If you read my post again then you must also have noted that I never mentioned algorithms but the notion parent used that "is poised to grab the title of the best operating system for the server environment."
What I did not clarify is that I ment proper server tests with actual workloads where SMP machines are used. The benchmarks are mostly checking the microoptimisations of a UP machine and it is well known that the current state of FreeBSD 5 is not optimized towards that. I also assume that you have missed the bug where hundreds of cycles where wasted when doing Mutex releases. A lot has happened since 6-CURRENT was created and 5.4 is only looking nicer day by day.
You also fail to realise that I in no way have any problems with NetBSD being faster (as I use it on my backup machine).
However, as history with FreeBSD and Linux have shown, why do you think a BGL SMP implementation would scale better than a FGL implementation? Even given the clean lean source of NetBSD? Just curious.
NetBSDs performance is looking very nice but don't make too sweeping assumptions about actual server performance based on this alone and that is also what the paper says in the end. More benchmarks needed.
BTW, regarding the actual benchmarks, rwatson had an interresting comment about it http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-perform ance/2005-January/001019.html
"The results indicate that NetBSD has surpassed FreeBSD in performance on nearly every benchmark and is poised to grab the title of the best operating system for the server environment."
While an interresting UP benchmark it in no way says anything about performance for SMP machines and 64-bit CPUs. That is what matters for most servers today (at least those that would be suitable for a new OS) and that's where all servers will be tomorrow.
Well, that should be obvious even to you. If we try to stop what is causing global warming then we at least lessen the effects of it. The thing is, you can stop the cause but the reaction is much much harder to stop if it happends. Assuming it happends (which we do not know), then global warming is going to cause such major effects to civilization that we will not be able to do anything but try to survive. Think enormous migrations, major famine and watersupply problems. And this will come even from relatively mild global warming. If we are having wars today over petty issues then think what will happend once we face real survival issues. May seem a bit distant now as we sit and type with a well fed refrigerator and cup of coffiee but for the next generation it might be reality. I know what I would do to make sure my children survives. The thing is, you're betting everything you've got on black coming up on the roulette. If we assume that at least there is a chance that red can come up and place our bets accordingly then we do not risk loosing everything.
Even if I grant that global warming is occurring, do you have a shred of proof that things like the Kyoto Protocol will result in a net benefit to the welfare of most people? Ever hear of unintended consequences?
Of course there will be unintended consequences, there always is. The question is, which will be worse, the disease or the cure. I'm sure we'll survive the cure but I'm not sure if civilization will survive if the disease (given it's real) is as bad as some think it will be.
Poverty kills, and if there is one thing we can take as near certain based on experience, it is that collectivist prescriptions from the watermelon Left will result in increased poverty and misery.
That may be the case in some places/countries but raw numbers of poverty in some european countries, that have been governed by (mainly post WWII) socialdemocratic parties (not commies), shows far less poverty than, for instance, the US. That communism (or Leninist-Marxism/Stalinism to be exact) failed is not surprising since their fundamental view of the expendability and freedom of the individual is flawed beyond repair.
Catastrophic? - How do you (or anyone else) know that?
Any longterm change in climate is catastrophic
Maybe not for you or me but for a lot of other people and a lot of other lifeforms.
It is an undiputed fact that the Earths climate has been wildly different at different times through the eras and life always managed to survive.
Life, yes, not all life. How much of the life present during the jurassic is still around today? Humanity may not survive because we as a species is so high up in the food chain and such species are usually the ones who fare the worst during a change. Life will probalby survive for billions of years here on Earth but it might not be intelligent life.
It is also a fact that man is the most adaptable living creature ever discovered; we've been able to live everywhere on this planets surface, plus in the air, under the water and even in space and on the moon. We as a species will survive any climate change given enough warning to adapt (using technology if nessesary).
Errm, perphaps you should've asked someone like me who do research in evolution before making such a clam as "fact". Being adaptable is nowhere near being able to create gear that helps us cope with a specific environment. True adation takes time, a lot of time. Way more time than we have in a lot of lifetimes, try kilo- and megayears.
Now IMHO instead of blindly trying to return the climate state to the level of 'the good old days' we should rather accept the changes (which still may be natural, and which in any case has happened naturally before and may again) and begin the adaption process. The sooner the better.
Perhaps we should ask some dinos about the best way to go about it. Oh yeah right... Again history teaches nothing. Whatever happends, don't blindly assume that we're the ones coming out on top.
Sure, things will be different but it doesn't mean it'll be worse (or catastrophic), and it might even be a change for the better in way we cannot imagine at the moment (due to lack of data).
Yeah, the grass might be greener but what if it isn't. Can you and your thinkalike buddies fix it them so the rest of us is ok? Are you prepared to take the risk? Of course you are because you think you'll be long gone by then so you don't have to pay the price.
Well using them on the Israelis this time would be an act of agression and that would be the last thing he'd wanna do at that time (during the first Gulf war). When he invaded Kuwait he had already passed the borders into another country, so he attacked Israel in hope of having the other arab countries withdraw their support of the UN-led liberation of Kuwait (he also attacked Saudi as well, but that was more due to the fact that the Saudis hosted the US troops).
