial) consuming the carbon, and I believe they are using the carbon (carbohydrates) to add to their biomass. If I eat a pound of bread, I'm pretty sure I won't exhale all of that carbon as CO2, I think some of it would end up in my muscles, in my fat, etc.
Of course, eventually I will die (or so they say), but it seems to me that increasing the total amount of biomass on the planet decreases the CO2 in the air.
I guarantee you there's no net energy gain from doing 4*CO2 -> 4*O2 + C4 and then C4 + 4*O2 -> 4*CO2, so burning it to get energy would be silly, especially because the obnoxiousness of having to deal with a gas. If you want battery technology, there are better options.
You realize the reason for the human devastation of the rainforest is because people are living in poverty, and capitalizing on the natural resource that's there is the way out of it?
Gotta fix that problem first, or else you'll get nowhere asking people to do things to not survive.
Routing becomes way more complex then, because "sourceforge" and "sourceforjf" have very similar prefixes, but with your arbitrary naming scheme they could be on opposite ends of the internet. Every router with multiple links needs to decide how to route packets, and they do so now using routing tables that are maintained via a protocol like BGP (for internet-facing interfaces), and routing table size is already large, and this is a problem that IPv6 will hopefully fix by enabling more use of contiguous blocks - in a sense we are going to get to gain what was lost with CIDR: the ability to look at fewer bits to make a responsible routing decision.
Whether we represent them numerically or with letters is irrelevant to a computer. Whether they can easily be inspected for information on hierarchy/topology, is very relevant, and can't be given up.
You're right, things in the home don't generally support IPv6 yet. But in enterprise and universities, I think we're in a different boat: and I think we, especially those of us who work on university networks (which I do), should start doing preparations to set sail.
Why is everyone in the comments talking about various steps (reallocating large blocks, more widespread NAT, etc.) that would allow us to push back IPv6?
It seems that we very close to the point where every device supports IPv6 (Vista adoption is helping this) but just isn't using it. Let's start turning it on. What better way to help the adoption than by having users who are IPv6 only complaining?
That's just because of your definitions. What do you call the routine bombing of Iraqi airspace between Desert Storm and 2002, and the imposition and enforcement of sanctions that kept medicine and food out of Iraq? The estimate in 1998 for the number of children under 5 who were killed because of the sanctions was 500,000. Do you call that terrorism?
Do you call it terrorism that the US imprisons a larger percentage of its population than any other country in the world? Do you call it terrorism when police officers shoot a kid in the back, killing them? Do you call it terrorism when police routinely use tasers on people who aren't even violent, and often, haven't broken the law?
Do you call it terrorism when a kiloton bomb is dropped from 35,000 feet? When a home is bulldozed in occupied territories for not having the proper permits, despite the fact that no Arabs have ever been giving building permits for large swaths of land? Do you call it terrorism when the CIA arms both sides of a conflict? Call it terrorism when the CIA installs the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein of Iraq?
Did you call it terrorism when law enforcement threatened to shoot anyone who attempted to leave New Orleans by foot when Katrina struck?
The reality is the term "terrorism" is subjective, emotional, and largely bullshit. We could sit here and discuss semantics but I wouldn't want to. We could argue about definitions, but what does it matter? Or we could talk about who is oppressing and who is being oppressed (and surviving!), and I assure you, the majority of oppressors aren't Muslims.
I'm a little saddened that I see no response (at my threshold, at least) that contains the obvious: if you want to optimize something, anything, the most important thing to do is profile. Don't optimize the 99% of the process you spend 1% of your time in, optimize the 1% of the code you spend 99% of your time in.
The better you can figure out what your bottleneck is, the better you'll be able to improve performance. Other advice: watch graphs of system load and resource utilization over time, especially as you make changes. I enjoy munin for this purpose. Get comfortable with the output of programs like vmstat, iostat, etc. and use them when your server is loaded.
It doesn't induce massive currents if the EMP is far away and/or very weak. For example, turning on a radio antenna 100 feet away for a moment will create an electromagnetic pulse. Granted when we're discussing an EMP weapon we generally mean on a wide range of frequencies at once, but work with me here.
