There will be casualties along the way (how many blacksmiths do we have today/do we need today? etc.)
Sometimes jobs don't go away, they evolve with the times. Sometimes it happens so slowly, people don't even notice. Yesterday's blacksmith is todays iron worker, smelter, metallurgist, shop foreman, CNC worker, fuhrer, welder, and even engineer. The disappearance of the generalist blacksmith was displaced by dozens of specialized fields.
And if you want to take me to task about the engineers, keep in mind, many blacksmiths were the go to guys for new creations. For example, many coach and naval lock boxes came directly from smiths; including their design. Imagine the engineering required to turn a single key which operates a half dozen to a dozen spring loaded locks, all with one turn of the wrist. Many blacksmiths did a lot of engineering and general problem solving.
The same can be said for the buggy/cart workers when Ford automated the production line. Many of those people went to make cars.
Of course, I'm not sure what to say about buggy whip makers - but the job losses there were probably made up in job gains elsewhere where jobs were made available by an industrialized manufacturing market.
Re-read what I said. When their simulations constantly depart from newly obtained data, how can it possibly be accurate when going millennia into the future? The farther into the future the less accurate it becomes. But when its not accurate from day one into the future, its impossible for it to even approximate a millennia into the future.
The reason they all point the same way is because they all more or less use the same fundamentally flawed models, with slight deviations and differences in their trending data. Building a mountain out of garbage is still just a pile of garbage at the end of the day. Suddenly building two mountains of garbage doesn't change the fact they are both garbage.
Obviously--it's not a hard science.
That's my point. Its put forward as hard science.
I'll happily live in my fact based world. If you want to live in your happy world of ignorance and garbage, by all means continue to do so. That oder your smell comes directly from your world.
What do you make of the fact that the IPCC Chairman used these claims to get millions in grant money?
Doesn't sounds like a minor mistake, does it?
Of course its not a mistake. That's what I've been saying for a long time now. Most of the human climate change evidence is complete bullshit - and obviously so. Anyone notice there is a steady stream of large corrections over the last year or so?
The computer modules that so many use to fear monger with, are proved invalid almost on a daily basis. The exaguration! That's factually true. Here's how it works. They take historical data and tweak the computer module so that it matches projections over the next couple of months. If the simulation matched the trend, they argue that validates their model. In other words, did history match their projections?
After that, they then run a future simulation which shows the end of the world. They take that simulation to beg for more money. Then when new data comes out, without fail, it completely invalidates their model and projections. So they then take the new data, tweak their model again, and repeat. This has been true with EVERY computer simulation to date with no exceptions. Not one. And this has been repeating for a decade or more now. Anyone who believes the computer models which show dire consequences are completely ignorant of the facts. To date, all climate change simulations have been proved to be factually inaccurate at every turn. This is absolutely not science! Period.
You need to keep in mind, MANY computer models showed that the world is under water RIGHT NOW! Yet you don't hear that mentioned do you? Why is that? Seems they just needed to tweak their model just one more time...and the pesky thing like facts keep getting in their way.
And for those that would call troll or flamebait, how do you think they develop and validate their models if not by adjusting and correcting with new data as it becomes available? Ya, reality is harsh; especially when the true facts indicate most of these guys are completely full of shit, all to obtain yet an additional round of funding.
Factually, the computer simulations which show these horrible things are simply toys and constantly prove to be false. Without fail. No exceptions. Period. Generally speaking, they show themselves to be incorrect even one year out and they then use these to make predictions decades, centuries, and millenium out - and yet they can't accurately predict the next year. That's what any reasonable person would call bullshit - yet everyone calls it substantiated fact.
Then we have the steady stream of stories showing unsubstantiated sources references, data exclusion because it contradicts their claims, and ignoring of validated sources which indicate ice loss in some locations is being replaced by ice in new locations.
At this point, any reasonable person would stand up and yell bullshit. I guess fear mongering is easier to sell than is hard science. Because to date, the most of the "evidence" is anything but hard science. Its what reasonable people call, "bullshit."
