I'm glad it's improved for your laptop: I agree that it's gotten better especially for laptops and SSD drives. I also agree that UEFI is helping. Unfortunately, I've tended to deal with servers, where it is _not_ a solved problem.
I think that not many have permanent _magnets_ in them. Just plain metal, such as pins in the leg, or even a hip implant, are apparently nowhere near so risky.
Iraq does not have a democracy. It has a foreign mandated puppet government. that government is frightened of losing its foreign support, funding, and the weaponry they've come to rely on to protect themselves from the most radical, anti-American movements in Iraq. The racial and religious discrepancies between Kurd, Shiite, Sunni, and Arab remain a source of homicidal guerrilla warfare against the very American supported government that is supposed to resolve their differences.
Please relax. I'm not discrediting the existing research. I'm saying that doing "pure science" is not a protection against failure to gain tenure. Granting tenure, like other promotions, is often far more a social and political decision than a scientific one. And yes, "failure to get certain results" can be one of those social and political grounds. To ignore the human element of tenure and to believe that it's a purely "scientific" decision is to ignore a tremendous number of lawsuits involving tenure.
There are quite a few things that slow booting systems. Systemd is _supposed_ to take a lot of the slow, sequential starup out of the actual system daemons: it will be a while before it's really working well for critical, production systems, but that can take minutes off of startup time in a large environment. Note, also, that much of its "startup advantage" is illusory. Daemons are told to start up, and systemd keeps them starting up, but they're not necessarily available for quite some time after startup. This especially applies to databases and bulky Java applications.
The kernel startup is another big factor. Scanning for, assessing, and activating drivers for all the potentially available hardware is a slow and painful process because the upstream specifications are poorly documented, and even violated by many vendors. Many of them are legacy drivers and could in theory be discarded in most production kernels, but doing so can be quite tricky and hard to test for enough strange configuration cases.
The third big software factor is the BIOS. "coreboot", formerly "LinuxBIOS", is blazingly fast compared to most proprietary BIOS's. It has made some inroads but is still not available for any commercial systems I can find. So no matter what is done in the other two factors, the BIOS is still a limiting factor of suspend and restore delays.
> Agreed, and 500 years is not really a large enough sample on a planet that is billions of years old either
Yes, it is. Given that it has strong annual cycles, solar fluctuations with sun spots, and measurable cycles of _much_ shorter than 500 years that have already demonstrated their success in agricultural and urban planning, the existing record has already demonstrated its usefulness and effectiveness. Extending it _in detailed prediction_ is not feasible for such a chaotic system. Even biological changes, such as the advent of chlorophyl, have profoundly modified climate worldwide. Add in the occassional meteor impact, such as the dinosaur, and precise prediction over such long periods becomes nonsensical.
But measuring and analyzing short term changes? It's already well established that weather prediction for events like annual rainfall _work_.
> Tenure track positions don't disappear if they don't get certain results.
The tenure track position won't disappear, no. The tenure candidate will simply not _get_ tenure, it will go to someone else: Getting tenure is a very, very competitive business.
Whether your paper is shredded for scientific or ideological or economic reasons is a separate issue. Do look into the history of tobacco company censorship, or look into the modern peer review of sociological studies proving that race is associated with intelligence.
Most SAR types aren't in it just for the money. They actually do want to help. Saving money on much slower, wasted search time leaves far more resources for prevention and better equipment for when rescues for people, not just lost corpses, is still possible.
Human guidance is still needed because mathematics cannot reveal "it looks like there was a campground there, where did someone doing that get wood and water? where would they have seen light or sought shelter" without a lot more data and intelligence than a drone can provide, and without coordinating with ground based personnel who can look inside shelter.
> The Iraq war wasn't pointless or counter-productive.
It's just too bad we lost it. What's stepping in as the US leaves is a puppet government, doomed to fall to the even more genocidal religious leaders, the very "terrorist" factions that Sadam would never have allowed to threaten his power.
There were certainly grounds to remove him from power. Iraqi genocide of the Kurds, for example. The largest reason was to gain control of Iraqi oil. Iraq had also already tried once to invade a peaceful neighbor, Kuwait, to gain control of their large oil reserves, and had been defeated in that invasion with US help
What there _was not_ was a reasonable hope of an invasion working to replace Sadam Hussein with something stable and US friendly. The country is a nightmare of inter-tribal fighting and has been ever since the British created it out of three smaller Arab nations.