Yes, I know VX cannot be stockpiled but then again I only used it as an example that we knew that he at least had had WMDs and was not afraid to use them. At one point he actually had one of the larger military forces in the world but the UN sanctions (and of course the first Gulf war) led to it's destruction. Saddam had barely enough to maintain his regular army material so I think he simply scrapped his WMDs (by lack of maintenance) as his primary goal was to stay in power in Iraq and in order to do so you need ordinary weapons, not WMDs. WMDs are extremely inefficient at keeping a population under oppression. Saddam knew that he would not have any offensive capabilities for many many years, so trying to stay in power was the best he could do.
Saddam was nuts and made miscalculations and did fail. His goal was to stay in power in Iraq. Nothing else mattered to him. He could not care less about the problems the US forces are having in Iraq now. Saddam had the very same issues before and he used force to keep the shiites and the kurds under opression.
Saddam is a lot like Stalin in his quest for power (Stalin was not a communist, he simply used their agenda to put him in power).
Yes the justification for the war was all f**ked up, but that was Bush's only chance of justifying a war. No other reason that would get other countries to join up at the time. Without the support of the UK it would have been diplomatic suicide in the face of the rest of the world. I agree, there were/are other reasons to justify the war but none that would give the "right" (in the UN) to invade during his first term of service (and without it he would not have been re-elected due to the economic state).
I say screw the system where a bullish country like the US can veto resolutions against Israel for not following already accepted resolutions. Screw the system where the US was a major force of influence when it was created.
You say it is a "war" because your current president, who ain't got a clue to how the world works, says so. The civilization is under no more of a threat from terrorism today that it was 10 years ago. Well, actually that's not quite true. Terrorism is a bigger threat today than it was before the invasion of Iraq. Now you have people that would never consider joining terrorists before joining them!
You fail to realise that terrorists (as well as GW Bush) cannot stop the passing of the time or the advancement of civilisation. The only threat to civilisation is humanity as a whole, not a small group of people with ass-backwards ideas (this bunch includes the current leadership in the US as well as terrorists). THe current US policy have killed a lot more innocent people (of course this excludes the guilty ones) than was killed 9/11.
What i really find hilarious is that you still fail to realise that most of the terrorits money comes from Saudi Arabia where there already is a large US force present and which is also, by coincidence(?), a non-free dictator ruled country. It is also interresting that we are now fighting wars over "ifs" and "could-be's" instead of facts.
NO WMDs have been found (FOX News ain't got 1c of credibility) and I guess none will be found either. WMDs must be maintained and there have been no such materials brought into the Iraq since the Gulf-war due to the sanctions. Ask yourself this. If he had WMDs, why would he not use then against the US troops? We know he had VX-gas cos he used it on the kurds. What would seem like Saddam trying to prevent the discovery of WMDs could just as likely (even more likely perhaps) be a attemt to prevent the rest of the world from finding out that he actually had nothing at all and thereby preventing the opposing groups within Iraq from rising up against him. Saddam was/is a megalomaniac and such people always make big mistakes in the end.
Now, the Kyoto-treaty is trying to prevent events which really could drag the world back 1000 years so of course the US will not join in that struggle. Just keep driving your SUVs and sleep well knowing that the world is safer because someone else it trying to fix it.
You're getting rather pathetic...
1) Gvinum works and the RAID5 bug have been fixed in 5-STABLE stoopido! Anyone who is advanced anough to use RAID5 and vinum knows how to fix this issue by updating to latest 5-STABLE!
2) ULE patches are available that fixes things as well. If you feel the need to use ULE just grab'em or wait until ULE is MFC'd.
Now please be so kind to eat shit or release those patches that you "claim" to have. If you even have anything... In your case, seeing is believing and we ain't seen nothing but whining yet from you. So either you put up or you STFU!
We agree to disagree but I'd just like to point out a few, at least in my view, errors in your post.
Passing laws to protect the innocent and ordering restitution for crimes does make us better than the perpetrator. I doubt that most police/judges/wardens feel vengeance when executing their duties, even if those duties include sentencing someone to death or even throwing the switch.
First, not committing the crimes is what makes us better, not ordering restitution for crimes committed.
Second, it is not the police/the judges/the wardens in those roles that passes the laws. They are ordered to carry them out and thus are also expected not to feel vengeance. The people, through politicians are the ones passing the laws and those sure feel vengeance from time to time (ask the families of the murdered). They may call out for "justice" but they just want to see the perpetraitors dead. That is vengeance and in clear opposition to what Christ taught us.
Where is your love for the innocent, the victims, the ones hurt by these criminals?
Oh, those are easy to love. Who, with a heart, cannot love the innocent victims? The hard ones to love are the perpetraitors, but we should, because that is what Christ showed us. Now, what about all those innocents killed when the Talibas were driven from power in Afghanistan? The innocents killed during the invasion of Iraq? Who are the evildoers of their killing? Where on the scale "of evil" does the killing of innocents in Iraq and Arghanistan come? Why were they killed? Because dropping the bombs are the easy way. The path of least resistance. The innocents killed in Afghanistan and Iraq were the children of God also. Never forget that.
If you love the weak and you love God's laws, you have to be willing to make the hard decisions.
Yes, but killing is the easy way, it always is. We are here to walk the difficult path. To find ways without killing. To love where there is no love. To forgive when no forgivness can be found. To give without expecting anything in return.