Now that's not to say global climate change isn't happening. I'm not saying that. What I am saying is its accurate to say there is a lot of scientifically unsound science driving a lot of fear mongering which in turn is driving lots of science grants. In other words, bullshit for money. Furthermore, most of the evidence which points a finger at man is extremely questionable on the best of days. And all of these computer models which show doom and gloom, to date, are completely useless - aside from obtaining additional grant money. Could they be right? Sure! But the science absolutely does not say what these people are saying. Unless of course, the scientific method includes hand picking your study samples.
Realistically, we have no fucking clue what's going on or what will happen and anyone how says otherwise has a bridge to sale or parroting because they don't know the true state of things. Is it possible man is behind it? Yes! Is there proof? Nope!
I didn't claim such a thing. I can see how you may have interpreted what I said to imply that. Without a doubt, NASA shot themselves in the foot. Having said, many, many accidents have a human factor associated with it. Accordingly, even NASA assumes human factors in their risk assessment.
Risk assessment does not negate the human condition.
Two major accidents in 30 years with an agency engaged in high risk activities. And you don't consider that a great safety record?
Just to drive the point home, while I don't recall the actual statistics, but statistically speaking, even accounting for the accidents, NASA is ahead of what their own projections indicate. In other words, even with those accidents, NASA is still beating their own projected losses.
Despite the fact everyone yawns when men are launched into orbit, rocket science is still science and at the best of times is a highly calculated crap shoot. All astronauts known this.
This actually isn't a question of over engineering. The only reason we are getting so much life out of these units is because something most unexpected happened early in the life of the rovers once on Mars. The surprising fact is, dust has not been settling on the solar arrays, which would otherwise prevent the units from recharging. From day one, everyone expected dust to settle on the solar arrays where over time this would eventually completely cut off power to the units. They expected this to happen within a 90 day time frame.
Since little dust has collected over time the robots have continued to recharge, thusly drastically extending their life beyond their proficised expiration date.
They should just put a hard limit in place that applies to everyone. 1000 dollars per individual or group with the group representing any multitude of individuals. Would apply to any business, PAC, Union etc.
And no group can contribute which represents an individual who has already contributed. Otherwise, as is, these groups are allowed to contribute twice. They need to be forced to contribute as one or the other, but not both.
I absolutely agree. The entire US would change for the better in the blink of an eye if corporations were refused protections of person-hood. Corporations are no more a person than is my shoe. Hell, at least my show is a tangible item. On the other hand, the person wearing my shoe is a person. This is true for corporations too.
If the people running corporations fuck up, they should go to jail rather than be sheltered by shoes. Likewise, my shoe is wholly incapable of making a political contribution and yet these idiot judges believe it can.
The fact that these judges can't discern between a shoe and people means they are mentally incompetent and completely unqualified for their station. No matter how you want to rationalize it, a shoe is not a person. It is an implement welded by individuals.
Furthermore, ignoring all of that, they have effectively allowed individuals to be represented twice. Once as an individual and a second time as a corporation. This of course ignores the fact that these idiot judges now consider corporations to be both individuals and collective groups.
Its impossible to look at these judges without seriously contemplating what their mental disability is and whos genitals they sucked to obtain their position.
All I know is, I seriously hope someone can use this ruling that corporations are in fact groups, to detach person-hood from corporations. It makes absolutely no sense and serves only to corrupt.
I think somewhere I lost you and I'm not really sure how since the conclusion is extremely obvious. You're even making exceptions which were already clearly spelled out or flat out obvious.
Which is faster? 1GB of DB files cached? 10GB of DB files cached? The later is only possible on a 64Bit OS. Thusly, even 32bit applications can benefit in this environment, despite the fact they are 32bit and are not directly accessing all of that data within its own 32bit address space. That's entirely the point of everything I said. Yet despite being extremely obvious, it stills seems to go over your head - I think - I'm really not sure based on your comments.