> You call it "key", but it's pointless. Profits on the trade of stocks accrue to traders, not the underlying company. Making Exxon's stock price collapse with a "successful" divestment campaign can wreck any number of stock traders, pension boards, and mutual funds, but it does not remove a single cent from Exxon's bottom line.
Oh, not _all_ the profits go to the traders. Do look into how stock options work. Stock is also used by businesses as a form of barter, and to obtain loans. Do spend some time reviewing the actual analayses in a good business newspaper: I try to investigate the business history of companies my group works with, and you can pick up a lot about a company's attitudes and policies by reviewing their business profile, including stock price.
> Yes, if lots of people want to sell the stock and few want to buy, that makes the stock price go down
This is the key, along with the loss of _trades_. So, yes, you've a point that someone has to buy it for the sales to happen. But the buying and selling of stock, it's _lighidity_, is key to quite a lot of stock profit.
What is divestment but a form of boycott? There is _nothing_ that compels an "automatic, equal and opposite transaction": selling stock can actually generate a positive feedback loop that causes _more_ stock to be sold.
If what you describe were true, boycotts wouldn't work at all.
> Now, now. I think it is news that at least 93 members of the Harvard faculty are so ignorant of how the stock market works that they don't notice that any divestment by any party, by necessity, is automatically matched by an equal investment by the counterparties who buy the stock from the divestor.
This is outright nonsense. Refusals by large investors, especially if those refusals catch on among other inivestores, affect investment trading and income profoundly. Please review the history of divestment in South Africa for more details, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D....
There are some fascinating notes about cochlear implants and MRI's at http://www.cochlear.com/wps/wc.... The part about "If the cochlear implant’s magnet is in place, it must be removed surgically before the recipient undergoes an MRI procedure." seems fairly frightening.
> Yes but those agreements are not the law. And they were illegal in any case.
My point there was that while Silicon Valley may have had state law interfering with non-compete agreements, at least some of the businesses there had another means of enforcing non-compete agreements: they had written and unwritten, though illegal, non-poaching agreements
In theory, you can join a startup and avoid the "non-poach" agreements. In practice, roughly 3 out of 4 startups fail, so it's quite risky.
> Certificate Authorities who operate on the scale absolutely do NOT keep private keys of the issuing intermediate available for harvest.
And they don't put passwords on post-it notes or send them in plain text email, because they all know better, right? Or leave them on backup tabpes or recorded in Wikis?
I'm afraid that I find your confidence in developer and corporate IT to be unfounded.
Like patent claims, they're overbroad and often unenforceable in their details. But spending the time and money to fight it in court is quite expensive, and out of the reach of most day to day technology workers. The result is to chill transfers to companies that are involved in even _vaguely_ related fields, not merely those who compete directly.
Silicon Valley has a lot of unwritten "no poaching" roals in place. Apple and Google were recently sued over it. And the wholesale theft of IP was certainly a major factor in the development of Windows NT, which hired David Cutler and his team of 20 developers from DEC to help them create a much more stable OS. The result was the NT kernel, which ran better for quite some time on DEC's "Alpha" hardware than on Intel's avaailable hardware.
> Check out the Mythbusters numerous attempts to get fuel to blow up with bullets
Very interesting. _Burning_ the fuel supply counts as destroying it. I still suspect it's easier to get bullets, and use them from a relatively safe distance, than to build and successfully deploy explosives near an ammo dump. I also agree that land mines and RPG's are more effective for direct attacks on armor.
But the point I was making is that small arms, even household firearms permitted under various states' more regulated policies, can still have some effective use against armor.
One could check http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevi..., which was at the top of a very simple Google search for "risks of cochlear implants"
Someone with a a magnetic transceiver based device, such as the Nucleus worn by a colleague of mine, cannot even safely enter an MRI chamger. The MRI magnet would grab the magnet attached to his skull and yank him across the room, possibly fatally.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad it's improved for your laptop: I agree that it's gotten better especially for laptops and SSD drives. I also agree that UEFI is helping. Unfortunately, I've tended to deal with servers, where it is _not_ a solved problem.