Did you know that for the money put into the invasion in Iraq, we could make sure that everyone on this planet had clear and clean water to drink for a hundred years? Those are actions that will make the innocent protected because who can be recruited to fight against the givers of such "gifts"?
You cannot let evil people continue to hurt others again and again and again.
Of course not, but that does not mean we have to kill them! Are you saying that there is no other way in this day and age?! I certainly disagree. Lock them up, throw away the key if necessary but teach them what they did wrong and give them the chance to ask Christ for forgivness. Perhaps they are not ready for the love of Christ yet, but perhaps after 20 or 30 years in prison they have matured enough to see their wrongdoings and ask for forgivness, and then Christ will forgive them as he will forgive all sins when honestly asking for forgiveness. That is the Christian way
I don't attempt to justify killing innocents in the name of justice. It happens, very rarely, and is a regrettable and tragic mistake.
Unfortunately it is not a rare event.
To quote: http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/innocent.html
"An article in the Stanford Law Review in November 1987, reports an extensive nationwide study that found 349 such cases. The book, In Spite of Innocence, expands on the Stanford study and found that since 1900, there have been 416 documented cases of innocent Americans who have been convicted of potentially capital cases."
That you attempt to justify not protecting innocents by abdicating our right to dispense justice is what leaves me perplexed. Should we disband police because there's always a chance the wrong person might be apprehended and convicted?
No no no. You're forgetting that this discussion is about the death penalty and killing innocents, not about throwing innoce
Dear mr Coward. What you are talking about occurred in the Old Testament. This agument would be fine if you were jewish (which perhaps you are, as you have not stated otherwise), not as a Christian. Did you miss the point where Jesus died on the cross to repent our sins?
You may think there is no crime egregious enough to warrant death.
I never said that. What I said was that "we" are not the ones to take that life, God is as God was the one who gave that person life. If we take that right to use it in the "name" of "justice" then "we" are no better than the perpetraitor. Christ explicitly said "turn the other cheek" to show us that we must not do/feel revenge.
However, there are jurisdictions where a majority of people believe otherwise."
Yes but then they are clearly not Christians at heart even though they might claim so. Christ taught us to love one another, good as well as bad.
The mere fact that innocents have been executed in the name of your so called "justice" and you still try to defend it makes me wonder if your faith is only skin deep.
And what would you call it when someone is killed through a lethal injection or in a gas chamber. I would call that both deliberate and planned i.e. murder, according to the laws of most countries.
"Guns. God gives us the gift of life... If you threaten it, I am justified in defending it."
Yes, but given Matthew 5:39 ("turn the other cheek") and Luke 6:31 ("do unto others") it is quite clear that you should also be using the least amount of violence to deflect the threat. As your God gave you life he did not also give you the right to take life. A gun is not a defensive weapon but an offensive one. A stun gun is a defensive weapon for instance. Also the demonstration of a gun is not a defensive action but an action of threat and thus more likely to cause an rise in threatlevel than a more devfensive action. As there are non-leathal weapons that are just as effective for defense you cannot claim to be a Christian and justify the right for private persons to use guns for protective measures.
"Death penalty"
The ten commandments explicitly says "Thou shalt not kill". Even if someone kills, yours is not the right to take his/hers life as that life was given by God just as yours was. In the simple rule of "two wrongs don't make a right" and the commandments, this cannot ever be in accord with a true Christian belief.
The NT advocates peace, yes, but not necessarily non-violence.
Agreed, but to use aggressive violence (preemtive strikes etc) or excessive violence (killing innocents to kill perpetraitors, killing when disabling/disarming is enough etc) are not acts that in any way are in accord with a Christian belief and the words of Christ.
I agree completely and that's because people will not know what to call it. This release was supposed to clear up the name-version confusion of the Java2 1.x.x releases by being called 5.0 but they still use Java 2 and 1.5.x in their naming. Clearer? I d'unt think so
No, it is even worse. The download says Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment Standard Edition 5.0 and then also 1.5.0.
SUN was supposed to make the versioning easier by calling it 5.0 but without dropping the Java 2 or the 1.5.0 they just made it worse. Why not resort to the de facto standard way of naming versions? If it really is Java 2 (base) then it should be 2.5.0. I know Java 2 is the name but who gave the versioning job to the nice guy who haven't got all his apples at home and helps delivering mail?
Dev: Hey Bob!
Bob: Hello Stan!
Dev: You know Bob, we need a name for our new software. The old one was named Java 2 and we need a name for the new one. Do you have a suggestion?
Bob: Java 2!
Dev: No that was the old one! We have a ne...
Bob: Java 2...
Dev: Yeah that was the old one.
Bob: Java 2. Pet the dolphin.
Dev: Well the real version of the new would be 1.5...
Fine, but those systems already carry a floppy so this argumentation is pointless. Those old systems will still carry a floppy when the floppy isn't shipped on new systems anymore. And there are USB floppydrives for making the floppies for the old systems. I bought a USB floppydrive some years back and I use it very rarely (no more than 3 times a year). My point is, you do not need floppydrives for systems shipped today to update bios/firmwares as there are faster and in my view neater solutions.
Why do you need a CD-R? You keep the BIOS and flashprogram on the USB stick. You only use the bootable CD to boot and load drivers for the USB stick.