In other words, it gets 32bit cache benefits, non-shared back-end providing access to its full 32-bit address space, and speedy access to 64bit cached files. Remember, the application doesn't need to be 64.bit for the OS to be 64bit. Thusly, a 64bit OS is directly benefiting a 32bit application; whereby the 32bit application is likely to be faster than its 64bit equivalent.
Considering everything I've stated is correct, and now its been stated multiple times, I'm very confused about what it is you're trying to clarify or even what you're point is? Do you have a point? If so, can you state it so I can understand?
Right of free speech + right of association = right of groups, as corporations, to speak freely.
I actually don't have a problem with the above quote.
But, which is it? Is a corporation an individual or a group? According to the idiot judges, they are now both. If its a group then it deserves none of the protections it currently receives today. If its an individual then they can't be spending "corporate" dollars; as that's coming from a collective group, many of who likely don't support the group's political agenda. They've essentially created a catch-22 where corporations receive every protection and none of the punishments.
Furthermore, the entire point of a republic is to allow individuals to be represented. Corporatism is never about the individual, but rather tyrants. At some point people are going to be forced to rise up to replace these idiot judges with people who are actually capable of critical thought, interpreting and upholding the Constitution, and actually upholding and interpreting existing laws.
IMO, any judge who can not properly interpret the first and second amendments are wholly unqualified to be a judge. Thus far, it seems this is true for most judges on bench. Sad but true. The Constitution was specifically written such that it can be easily read and understood by all - ignoring the old English. And yet one after another, these idiots insist on placing comas where they clearly don't exist or reading between the lines where other clauses clearly make their interpretation invalid.
Things are seriously fucked up in the US and seemingly, everyone outside the US noticed. Until we take back voting rights from every idiot, the US is doomed to continue its steady transition from democracy to corportism. There is a reason why our forefathers though it important that one, only educated people can vote, and two, only those who have something to lose are represented. The entire Constitution exists to protect the majority and now the ignorant minority is commonly used as unwitting proxies to further destroy this country in favor of corporatism.
Most non-athletic, non-smokers start to get oxygen deprived at around 10,000 feet. For smokers, this can start as low as 6,000 - 8,000 feet; depending on health and consumption. The FAA officially recommends O2 if flying at or above 10,000 for longer than 30 minutes. The reason being, most people's higher faculties start to become compromised; and more so the longer they remain at such altitudes.
Furthermore, the FAA requires O2 when flying at 12,500 - 14,000 for longer than thirty minutes. All flights above 14,000 require O2 at all times.
To bring this full circle, the kicker is, many in the medical community believe oxygen deprived brains on Everest has directly caused the death of many climbers as their higher brain functions, which would otherwise tell them to retreat, has been compromised. Rather than retreat to safety, compromised brains continue forward and upward, resulting in the death of the climber.
Yes, process model vs threaded model. For NT, a threaded application would be limited to its maximum addressable space per process, of one process, for all back-ends. Since PostgreSQL is a process model, that means each back-end is limited to the maximum addressable process space. Thus on a Windows 64-bit box, you can load it up with memory and EACH back-end can manipulate up to its 2GB-4GB of address space, depending on configuration.
The bit-width of the system makes no difference to the amount of RAM used for file caches
Absolutely it does. I have no idea why you would believe otherwise. Cache is a function of address space available to the OS. A 64bit OS has a vastly larger address space. This means while a 32bit OS is pragmatically limited to no more than perhaps 1BG of cache after you account for OS+PostgreSQL+Backends. Whereas a 64bit OS is pragmatically limited to how much memory you can afford to place into your box; meaning tens of GB or more; depending on the hardware. That's a HUGE difference.
Before seeing this benchmark I took for granted that 64 bits would be faster or at least come to par in all tests. How do you explain that 32 bits is faster in some tests?
