As has now been updated on that slashdot story (and on Ars Technica) this part of the Patriot Act was struck entirely. Go check out the USA PATRIOT Act Wikipedia article which I wrote some time ago (and also the history article), and that now is in very much in need of an update.
The courts decide what is constitutional and what is not constitutional. And the U.S. courts have struck down quite a few laws Bush passed over the years.
Uh, no it doesn't actually say that. It says that each app has "its own private address space from which it can use the lower 2 GB". In other words, you have 2GB of address space available for all processes, and any process can use any part of that. Go reread that article again.
Each process can access the lower 2GB of the virtual memory address space. Each process does not get a seperate 4GB address space.
You'd be better of reading the following Microsoft technical article.
"Windows NT provides a page-based virtual memory management scheme that allows applications to realize a 32-bit linear address space for 4 gigabytes (GB) of memory. As a result, each application has its own private address space from which it can use the lower 2 GB--the system reserves the upper 2 GB of every process's address space for its own use."
While the article speaks of Windows NT, things haven't really changed that much behind the scenes - the basic algorithm remains the same in all the later Windows operating systems.
This reminds me of grc.com's dire warnings that Windows XP's "raw sockets" would cause chaos on the Internet. Total and utter bunk. But I guess that's what you should expect from the Register.
No, but the concept of criminal jurisdiction over people who don't exist within the states purview is still all part and parcel of Universal Jurisdiction.
Well, in that case - I'd like to recommend you as an excellent candidate to my anecdotes and sweeping generalizations club, and warmly encourage you to join!
The only point I was making was that the labelling of people in a simplistic fashion is not particularly intelligent. I used a plausible example of someone who holds to a number of strongly held views, and simply asked whether they should then be labelled left or right on the political spectrum. Unless I badly misunderstood you, it appears you responded that the only people who could hold such positions were "religious nutjobs", at which point I noted that I had a number of friends who are atheists and who did not agree with abortion, are against the death penalty yet believe that they should be able to bear arms unfettered from the government. The interesting thing about my comment was not that I know a few atheists in a vast sea of believers/non-believers, but that your argument that only a religious nutjob could hold all those positions was proven false.
So, while the statistics on the true population of atheists in Denmark is interesting, it's not actually relevant to anything I said and it does not disprove anything I said. On the other hand, I do find it ironic that you don't believe the statistics you quoted and tried to disprove it... with an anecdote.
Once again, the post you replied to did not pass any judgment on anyone's policies; it claimed that the people in America who call themselves left wing, have the most in common with people who call themselves moderate or right leaning in the rest of the Western world.
Really? The post reads:
Someone who's 'far-right', anywhere else in the world, in America would be considered 'moderate' or 'left-leaning'.
I see nowhere in that sentence where it talks of someone who describes themselves as "left-wing" or "right-wing". The post reads:
"Someone who's 'far-right'"
This person is "far-right", they are not claiming to be this but that is what they are.
"in America would be considered 'moderate' or 'left-leaning'"
In the U.S. other people ("would be considered") say they are "moderate" or "left-leaning".
Incidently, I looked up the word "Floccinaucinihilipilification", but it appears that it's spelt "Floccinaucinihilipilification". Very amusing. However, while you feel that I was annoyed by the comments (and yes, I was!), it appears that you are also getting annoyed as you feel that I did not "[bother] to read the post [I was] replying to", an act you appear to have accomplished yourself. Perhaps in the process of getting annoyed about my remark you interpreted that which was not there?
If you had bothered to read the post you were replying to, you would see the following:
Someone who's 'far-right', anywhere else in the world, in America would be considered 'moderate' or 'left-leaning'."
The key word is 'considered'. Yes, left-wing / right-wing is a woefully shallow tool for political comparison, but the GP post is correct (if a bit exaggerated), especially prior to Obama. The policies of the American self-styled 'left-wing' are closest to the self-styled moderates in the rest of the western world.