It is neater because you have one fixed piece that you can also have other tools on (hard driver diagnistics etc) and one piece that is writable without the hassle of burning a CD every now an then (even if CD-RWs are used).
It is faster as it both boots faster and loads the BIOS file faster. Not many things are slower than a floppy when it comes to IO.
No computers today without USB ports/support are worth putting a new BIOS on (we're talking sloooow stuff).
"Can you create a bootable CD *and* write back to it?"
No but you can load drivers to a USB stick from it:) That's even better.
What computer bios/firmware does not support booting of a CD today. Not one most people would ever use.
Um no it is not. You can quite easily make a boot CD that installs drivers USB sticks. You don't have to change the CD you just boot from it and then you update with the firmware/bios and prog from the USB stick. Much neater and much faster than using floppies. I will NEVER go back.
Your fist exampel is correct but tnot the second one.
If you say something is 50% faster than something else then that something else is the baseline i.e. 100%. Ex. Their CPU 100Mhz, yours is 150Mhz = your CPU is 50% faster than theirs (all else being equal).
If you had said their CPU is 50% slower than ours then you CPU is the baseline and is 100% and their CPU is then only 75Mhz (using the previous example)
Only then is it also correct to say: Our thingy is twice as fast as theirs.
To sum up:
We are 50% faster != We are twice as fast
We are twice as fast = We are 100% faster
They are 50% slower = We are twice as fast = We are 100% faster then them
Not so fast. The hominid branch of evolution is placed within the "tree" of apes which is placed within the tree of monkeys, to be more specific on the branch of "Old World monkeys". Since hominids arose from within the monkey "tree" it is correct to call us "evolved monkeys". Our most recent common ancestor (that still is around today) is the chimps (with all the chimp speciecs on the very same branch). The most recent common ancestor to humans-chimps are the gorillas and outside that clade, the orangutangs (yes there are actually two species of orangs).
Well, easy division into thirds and quarters is actually a good thing, since they're probably the most common day-to-day divisions people make.
I'd say this differs depending upon which measuring system you use. I'd say I use divisions by 2,4 and 5 most.
Percentages? Are you sure you understand bases? No offense meant, it's just this is such a strange argument to make! Rather obviously, if we couldn't in base12 then percentages would still go up to 100%
No offence taken as you must've misunderstood my point. In percent lies a legacy problem (which you didn't care much for). Sure you could redefine percent to actually mean part of 12^2 but therein lies the problem. Percent IS defined as part per hundred. When you peel away the top layers you start to see just how deep the base10 goes. Base10 has its flaws but the benefits of base12 over base10 is so minor that it is a useless discussion (cue to stop myself from replying;))
Legacy reasons are never fun, but I'm guessing Utopia wouldn't be either.
I don't get what you mean about fractions. That making them easier will mean people won't understand them?
No no. Making the calculations easier for people is a good thing but the issue is understanding it in the first place. Making divisions by 3,4 and 6 easier (and 5 harder) might make it easier for people to understand the concept of fractions but somehow I doubt it..
Not all people did use base10. There are various historical reasons why it's used now. Mostly because we have 10 fingers. That's not a reason for keeping it now.
Never said that ALL people did use base10. If that'd been the case then where does the 60 minutes and 12 hours come from? All I'm saying is that base10 did not "prove" significantly worse than base12 (or base-whatever) for it to carry over till today.
Other than "number of fingers" and the switchover (which I acknowledged in my original post) you don't seem to have any other real arguments against having base12.
Those are the same arguments that you would use against base-16 also and that would give the benefit of putting computers and humans on the same side (something that base-12 does not give). Each and every base have different arguments for and against (base-10 is far from perfect, as is base-12 and base-16). As such it would be stupid to switch since the only real argument for base-12 is that is is evenly divisible by 3, 4 in addition to 2 and half the base (6 vs 5).
Arguments for base-10 is that we use it in percent and currencies also. Legacy reasons, sure, but just as valid as the evenly divisible one. As far as I can remember from school (which was ages ago) the thing that the other kids had most trouble with (and which many still don't grasp as adults) was fractions i.e. 3/8ths 2/3rds etc. Since fractions are built into the base-12 system (as a major argument for it) most people will not, IMHO, "get" that. Ever thought about what caused people to use base-10 in the first place?
As I said in a previous comment. Base-12 is NOT natural just because 3 and 4 is. How do you most easily make your kid understand 20 in base-12? He/she will understand and grasp base-12 far later than base-10 which adds education costs.
An actual conversion would cause a lot of human casualties during the transition due to conversion errors (given our base-10 legacy). How many ordinary people will read a base-12 number (not containing the digits for 11 and 12) and assume it is a base-10 number?
Just because something might seem like a good idea (based upon flawed arguments) doesn't mean it is. Just because 3 and 4 is natural to our brain does not mean we should use it as a base when doing maths as 12 is more unnatural than 10 due to us having 10 fingers.
I'm not sure you understand what a number base is. A metric system works with the base. If we counted in base-12, the metric system would use twelves rather than tens, because twelve would be written "10" and twelve times twelve would be "100".
It would actually be really good, combining the benefits of the imperial and metric systems (and allowing an easy switch to metric time!), but I suspect it would be incredibly difficult to implement....