For most, its generally considered a wash. Larger data structures require more cache and more memory and more memory to be accessed. On the other hand, you also get more registers in 64-bit mode. As a result, some things run slower and some things run faster, depending on the nature of the application. On average its likely to be a wash.
The big exception are those that use the PAE 32-bit extensions. Generally speaking, 64-bit is going to be a lot faster. Even still, there are some odd exceptions which will hopefully fuel the imagination of possibilities.
One such exception comes from the PostgreSQL guys. For example, on Windows, they strongly recommend running 32-bit PostgreSQL on 64-bit Windows. This seems really non-obvious at first but there is a good reason for it. If you use 64-bit OS, that means you get large pointers which can access large quantities of memory without using PAE tricks. But, since PostgreSQL spawns processes for each back-end, that means you can run more heavy hitting (very large data sets, heavy queries, etc), concurrent back-ends without taking a performance hit. Additionally, PostgreSQL relies heavily on the OS to cache files. With a 64-bit OS cache, large data sets can be readily cached by the OS and quickly return results to the 32-bit PostgreSQL. This means PostgreSQL directly benefits from 64-bit size file caches; despite running as a 32-bit application. And best of all, a 32-bit PostgreSQL means smaller data structures and more efficient cache use, with twice the available cache a 64-bit application would require. Its almost the best of both worlds.
As the above example illustrates, sometimes a mix can provide ideal results, but on average, consider it a break even unless you plan on having 4GB or more in your box. And even then...;)
The worst I've seen is seven days. Happened only once.
More recently (within the last 45-days) I received a SMS from a Sprint user at 4-something am in the morning. I wasn't happy about that. I asked the sender why they sent it at such a time. Turns out they had sent it at ~6:00pm the previous day. They were actually annoyed I hadn't responded sooner.
I don't know what the deal is with Sprint and SMS/MMS, but something needs to be done.
My big complaint with Sprint is cross carrier SMS and MMS. Everyone I know finds Sprint extremely unreliable about sending or receiving anything which comes from or goes to Sprint's network. I've literally waited an hour for text message to appear on the phone next to me. They also seem to drop a huge number of messages; again, cross carrier. At one point, I'd guess perhaps as high as 80% drop rate - though that high is not what I'd call typical.
I don't know if other carriers are purposely causing problems for Sprint or if Sprint is purposely causing problems for other carriers, or they are just well beyond their capacity. But, unless things improve and you SMS or MMS heavily with people on other carriers, I could never recommend Sprint.
Also, one last note, Verizon has not crippled any Android phone features. While Verizon has a terrible history here, thus far they've been true to their word on Android. Now hopefully Verizon's upcoming Android 2.1 update will fix various bugs and incompatibilities vs every other Android phone available. If not, then I'd recommend people staying away from Android+Verizon.
So he says, but the parent comment is right, any paradigm could suffer from the same barriers.
I'm not arguing they can't. I'm saying the current status quo actively encourages communication barriers. The new paradigm actively encourages open communication. Therefore, the later is far less likely to suffer from communication breakdown.
Not in my experience, which actually sees IT organizations dramatically misunderstanding the business paradigm they trying to adopt with the customer model. Many of the policies that many IT folks adopt in that paradigm would not make for a successful business or customer service experience.
I think we're more of less saying the same thing with only a slight difference in perception and/or manifestation. In other words, two sides of the same coin.
The article highlights the flaws of poor communication skills, attributes these flaws to "IT as a business", and then suggests a new method...which is just as susceptible to communication flaws.
I don't think you understood what you read else you couldn't have come to the conclusion you have. Right now, "IT as a business", creates a multitude of barriers which by their very nature inhibit communication. In many places this is actually by design and intent.
By stopping the impenetrable castle defense of IT from hiding behind ticket systems, voice mails, and layers of management, IT needs to be in bed with business. A shared pain is a fixed problem so long as money can be found. And if it can't, everyone understands rather than it being, "that damn IT group preventing my success."