That is a good point. It's still a limitation for restarts.
I think that not many have permanent _magnets_ in them. Just plain metal, such as pins in the leg, or even a hip implant, are apparently nowhere near so risky.
Iraq does not have a democracy. It has a foreign mandated puppet government. that government is frightened of losing its foreign support, funding, and the weaponry they've come to rely on to protect themselves from the most radical, anti-American movements in Iraq. The racial and religious discrepancies between Kurd, Shiite, Sunni, and Arab remain a source of homicidal guerrilla warfare against the very American supported government that is supposed to resolve their differences.
There's a fairly good analysis, if excessively optimistic, at http://www.google.com/url?sa=t...
Please relax. I'm not discrediting the existing research. I'm saying that doing "pure science" is not a protection against failure to gain tenure. Granting tenure, like other promotions, is often far more a social and political decision than a scientific one. And yes, "failure to get certain results" can be one of those social and political grounds. To ignore the human element of tenure and to believe that it's a purely "scientific" decision is to ignore a tremendous number of lawsuits involving tenure.
Or a 1U server full of SSD drives, or from a decade ago full of laptop hard drives?
There are quite a few things that slow booting systems. Systemd is _supposed_ to take a lot of the slow, sequential starup out of the actual system daemons: it will be a while before it's really working well for critical, production systems, but that can take minutes off of startup time in a large environment. Note, also, that much of its "startup advantage" is illusory. Daemons are told to start up, and systemd keeps them starting up, but they're not necessarily available for quite some time after startup. This especially applies to databases and bulky Java applications.
The kernel startup is another big factor. Scanning for, assessing, and activating drivers for all the potentially available hardware is a slow and painful process because the upstream specifications are poorly documented, and even violated by many vendors. Many of them are legacy drivers and could in theory be discarded in most production kernels, but doing so can be quite tricky and hard to test for enough strange configuration cases.
The third big software factor is the BIOS. "coreboot", formerly "LinuxBIOS", is blazingly fast compared to most proprietary BIOS's. It has made some inroads but is still not available for any commercial systems I can find. So no matter what is done in the other two factors, the BIOS is still a limiting factor of suspend and restore delays.
> Agreed, and 500 years is not really a large enough sample on a planet that is billions of years old either
Yes, it is. Given that it has strong annual cycles, solar fluctuations with sun spots, and measurable cycles of _much_ shorter than 500 years that have already demonstrated their success in agricultural and urban planning, the existing record has already demonstrated its usefulness and effectiveness. Extending it _in detailed prediction_ is not feasible for such a chaotic system. Even biological changes, such as the advent of chlorophyl, have profoundly modified climate worldwide. Add in the occassional meteor impact, such as the dinosaur, and precise prediction over such long periods becomes nonsensical.
But measuring and analyzing short term changes? It's already well established that weather prediction for events like annual rainfall _work_.
> Tenure track positions don't disappear if they don't get certain results.
The tenure track position won't disappear, no. The tenure candidate will simply not _get_ tenure, it will go to someone else: Getting tenure is a very, very competitive business.
Whether your paper is shredded for scientific or ideological or economic reasons is a separate issue. Do look into the history of tobacco company censorship, or look into the modern peer review of sociological studies proving that race is associated with intelligence.
Most SAR types aren't in it just for the money. They actually do want to help. Saving money on much slower, wasted search time leaves far more resources for prevention and better equipment for when rescues for people, not just lost corpses, is still possible.
Human guidance is still needed because mathematics cannot reveal "it looks like there was a campground there, where did someone doing that get wood and water? where would they have seen light or sought shelter" without a lot more data and intelligence than a drone can provide, and without coordinating with ground based personnel who can look inside shelter.
> The Iraq war wasn't pointless or counter-productive.
It's just too bad we lost it. What's stepping in as the US leaves is a puppet government, doomed to fall to the even more genocidal religious leaders, the very "terrorist" factions that Sadam would never have allowed to threaten his power.
There were certainly grounds to remove him from power. Iraqi genocide of the Kurds, for example. The largest reason was to gain control of Iraqi oil. Iraq had also already tried once to invade a peaceful neighbor, Kuwait, to gain control of their large oil reserves, and had been defeated in that invasion with US help
What there _was not_ was a reasonable hope of an invasion working to replace Sadam Hussein with something stable and US friendly. The country is a nightmare of inter-tribal fighting and has been ever since the British created it out of three smaller Arab nations.