Um, no it would not be a good idea. Why? Because everyone have learned to count using the base 10. The fact that you can learn to count using a different base doesn't factor into it.
I honestly think it would cause an immense number of casualties during the switch period (even if streched out a long time), and that can never be a good thing just because some dimwits think that the base system needs to be evenly divisible by more than just 2 and 5. Factor in the 10-digits (and toes) and you'll see that this would increase the time for kids to learn to do simple maths. Poor arguments like "many societies can only count 1, 2, 3, many" and "base-12 is evenly dividible by 2, 3, 4, 6" etc weigh very light in the face of the "costs" that I mentioned. Base 10 works and is natural because we have 10 fingers, try to divide those evenly by 3 or 4.
How would you show and make your kid understand 20 in base-12 (24 in base-10)? 20 in base-10 is easy to understand for a kid (2 full sets of fingers) whereas 24 isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read my post again then you must also have noted that I never mentioned algorithms but the notion parent used that "is poised to grab the title of the best operating system for the server environment."
m ance/2005-January/001019.html
What I did not clarify is that I ment proper server tests with actual workloads where SMP machines are used. The benchmarks are mostly checking the microoptimisations of a UP machine and it is well known that the current state of FreeBSD 5 is not optimized towards that. I also assume that you have missed the bug where hundreds of cycles where wasted when doing Mutex releases. A lot has happened since 6-CURRENT was created and 5.4 is only looking nicer day by day.
You also fail to realise that I in no way have any problems with NetBSD being faster (as I use it on my backup machine).
However, as history with FreeBSD and Linux have shown, why do you think a BGL SMP implementation would scale better than a FGL implementation? Even given the clean lean source of NetBSD? Just curious.
NetBSDs performance is looking very nice but don't make too sweeping assumptions about actual server performance based on this alone and that is also what the paper says in the end. More benchmarks needed.
BTW, regarding the actual benchmarks, rwatson had an interresting comment about it http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-perfor
"The results indicate that NetBSD has surpassed FreeBSD in performance on nearly every benchmark and is poised to grab the title of the best operating system for the server environment."
While an interresting UP benchmark it in no way says anything about performance for SMP machines and 64-bit CPUs. That is what matters for most servers today (at least those that would be suitable for a new OS) and that's where all servers will be tomorrow.
Can you? Or your thinkalike buddies?
Well, that should be obvious even to you. If we try to stop what is causing global warming then we at least lessen the effects of it. The thing is, you can stop the cause but the reaction is much much harder to stop if it happends. Assuming it happends (which we do not know), then global warming is going to cause such major effects to civilization that we will not be able to do anything but try to survive. Think enormous migrations, major famine and watersupply problems. And this will come even from relatively mild global warming. If we are having wars today over petty issues then think what will happend once we face real survival issues. May seem a bit distant now as we sit and type with a well fed refrigerator and cup of coffiee but for the next generation it might be reality. I know what I would do to make sure my children survives. The thing is, you're betting everything you've got on black coming up on the roulette. If we assume that at least there is a chance that red can come up and place our bets accordingly then we do not risk loosing everything.
Even if I grant that global warming is occurring, do you have a shred of proof that things like the Kyoto Protocol will result in a net benefit to the welfare of most people? Ever hear of unintended consequences?
Of course there will be unintended consequences, there always is. The question is, which will be worse, the disease or the cure. I'm sure we'll survive the cure but I'm not sure if civilization will survive if the disease (given it's real) is as bad as some think it will be.
Poverty kills, and if there is one thing we can take as near certain based on experience, it is that collectivist prescriptions from the watermelon Left will result in increased poverty and misery.
That may be the case in some places/countries but raw numbers of poverty in some european countries, that have been governed by (mainly post WWII) socialdemocratic parties (not commies), shows far less poverty than, for instance, the US. That communism (or Leninist-Marxism/Stalinism to be exact) failed is not surprising since their fundamental view of the expendability and freedom of the individual is flawed beyond repair.
Catastrophic? - How do you (or anyone else) know that?
Any longterm change in climate is catastrophic
Maybe not for you or me but for a lot of other people and a lot of other lifeforms.
It is an undiputed fact that the Earths climate has been wildly different at different times through the eras and life always managed to survive.
Life, yes, not all life. How much of the life present during the jurassic is still around today? Humanity may not survive because we as a species is so high up in the food chain and such species are usually the ones who fare the worst during a change. Life will probalby survive for billions of years here on Earth but it might not be intelligent life.
It is also a fact that man is the most adaptable living creature ever discovered; we've been able to live everywhere on this planets surface, plus in the air, under the water and even in space and on the moon. We as a species will survive any climate change given enough warning to adapt (using technology if nessesary).
Errm, perphaps you should've asked someone like me who do research in evolution before making such a clam as "fact". Being adaptable is nowhere near being able to create gear that helps us cope with a specific environment. True adation takes time, a lot of time. Way more time than we have in a lot of lifetimes, try kilo- and megayears.
Now IMHO instead of blindly trying to return the climate state to the level of 'the good old days' we should rather accept the changes (which still may be natural, and which in any case has happened naturally before and may again) and begin the adaption process. The sooner the better.
Perhaps we should ask some dinos about the best way to go about it. Oh yeah right... Again history teaches nothing. Whatever happends, don't blindly assume that we're the ones coming out on top.