Since IT is always treated as a cost center, the rest of the company is always looking to save money but axing IT. In turn, for IT to justify IT's continued existence, IT is always looking to build a billable project out of a mole hill. This does nothing but create an internal adversarial relationship between IT and the rest of the company. This in turn creates the human factors which create barriers in communication.
In most every large shop I've been in, IT actively works to provide value to the company and desperately wants to contribute to the company's overall success. The problem is, the entire rest of the company sees IT as a cost center and they are therefore actively working to eliminate IT, directly or indirectly. This requires IT justify EVERYTHING.
Until corporate culture changes, the "rest of the company" is the sole reason why IT not only costs more than it should but why mole hill tasks becomes a mountain of a project. Simply put, IT has no other choice as survival rides on it. Which finally brings us full circle. Companies have two choices; one, isolate IT and demand they justify their existence every day at every turn, whereby human factors take over, including breakdown of communication. Two, integrate them and empower them to help them help you; whereby IT's business becomes the company's success. Integration requires communication. The later of the two means those same human factors which cause so many problems in the first case, actually benefit the entire company in the second case. The second case is only possible with effective communication, and tearing down barriers is in everyone's self interest.
In short, communication is important to all businesses. The question is, are you creating barriers or enlisting everyone to assist in your success? Right now the common business mantra is the former rather than the later. If businesses want better IT bang for the buck, they need only look at their own corporate culture and ask, "how can I help you help me?" Synergy, when not used as a worthless buzzword, really can be a wonderful thing.
He actually had success with smaller scale projects. The US wasn't interested because a large immobile cannon make for an easy target. In an era of lightening war and shock-n-awe, such implements of war are anachronisms.
In fact, the US believed his technology was so likely to succeed that they actively worked to prevent the completion of the project via the CIA, in combination with the Israelis.
There are at least documentaries on this guy's story and almost everyone took his technology seriously.
Please stop intermingling the words, "hemp", and, "marijuana". While marijuana is a type of hemp, hemp is generally not marijuana. Real hemp can not make you high and has nearly undetectable levels of thc. Smoking hemp will only provide a killer headache. In fact, there are now hemp species which literally have zero thc.
The rate at which people confuse the two is almost like randomly exchanging the words, "heroin" and "poppy seeds". Please stop it.
I'd like extra heroin on my bread please. I like big hemp cigarettes. Neither of these statements makes sense. So please, stop confusing hemp with marijuana. Real hemp is not marijuana.
I'm sorry but that's just wrong. While a CH-53E might not be able to carry quite as much as a truck. It's pretty close. And I don't think it would take days to get 2 of them there.
You're forgetting several key factors. One, helicopters can't stay in the air as long as trucks can stay on the road. Two, helicopters are several orders of magnitude more maintenance intensive. Three, trucks are far more common than helicopters, even in the likes of Hatti.
Look how much preparation goes into each one of those planned demolitions. In all cases for buildings like the WTC, they would be forced to drill holes and cut the shit out of ibeams to ensure they collapsed (not in a random direction, I mean to ensure they collapse at all). I'm pretty sure people would notice dozens of people running around for two weeks tearing holes in walls on every floor, cutting wiring and conduit, placing explosives, so on and so... Seriously, it takes weeks of on site work to demolition buildings that size.
Anyone who believes the WTC buildings were demolition-ed, are truly the definition of ignorance and stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
Months? Climatologists don't care about months.
Really?! Never would have guessed what everyone already knows.
The fact remains, even though they don't care about "months", its the only way to "validate" their model.
I strongly urge you to investigate for your self. As is, you seem completely confused and even unable to read.
There will be casualties along the way (how many blacksmiths do we have today/do we need today? etc.)
Sometimes jobs don't go away, they evolve with the times. Sometimes it happens so slowly, people don't even notice. Yesterday's blacksmith is todays iron worker, smelter, metallurgist, shop foreman, CNC worker, fuhrer, welder, and even engineer. The disappearance of the generalist blacksmith was displaced by dozens of specialized fields.