Interestingly, if you had bothered to read my post, then you would see that it annoys me when I see anyone consider anyone else in terms of the left-wing/right-wing divide.
As you state, the left/right divide is "now woefully inadequate to describe modern politics" - thus I cannot possibly see how it could be considered "useful short-hand". If anything, it allows people who know no better to label someone imprecisely and not actually speak out against the actual reasons behind why they don't like or disagree with the politics or policies of a party or politician. I don't know about you, but I'd rather a debate against someone who says "I don't like George W. Bush because he went to war in Iraq on faulty intelligence and was willing to undertake covert surveillance against his own citizens", as opposed to someone who says "I hate George W. Bush because he's a right-wing fucker".
Your muddled thinking means that this debate will go nowhere. But that's OK, because anyone who thinks that defining someone within an ill-defined two-dimensional political axes is probably not worth debating.
Really? I think you are somewhat missing the point of my last point. You can't say that if you are right-wing you are evil and if you are left wing you are full of goodness and light because left and right is ill-defined, simplictic and allows propagandists to categorise and brand the views of others without having to provide and evidence. Worse, it allows you to shout down or ignore a viewpoint without intelligently debating them or addressing the issues they raise.
But you don't have to believe me: why don't you define what you mean by right-wing and left-wing?
Indeed, it is not just Americans who make the mistake of looking at the world in terms of left and right sides of a supposed and ill-defined political spectrum.
More interestingly, it was a bunch of Americans on Kuro5hin that pointed out the ridiculousness of such a system. See this article and this article.
Slashdot Mirror
As has now been updated on that slashdot story (and on Ars Technica) this part of the Patriot Act was struck entirely. Go check out the USA PATRIOT Act Wikipedia article which I wrote some time ago (and also the history article), and that now is in very much in need of an update.
The courts decide what is constitutional and what is not constitutional. And the U.S. courts have struck down quite a few laws Bush passed over the years.
Try to imagine if the husband's last name was Leslie and they decided to follow tradition. Mr. Leslie Leslie and Mrs. Leslie Leslie.
I'd imagine a few University administrator's heads might explode after the moment of enrolment.
Yes, nice story. I believe you!
If you were trying to prove your point through reductio ad absurdum, I think that you have succeeded.
If you skip the initial ad, I've found that PCWorld allow you to read the article for about 5 seconds before redirecting you to page full of ads.
Guess I won't be buying or reading PC World now.
Uh, no it doesn't actually say that. It says that each app has "its own private address space from which it can use the lower 2 GB". In other words, you have 2GB of address space available for all processes, and any process can use any part of that. Go reread that article again.
I'm currently marvelling at how wonderfully puerile and completely useless that comment was.
Sigh. I'm afraid that's just not true.
Each process can access the lower 2GB of the virtual memory address space. Each process does not get a seperate 4GB address space.
You'd be better of reading the following Microsoft technical article.
"Windows NT provides a page-based virtual memory management scheme that allows applications to realize a 32-bit linear address space for 4 gigabytes (GB) of memory. As a result, each application has its own private address space from which it can use the lower 2 GB--the system reserves the upper 2 GB of every process's address space for its own use."
While the article speaks of Windows NT, things haven't really changed that much behind the scenes - the basic algorithm remains the same in all the later Windows operating systems.
I think the question is "why should I use the swap file"?
Things I'm not clear on:
1. URLs or entire domains?
2. Only 10,000? Do they feel that the Internet is really so small?
This reminds me of grc.com's dire warnings that Windows XP's "raw sockets" would cause chaos on the Internet. Total and utter bunk. But I guess that's what you should expect from the Register.
Could it be timing out a network connection? I think Wireshark might still show you something. It's not a bad idea!
Seems like he won and you didn't.
Next time, I suggest you calm down, then ask for the man's supervisor.
Oops. So true. Silly me!