Sure, things will be different but it doesn't mean it'll be worse (or catastrophic), and it might even be a change for the better in way we cannot imagine at the moment (due to lack of data).
Yeah, the grass might be greener but what if it isn't. Can you and your thinkalike buddies fix it them so the rest of us is ok? Are you prepared to take the risk? Of course you are because you think you'll be long gone by then so you don't have to pay the price.
Well using them on the Israelis this time would be an act of agression and that would be the last thing he'd wanna do at that time (during the first Gulf war). When he invaded Kuwait he had already passed the borders into another country, so he attacked Israel in hope of having the other arab countries withdraw their support of the UN-led liberation of Kuwait (he also attacked Saudi as well, but that was more due to the fact that the Saudis hosted the US troops).
Yes, I know VX cannot be stockpiled but then again I only used it as an example that we knew that he at least had had WMDs and was not afraid to use them. At one point he actually had one of the larger military forces in the world but the UN sanctions (and of course the first Gulf war) led to it's destruction. Saddam had barely enough to maintain his regular army material so I think he simply scrapped his WMDs (by lack of maintenance) as his primary goal was to stay in power in Iraq and in order to do so you need ordinary weapons, not WMDs. WMDs are extremely inefficient at keeping a population under oppression. Saddam knew that he would not have any offensive capabilities for many many years, so trying to stay in power was the best he could do.
Saddam was nuts and made miscalculations and did fail. His goal was to stay in power in Iraq. Nothing else mattered to him. He could not care less about the problems the US forces are having in Iraq now. Saddam had the very same issues before and he used force to keep the shiites and the kurds under opression.
Saddam is a lot like Stalin in his quest for power (Stalin was not a communist, he simply used their agenda to put him in power).
Yes the justification for the war was all f**ked up, but that was Bush's only chance of justifying a war. No other reason that would get other countries to join up at the time. Without the support of the UK it would have been diplomatic suicide in the face of the rest of the world. I agree, there were/are other reasons to justify the war but none that would give the "right" (in the UN) to invade during his first term of service (and without it he would not have been re-elected due to the economic state).
I say screw the system where a bullish country like the US can veto resolutions against Israel for not following already accepted resolutions. Screw the system where the US was a major force of influence when it was created. You say it is a "war" because your current president, who ain't got a clue to how the world works, says so. The civilization is under no more of a threat from terrorism today that it was 10 years ago. Well, actually that's not quite true. Terrorism is a bigger threat today than it was before the invasion of Iraq. Now you have people that would never consider joining terrorists before joining them! You fail to realise that terrorists (as well as GW Bush) cannot stop the passing of the time or the advancement of civilisation. The only threat to civilisation is humanity as a whole, not a small group of people with ass-backwards ideas (this bunch includes the current leadership in the US as well as terrorists). THe current US policy have killed a lot more innocent people (of course this excludes the guilty ones) than was killed 9/11. What i really find hilarious is that you still fail to realise that most of the terrorits money comes from Saudi Arabia where there already is a large US force present and which is also, by coincidence(?), a non-free dictator ruled country. It is also interresting that we are now fighting wars over "ifs" and "could-be's" instead of facts. NO WMDs have been found (FOX News ain't got 1c of credibility) and I guess none will be found either. WMDs must be maintained and there have been no such materials brought into the Iraq since the Gulf-war due to the sanctions. Ask yourself this. If he had WMDs, why would he not use then against the US troops? We know he had VX-gas cos he used it on the kurds. What would seem like Saddam trying to prevent the discovery of WMDs could just as likely (even more likely perhaps) be a attemt to prevent the rest of the world from finding out that he actually had nothing at all and thereby preventing the opposing groups within Iraq from rising up against him. Saddam was/is a megalomaniac and such people always make big mistakes in the end. Now, the Kyoto-treaty is trying to prevent events which really could drag the world back 1000 years so of course the US will not join in that struggle. Just keep driving your SUVs and sleep well knowing that the world is safer because someone else it trying to fix it.
You're getting rather pathetic... 1) Gvinum works and the RAID5 bug have been fixed in 5-STABLE stoopido! Anyone who is advanced anough to use RAID5 and vinum knows how to fix this issue by updating to latest 5-STABLE! 2) ULE patches are available that fixes things as well. If you feel the need to use ULE just grab'em or wait until ULE is MFC'd. Now please be so kind to eat shit or release those patches that you "claim" to have. If you even have anything... In your case, seeing is believing and we ain't seen nothing but whining yet from you. So either you put up or you STFU!
Is Matt Dillon aware that you are copy/pasting his reply to R. Watson from current@frebsd.org?
This is getting embarrasing for you
Passing laws to protect the innocent and ordering restitution for crimes does make us better than the perpetrator. I doubt that most police/judges/wardens feel vengeance when executing their duties, even if those duties include sentencing someone to death or even throwing the switch.
First, not committing the crimes is what makes us better, not ordering restitution for crimes committed.
Second, it is not the police/the judges/the wardens in those roles that passes the laws. They are ordered to carry them out and thus are also expected not to feel vengeance. The people, through politicians are the ones passing the laws and those sure feel vengeance from time to time (ask the families of the murdered). They may call out for "justice" but they just want to see the perpetraitors dead. That is vengeance and in clear opposition to what Christ taught us.