> You call it "key", but it's pointless. Profits on the trade of stocks accrue to traders, not the underlying company. Making Exxon's stock price collapse with a "successful" divestment campaign can wreck any number of stock traders, pension boards, and mutual funds, but it does not remove a single cent from Exxon's bottom line.
Oh, not _all_ the profits go to the traders. Do look into how stock options work. Stock is also used by businesses as a form of barter, and to obtain loans. Do spend some time reviewing the actual analayses in a good business newspaper: I try to investigate the business history of companies my group works with, and you can pick up a lot about a company's attitudes and policies by reviewing their business profile, including stock price.
> Yes, if lots of people want to sell the stock and few want to buy, that makes the stock price go down
This is the key, along with the loss of _trades_. So, yes, you've a point that someone has to buy it for the sales to happen. But the buying and selling of stock, it's _lighidity_, is key to quite a lot of stock profit.
What is divestment but a form of boycott? There is _nothing_ that compels an "automatic, equal and opposite transaction": selling stock can actually generate a positive feedback loop that causes _more_ stock to be sold.
If what you describe were true, boycotts wouldn't work at all.
> Now, now. I think it is news that at least 93 members of the Harvard faculty are so ignorant of how the stock market works that they don't notice that any divestment by any party, by necessity, is automatically matched by an equal investment by the counterparties who buy the stock from the divestor.
This is outright nonsense. Refusals by large investors, especially if those refusals catch on among other inivestores, affect investment trading and income profoundly. Please review the history of divestment in South Africa for more details, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D....
There are some fascinating notes about cochlear implants and MRI's at http://www.cochlear.com/wps/wc.... The part about "If the cochlear implant’s magnet is in place, it must be removed surgically before the recipient undergoes an MRI procedure." seems fairly frightening.
> Black Holes are infinities in real space.
They're really not. Do try to read about them and follow the math, they're a logical consequence of dense matter general relativity.
> Yes but those agreements are not the law. And they were illegal in any case.
My point there was that while Silicon Valley may have had state law interfering with non-compete agreements, at least some of the businesses there had another means of enforcing non-compete agreements: they had written and unwritten, though illegal, non-poaching agreements
In theory, you can join a startup and avoid the "non-poach" agreements. In practice, roughly 3 out of 4 startups fail, so it's quite risky.
> Certificate Authorities who operate on the scale absolutely do NOT keep private keys of the issuing intermediate available for harvest.
And they don't put passwords on post-it notes or send them in plain text email, because they all know better, right? Or leave them on backup tabpes or recorded in Wikis?
I'm afraid that I find your confidence in developer and corporate IT to be unfounded.
Like patent claims, they're overbroad and often unenforceable in their details. But spending the time and money to fight it in court is quite expensive, and out of the reach of most day to day technology workers. The result is to chill transfers to companies that are involved in even _vaguely_ related fields, not merely those who compete directly.
Silicon Valley has a lot of unwritten "no poaching" roals in place. Apple and Google were recently sued over it. And the wholesale theft of IP was certainly a major factor in the development of Windows NT, which hired David Cutler and his team of 20 developers from DEC to help them create a much more stable OS. The result was the NT kernel, which ran better for quite some time on DEC's "Alpha" hardware than on Intel's avaailable hardware.
> Check out the Mythbusters numerous attempts to get fuel to blow up with bullets
Very interesting. _Burning_ the fuel supply counts as destroying it. I still suspect it's easier to get bullets, and use them from a relatively safe distance, than to build and successfully deploy explosives near an ammo dump. I also agree that land mines and RPG's are more effective for direct attacks on armor.
But the point I was making is that small arms, even household firearms permitted under various states' more regulated policies, can still have some effective use against armor.
One could check http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevi..., which was at the top of a very simple Google search for "risks of cochlear implants"
Someone with a a magnetic transceiver based device, such as the Nucleus worn by a colleague of mine, cannot even safely enter an MRI chamger. The MRI magnet would grab the magnet attached to his skull and yank him across the room, possibly fatally.