And if you want to take me to task about the engineers, keep in mind, many blacksmiths were the go to guys for new creations. For example, many coach and naval lock boxes came directly from smiths; including their design. Imagine the engineering required to turn a single key which operates a half dozen to a dozen spring loaded locks, all with one turn of the wrist. Many blacksmiths did a lot of engineering and general problem solving.
The same can be said for the buggy/cart workers when Ford automated the production line. Many of those people went to make cars.
Of course, I'm not sure what to say about buggy whip makers - but the job losses there were probably made up in job gains elsewhere where jobs were made available by an industrialized manufacturing market.
A couple of months forward, eh? Try millennia.
Re-read what I said. When their simulations constantly depart from newly obtained data, how can it possibly be accurate when going millennia into the future? The farther into the future the less accurate it becomes. But when its not accurate from day one into the future, its impossible for it to even approximate a millennia into the future.
The reason they all point the same way is because they all more or less use the same fundamentally flawed models, with slight deviations and differences in their trending data. Building a mountain out of garbage is still just a pile of garbage at the end of the day. Suddenly building two mountains of garbage doesn't change the fact they are both garbage.
Obviously--it's not a hard science.
That's my point. Its put forward as hard science.
I'll happily live in my fact based world. If you want to live in your happy world of ignorance and garbage, by all means continue to do so. That oder your smell comes directly from your world.
What do you make of the fact that the IPCC Chairman used these claims to get millions in grant money?
Doesn't sounds like a minor mistake, does it?
Of course its not a mistake. That's what I've been saying for a long time now. Most of the human climate change evidence is complete bullshit - and obviously so. Anyone notice there is a steady stream of large corrections over the last year or so?
The computer modules that so many use to fear monger with, are proved invalid almost on a daily basis. The exaguration! That's factually true. Here's how it works. They take historical data and tweak the computer module so that it matches projections over the next couple of months. If the simulation matched the trend, they argue that validates their model. In other words, did history match their projections?
After that, they then run a future simulation which shows the end of the world. They take that simulation to beg for more money. Then when new data comes out, without fail, it completely invalidates their model and projections. So they then take the new data, tweak their model again, and repeat. This has been true with EVERY computer simulation to date with no exceptions. Not one. And this has been repeating for a decade or more now. Anyone who believes the computer models which show dire consequences are completely ignorant of the facts. To date, all climate change simulations have been proved to be factually inaccurate at every turn. This is absolutely not science! Period.
You need to keep in mind, MANY computer models showed that the world is under water RIGHT NOW! Yet you don't hear that mentioned do you? Why is that? Seems they just needed to tweak their model just one more time...and the pesky thing like facts keep getting in their way.
And for those that would call troll or flamebait, how do you think they develop and validate their models if not by adjusting and correcting with new data as it becomes available? Ya, reality is harsh; especially when the true facts indicate most of these guys are completely full of shit, all to obtain yet an additional round of funding.
Factually, the computer simulations which show these horrible things are simply toys and constantly prove to be false. Without fail. No exceptions. Period. Generally speaking, they show themselves to be incorrect even one year out and they then use these to make predictions decades, centuries, and millenium out - and yet they can't accurately predict the next year. That's what any reasonable person would call bullshit - yet everyone calls it substantiated fact.
Then we have the steady stream of stories showing unsubstantiated sources references, data exclusion because it contradicts their claims, and ignoring of validated sources which indicate ice loss in some locations is being replaced by ice in new locations.
At this point, any reasonable person would stand up and yell bullshit. I guess fear mongering is easier to sell than is hard science. Because to date, the most of the "evidence" is anything but hard science. Its what reasonable people call, "bullshit."
Now that's not to say global climate change isn't happening. I'm not saying that. What I am saying is its accurate to say there is a lot of scientifically unsound science driving a lot of fear mongering which in turn is driving lots of science grants. In other words, bullshit for money. Furthermore, most of the evidence which points a finger at man is extremely questionable on the best of days. And all of these computer models which show doom and gloom, to date, are completely useless - aside from obtaining additional grant money. Could they be right? Sure! But the science absolutely does not say what these people are saying. Unless of course, the scientific method includes hand picking your study samples.