Where is your love for the innocent, the victims, the ones hurt by these criminals?
Oh, those are easy to love. Who, with a heart, cannot love the innocent victims? The hard ones to love are the perpetraitors, but we should, because that is what Christ showed us. Now, what about all those innocents killed when the Talibas were driven from power in Afghanistan? The innocents killed during the invasion of Iraq? Who are the evildoers of their killing? Where on the scale "of evil" does the killing of innocents in Iraq and Arghanistan come? Why were they killed? Because dropping the bombs are the easy way. The path of least resistance. The innocents killed in Afghanistan and Iraq were the children of God also. Never forget that.
If you love the weak and you love God's laws, you have to be willing to make the hard decisions.
Yes, but killing is the easy way, it always is. We are here to walk the difficult path. To find ways without killing. To love where there is no love. To forgive when no forgivness can be found. To give without expecting anything in return.
Did you know that for the money put into the invasion in Iraq, we could make sure that everyone on this planet had clear and clean water to drink for a hundred years? Those are actions that will make the innocent protected because who can be recruited to fight against the givers of such "gifts"?
You cannot let evil people continue to hurt others again and again and again.
Of course not, but that does not mean we have to kill them! Are you saying that there is no other way in this day and age?! I certainly disagree. Lock them up, throw away the key if necessary but teach them what they did wrong and give them the chance to ask Christ for forgivness. Perhaps they are not ready for the love of Christ yet, but perhaps after 20 or 30 years in prison they have matured enough to see their wrongdoings and ask for forgivness, and then Christ will forgive them as he will forgive all sins when honestly asking for forgiveness. That is the Christian way
I don't attempt to justify killing innocents in the name of justice. It happens, very rarely, and is a regrettable and tragic mistake.
Unfortunately it is not a rare event. To quote: http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/innocent.html
That you attempt to justify not protecting innocents by abdicating our right to dispense justice is what leaves me perplexed. Should we disband police because there's always a chance the wrong person might be apprehended and convicted?
No no no. You're forgetting that this discussion is about the death penalty and killing innocents, not about throwing innoce
Dear mr Coward. What you are talking about occurred in the Old Testament. This agument would be fine if you were jewish (which perhaps you are, as you have not stated otherwise), not as a Christian. Did you miss the point where Jesus died on the cross to repent our sins?
You may think there is no crime egregious enough to warrant death.
I never said that. What I said was that "we" are not the ones to take that life, God is as God was the one who gave that person life. If we take that right to use it in the "name" of "justice" then "we" are no better than the perpetraitor. Christ explicitly said "turn the other cheek" to show us that we must not do/feel revenge.
However, there are jurisdictions where a majority of people believe otherwise."
Yes but then they are clearly not Christians at heart even though they might claim so. Christ taught us to love one another, good as well as bad.
The mere fact that innocents have been executed in the name of your so called "justice" and you still try to defend it makes me wonder if your faith is only skin deep.
And what would you call it when someone is killed through a lethal injection or in a gas chamber. I would call that both deliberate and planned i.e. murder, according to the laws of most countries.
"Guns. God gives us the gift of life... If you threaten it, I am justified in defending it."
Yes, but given Matthew 5:39 ("turn the other cheek") and Luke 6:31 ("do unto others") it is quite clear that you should also be using the least amount of violence to deflect the threat. As your God gave you life he did not also give you the right to take life. A gun is not a defensive weapon but an offensive one. A stun gun is a defensive weapon for instance. Also the demonstration of a gun is not a defensive action but an action of threat and thus more likely to cause an rise in threatlevel than a more devfensive action. As there are non-leathal weapons that are just as effective for defense you cannot claim to be a Christian and justify the right for private persons to use guns for protective measures.
"Death penalty"
The ten commandments explicitly says "Thou shalt not kill". Even if someone kills, yours is not the right to take his/hers life as that life was given by God just as yours was. In the simple rule of "two wrongs don't make a right" and the commandments, this cannot ever be in accord with a true Christian belief.
The NT advocates peace, yes, but not necessarily non-violence.
Agreed, but to use aggressive violence (preemtive strikes etc) or excessive violence (killing innocents to kill perpetraitors, killing when disabling/disarming is enough etc) are not acts that in any way are in accord with a Christian belief and the words of Christ.
"I think the real problem is brand recognition."
I agree completely and that's because people will not know what to call it. This release was supposed to clear up the name-version confusion of the Java2 1.x.x releases by being called 5.0 but they still use Java 2 and 1.5.x in their naming. Clearer? I d'unt think so
No, it is even worse. The download says Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment Standard Edition 5.0 and then also 1.5.0.
...well, ONE.5.0, Bob!
... Java 2 ...
SUN was supposed to make the versioning easier by calling it 5.0 but without dropping the Java 2 or the 1.5.0 they just made it worse. Why not resort to the de facto standard way of naming versions? If it really is Java 2 (base) then it should be 2.5.0. I know Java 2 is the name but who gave the versioning job to the nice guy who haven't got all his apples at home and helps delivering mail?
Dev: Hey Bob!
Bob: Hello Stan!
Dev: You know Bob, we need a name for our new software. The old one was named Java 2 and we need a name for the new one. Do you have a suggestion?
Bob: Java 2!
Dev: No that was the old one! We have a ne...