No, but the concept of criminal jurisdiction over people who don't exist within the states purview is still all part and parcel of Universal Jurisdiction.
You are stealing LIGHT, which is owned by Toyota, you copyright thief you!
What I'd like someone to do is to produce a DMCA takedown order for Toyota on a piece of clothing that is worn by an actor in one of Toyota's ads.
Well, in that case - I'd like to recommend you as an excellent candidate to my anecdotes and sweeping generalizations club, and warmly encourage you to join!
The only point I was making was that the labelling of people in a simplistic fashion is not particularly intelligent. I used a plausible example of someone who holds to a number of strongly held views, and simply asked whether they should then be labelled left or right on the political spectrum. Unless I badly misunderstood you, it appears you responded that the only people who could hold such positions were "religious nutjobs", at which point I noted that I had a number of friends who are atheists and who did not agree with abortion, are against the death penalty yet believe that they should be able to bear arms unfettered from the government. The interesting thing about my comment was not that I know a few atheists in a vast sea of believers/non-believers, but that your argument that only a religious nutjob could hold all those positions was proven false.
So, while the statistics on the true population of atheists in Denmark is interesting, it's not actually relevant to anything I said and it does not disprove anything I said. On the other hand, I do find it ironic that you don't believe the statistics you quoted and tried to disprove it... with an anecdote.
You wrote:
Really? The post reads:
I see nowhere in that sentence where it talks of someone who describes themselves as "left-wing" or "right-wing". The post reads:
This person is "far-right", they are not claiming to be this but that is what they are.
In the U.S. other people ("would be considered") say they are "moderate" or "left-leaning".
Incidently, I looked up the word "Floccinaucinihilipilification", but it appears that it's spelt "Floccinaucinihilipilification". Very amusing. However, while you feel that I was annoyed by the comments (and yes, I was!), it appears that you are also getting annoyed as you feel that I did not "[bother] to read the post [I was] replying to", an act you appear to have accomplished yourself. Perhaps in the process of getting annoyed about my remark you interpreted that which was not there?
Interestingly, if you had bothered to read my post, then you would see that it annoys me when I see anyone consider anyone else in terms of the left-wing/right-wing divide.
As you state, the left/right divide is "now woefully inadequate to describe modern politics" - thus I cannot possibly see how it could be considered "useful short-hand". If anything, it allows people who know no better to label someone imprecisely and not actually speak out against the actual reasons behind why they don't like or disagree with the politics or policies of a party or politician. I don't know about you, but I'd rather a debate against someone who says "I don't like George W. Bush because he went to war in Iraq on faulty intelligence and was willing to undertake covert surveillance against his own citizens", as opposed to someone who says "I hate George W. Bush because he's a right-wing fucker".
Oh come on. Obama hardly tried to subvert the government in a coup before he tried again to gain power.
Sorry to nip this little meme in the bud, but go look up "Beer Hall Putsch" in Google before you look more silly than is entirely necessary.
Your muddled thinking means that this debate will go nowhere. But that's OK, because anyone who thinks that defining someone within an ill-defined two-dimensional political axes is probably not worth debating.
It's called Universal Jurisdiction, and although controversial is applied more frequently than would otherwise be expected.
Thank you :-)
Really? I think you are somewhat missing the point of my last point. You can't say that if you are right-wing you are evil and if you are left wing you are full of goodness and light because left and right is ill-defined, simplictic and allows propagandists to categorise and brand the views of others without having to provide and evidence. Worse, it allows you to shout down or ignore a viewpoint without intelligently debating them or addressing the issues they raise.
But you don't have to believe me: why don't you define what you mean by right-wing and left-wing?
Indeed, it is not just Americans who make the mistake of looking at the world in terms of left and right sides of a supposed and ill-defined political spectrum.
More interestingly, it was a bunch of Americans on Kuro5hin that pointed out the ridiculousness of such a system. See this article and this article.