Realistically, we have no fucking clue what's going on or what will happen and anyone how says otherwise has a bridge to sale or parroting because they don't know the true state of things. Is it possible man is behind it? Yes! Is there proof? Nope!
but your claim that NASA has no faults
I didn't claim such a thing. I can see how you may have interpreted what I said to imply that. Without a doubt, NASA shot themselves in the foot. Having said, many, many accidents have a human factor associated with it. Accordingly, even NASA assumes human factors in their risk assessment.
Risk assessment does not negate the human condition.
Right. Because they expected the dust to statically bond to the panels. That didn't happen so the wind is able to keep them fairly dust free.
Two major accidents in 30 years with an agency engaged in high risk activities. And you don't consider that a great safety record?
Just to drive the point home, while I don't recall the actual statistics, but statistically speaking, even accounting for the accidents, NASA is ahead of what their own projections indicate. In other words, even with those accidents, NASA is still beating their own projected losses.
Despite the fact everyone yawns when men are launched into orbit, rocket science is still science and at the best of times is a highly calculated crap shoot. All astronauts known this.
This actually isn't a question of over engineering. The only reason we are getting so much life out of these units is because something most unexpected happened early in the life of the rovers once on Mars. The surprising fact is, dust has not been settling on the solar arrays, which would otherwise prevent the units from recharging. From day one, everyone expected dust to settle on the solar arrays where over time this would eventually completely cut off power to the units. They expected this to happen within a 90 day time frame.
Since little dust has collected over time the robots have continued to recharge, thusly drastically extending their life beyond their proficised expiration date.
Minor corrections:
Hell, at least my shoe is a tangible item.
It is an implement wielded by individuals.
They should just put a hard limit in place that applies to everyone. 1000 dollars per individual or group with the group representing any multitude of individuals. Would apply to any business, PAC, Union etc.
And no group can contribute which represents an individual who has already contributed. Otherwise, as is, these groups are allowed to contribute twice. They need to be forced to contribute as one or the other, but not both.
I absolutely agree. The entire US would change for the better in the blink of an eye if corporations were refused protections of person-hood. Corporations are no more a person than is my shoe. Hell, at least my show is a tangible item. On the other hand, the person wearing my shoe is a person. This is true for corporations too.
If the people running corporations fuck up, they should go to jail rather than be sheltered by shoes. Likewise, my shoe is wholly incapable of making a political contribution and yet these idiot judges believe it can.
The fact that these judges can't discern between a shoe and people means they are mentally incompetent and completely unqualified for their station. No matter how you want to rationalize it, a shoe is not a person. It is an implement welded by individuals.
Furthermore, ignoring all of that, they have effectively allowed individuals to be represented twice. Once as an individual and a second time as a corporation. This of course ignores the fact that these idiot judges now consider corporations to be both individuals and collective groups.
Its impossible to look at these judges without seriously contemplating what their mental disability is and whos genitals they sucked to obtain their position.
All I know is, I seriously hope someone can use this ruling that corporations are in fact groups, to detach person-hood from corporations. It makes absolutely no sense and serves only to corrupt.
I think somewhere I lost you and I'm not really sure how since the conclusion is extremely obvious. You're even making exceptions which were already clearly spelled out or flat out obvious.
Which is faster? 1GB of DB files cached? 10GB of DB files cached? The later is only possible on a 64Bit OS. Thusly, even 32bit applications can benefit in this environment, despite the fact they are 32bit and are not directly accessing all of that data within its own 32bit address space. That's entirely the point of everything I said. Yet despite being extremely obvious, it stills seems to go over your head - I think - I'm really not sure based on your comments.