Bob: Java 2...
Dev: Yeah that was the old one.
Bob: Java 2. Pet the dolphin.
Dev: Well the real version of the new would be 1.5...
Bob: Five...
Dev: Um, 1.5.0 to be exact.
Bob: Java 2... 5.0
Dev:
Bob: Ookey, Java 2 5.0 1.5.0
Dev: Hey Bob, I think you may be on to something!
Bob: Ookey... Have you seen my baseball?
Fine, but those systems already carry a floppy so this argumentation is pointless. Those old systems will still carry a floppy when the floppy isn't shipped on new systems anymore. And there are USB floppydrives for making the floppies for the old systems. I bought a USB floppydrive some years back and I use it very rarely (no more than 3 times a year). My point is, you do not need floppydrives for systems shipped today to update bios/firmwares as there are faster and in my view neater solutions.
Why do you need a CD-R? You keep the BIOS and flashprogram on the USB stick. You only use the bootable CD to boot and load drivers for the USB stick.
It is neater because you have one fixed piece that you can also have other tools on (hard driver diagnistics etc) and one piece that is writable without the hassle of burning a CD every now an then (even if CD-RWs are used).
It is faster as it both boots faster and loads the BIOS file faster. Not many things are slower than a floppy when it comes to IO.
No computers today without USB ports/support are worth putting a new BIOS on (we're talking sloooow stuff).
"Can you create a bootable CD *and* write back to it?"
:) That's even better.
What computer bios/firmware does not support booting of a CD today. Not one most people would ever use.
No but you can load drivers to a USB stick from it
Um no it is not. You can quite easily make a boot CD that installs drivers USB sticks. You don't have to change the CD you just boot from it and then you update with the firmware/bios and prog from the USB stick. Much neater and much faster than using floppies. I will NEVER go back.
Your fist exampel is correct but tnot the second one. If you say something is 50% faster than something else then that something else is the baseline i.e. 100%. Ex. Their CPU 100Mhz, yours is 150Mhz = your CPU is 50% faster than theirs (all else being equal). If you had said their CPU is 50% slower than ours then you CPU is the baseline and is 100% and their CPU is then only 75Mhz (using the previous example) Only then is it also correct to say: Our thingy is twice as fast as theirs. To sum up: We are 50% faster != We are twice as fast We are twice as fast = We are 100% faster They are 50% slower = We are twice as fast = We are 100% faster then them
Not so fast. The hominid branch of evolution is placed within the "tree" of apes which is placed within the tree of monkeys, to be more specific on the branch of "Old World monkeys". Since hominids arose from within the monkey "tree" it is correct to call us "evolved monkeys". Our most recent common ancestor (that still is around today) is the chimps (with all the chimp speciecs on the very same branch). The most recent common ancestor to humans-chimps are the gorillas and outside that clade, the orangutangs (yes there are actually two species of orangs).
r ch/JME98_47p718-727.pdf
For some research: http://www.biol.lu.se/cellorgbiol/phylogeny/Resea
Legacy reasons are never fun, but I'm guessing Utopia wouldn't be either. No no. Making the calculations easier for people is a good thing but the issue is understanding it in the first place. Making divisions by 3,4 and 6 easier (and 5 harder) might make it easier for people to understand the concept of fractions but somehow I doubt it.. Never said that ALL people did use base10. If that'd been the case then where does the 60 minutes and 12 hours come from? All I'm saying is that base10 did not "prove" significantly worse than base12 (or base-whatever) for it to carry over till today.
Arguments for base-10 is that we use it in percent and currencies also. Legacy reasons, sure, but just as valid as the evenly divisible one. As far as I can remember from school (which was ages ago) the thing that the other kids had most trouble with (and which many still don't grasp as adults) was fractions i.e. 3/8ths 2/3rds etc. Since fractions are built into the base-12 system (as a major argument for it) most people will not, IMHO, "get" that. Ever thought about what caused people to use base-10 in the first place?
As I said in a previous comment. Base-12 is NOT natural just because 3 and 4 is. How do you most easily make your kid understand 20 in base-12? He/she will understand and grasp base-12 far later than base-10 which adds education costs.
An actual conversion would cause a lot of human casualties during the transition due to conversion errors (given our base-10 legacy). How many ordinary people will read a base-12 number (not containing the digits for 11 and 12) and assume it is a base-10 number?
Just because something might seem like a good idea (based upon flawed arguments) doesn't mean it is. Just because 3 and 4 is natural to our brain does not mean we should use it as a base when doing maths as 12 is more unnatural than 10 due to us having 10 fingers.
I honestly think it would cause an immense number of casualties during the switch period (even if streched out a long time), and that can never be a good thing just because some dimwits think that the base system needs to be evenly divisible by more than just 2 and 5. Factor in the 10-digits (and toes) and you'll see that this would increase the time for kids to learn to do simple maths. Poor arguments like "many societies can only count 1, 2, 3, many" and "base-12 is evenly dividible by 2, 3, 4, 6" etc weigh very light in the face of the "costs" that I mentioned. Base 10 works and is natural because we have 10 fingers, try to divide those evenly by 3 or 4.
How would you show and make your kid understand 20 in base-12 (24 in base-10)? 20 in base-10 is easy to understand for a kid (2 full sets of fingers) whereas 24 isn't.