If the EMP is weak and/or distant then you may just induce enough current to screw up all of the gates momentarily, and a power cycle most certainly would resolve that. And of course if it's sufficiently powerful it's going to induce enough current to permanently fry things, regardless of whether or not they're on. In practice, "EMP weapons" are created by nuclear detonations, so things that are really close to the EMP probably will be physically destroyed, anyway.
This is one weapon that science fiction (Matrix, anyone?) seems to screw up consistently.
Standing holding a banner isn't violent? Why, if I wanted to walk right through where they were standing with a banner, are they just going to let me through?
Are you aware that you just asserted that if someone stands somewhere and is prepared to defend themselves, they've committed an act of violence? What a crazy definition...
Such as?
I've seen people write procedurally designed programs in an OOP syntax, which provides the worst of both worlds.
You know a similar abbreviation rule exists with IPv4, right?
% ping 192.168.1
PING 192.168.1 (192.168.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
Why does Flash on Linux suck? Because there's no free authoritative specification. That leaves only partial documentation (API documentation is not everything) and a closed source binary only reference implementation.
The lack of diversity of flash implementations means that even if you wrote down a good specification, if there were any difference between the implementation that everyone used and the specification, really the reference implementation would "win" the political value.
This is why projects like gnash are left to do a lot of black box analysis as a prerequisite for building a new implementation, and it'll always be a catch-up game.
And if anyone things flash on Linux is bad, try flash on FreeBSD... sheesh.
The parent didn't claim no other serious incidents, they claimed no other serious incidents pre-Apollo 11. 14, 16, and 13 all happened after Apollo 11. You fail.
Well, I didn't claim that. I just think it's bullshit to draw conclusions on the health or past/current performance of a company based on a dropping stock price. The main reason that oil costs in dollars are rising is that the value of the dollar is falling, and that oil was artificially cheap in the US before, due to what amounts to government subsidies of the industry (predominately in the form of write-offs). As for who profits when the cost of oil rises? Anyone with a reserve of oil, and anyone who can continue to extract oil without their expenses rising at the same rate that the price rises. This should be obvious.
The stock price for XOM is not a good indicator of whether or not the company is making money. The value of the stock is determined by the market, which is largely making projections about the future. The company itself is doing quite well, as the statistics indicate.
Oh, well, in that case, I guess I'm wrong. I guess it's Mission Accomplished all over again. Way to go!
I take it you didn't read the part, in the first paragraph, where it talked about how troop levels were still higher than they had been. You must also have missed the memo about how things are going in Afghanistan.
I think history is filled with lessons that the idea of an outside force attempting to "impose" security is inherently flawed, because typically that security comes at a cost of human rights for the occupied country, at best. There also aren't really any examples of security being imposed somewhere else by someone else that isn't straight up colonialism in all of its traditional definitions. The one exception you might try to argue is Japan, but I'm not an expert on said occupation, but I'd tend to point out two things about it - it had no shortage of human rights abuses (perhaps more notably, GIs raping women) when it was being imposed and, perhaps more importantly, it was an occupation of a former colonial power, whereas Iraq was a colonial creation of the British. I think there's a big difference there in terms of the mindset of the people.
Can you imagine how long France would have had to stay in Algeria if they decided to stay until there was security? Or how long Britain would have had to stay in Indian? Or France in Vietnam?
Terrible crimes have been committed against the Iraqi people by the West - the toppling of their democratically elected government to replace it with Saddam, their use as a military pawn in a struggle against Iran, the 91 conflict and the 10+ year sanction regime that followed, and the current war. The US owes quite a bit to the Iraqi people for what they've done, but having the US arm and train some groups is just going to create another Shah or Saddam.
Stability and security are nice, but it's hardly a measure of success. Stability and security in a regime that disregards human rights is a crime, stability and security when there is no justice is a crime.
Everybody knows that if you're fighting an asymmetric war, you make your moves at the time when you can strike and minimize your losses, and you wait patiently at all other times. Anyone who thinks the violence against US targets isn't going to go back up as soon as the surge ends OR it becomes clear by observing US political and military statements and operations that the "surge" is permanent, is kidding themselves.
I'd also like to point out that it is very unfair and biased to measure violence "in the form of attacks, and the number of US casualties in Iraq" - what about Iraqi causalities? Civilian casualties? Shouldn't those be at least as important, if not more important, now that it's clear the war isn't being fought for WMDs?