In other words, it gets 32bit cache benefits, non-shared back-end providing access to its full 32-bit address space, and speedy access to 64bit cached files. Remember, the application doesn't need to be 64.bit for the OS to be 64bit. Thusly, a 64bit OS is directly benefiting a 32bit application; whereby the 32bit application is likely to be faster than its 64bit equivalent.
Considering everything I've stated is correct, and now its been stated multiple times, I'm very confused about what it is you're trying to clarify or even what you're point is? Do you have a point? If so, can you state it so I can understand?
Right of free speech + right of association = right of groups, as corporations, to speak freely.
I actually don't have a problem with the above quote.
But, which is it? Is a corporation an individual or a group? According to the idiot judges, they are now both. If its a group then it deserves none of the protections it currently receives today. If its an individual then they can't be spending "corporate" dollars; as that's coming from a collective group, many of who likely don't support the group's political agenda. They've essentially created a catch-22 where corporations receive every protection and none of the punishments.
Furthermore, the entire point of a republic is to allow individuals to be represented. Corporatism is never about the individual, but rather tyrants. At some point people are going to be forced to rise up to replace these idiot judges with people who are actually capable of critical thought, interpreting and upholding the Constitution, and actually upholding and interpreting existing laws.
IMO, any judge who can not properly interpret the first and second amendments are wholly unqualified to be a judge. Thus far, it seems this is true for most judges on bench. Sad but true. The Constitution was specifically written such that it can be easily read and understood by all - ignoring the old English. And yet one after another, these idiots insist on placing comas where they clearly don't exist or reading between the lines where other clauses clearly make their interpretation invalid.
Things are seriously fucked up in the US and seemingly, everyone outside the US noticed. Until we take back voting rights from every idiot, the US is doomed to continue its steady transition from democracy to corportism. There is a reason why our forefathers though it important that one, only educated people can vote, and two, only those who have something to lose are represented. The entire Constitution exists to protect the majority and now the ignorant minority is commonly used as unwitting proxies to further destroy this country in favor of corporatism.
Well Everest is just under 9km up
Most non-athletic, non-smokers start to get oxygen deprived at around 10,000 feet. For smokers, this can start as low as 6,000 - 8,000 feet; depending on health and consumption. The FAA officially recommends O2 if flying at or above 10,000 for longer than 30 minutes. The reason being, most people's higher faculties start to become compromised; and more so the longer they remain at such altitudes.
Furthermore, the FAA requires O2 when flying at 12,500 - 14,000 for longer than thirty minutes. All flights above 14,000 require O2 at all times.
To bring this full circle, the kicker is, many in the medical community believe oxygen deprived brains on Everest has directly caused the death of many climbers as their higher brain functions, which would otherwise tell them to retreat, has been compromised. Rather than retreat to safety, compromised brains continue forward and upward, resulting in the death of the climber.
Unix-type program and not an NT-type program
Yes, process model vs threaded model. For NT, a threaded application would be limited to its maximum addressable space per process, of one process, for all back-ends. Since PostgreSQL is a process model, that means each back-end is limited to the maximum addressable process space. Thus on a Windows 64-bit box, you can load it up with memory and EACH back-end can manipulate up to its 2GB-4GB of address space, depending on configuration.
The bit-width of the system makes no difference to the amount of RAM used for file caches
Absolutely it does. I have no idea why you would believe otherwise. Cache is a function of address space available to the OS. A 64bit OS has a vastly larger address space. This means while a 32bit OS is pragmatically limited to no more than perhaps 1BG of cache after you account for OS+PostgreSQL+Backends. Whereas a 64bit OS is pragmatically limited to how much memory you can afford to place into your box; meaning tens of GB or more; depending on the hardware. That's a HUGE difference.
Before seeing this benchmark I took for granted that 64 bits would be faster or at least come to par in all tests. How do you explain that 32 bits is faster in some tests?
For most, its generally considered a wash. Larger data structures require more cache and more memory and more memory to be accessed. On the other hand, you also get more registers in 64-bit mode. As a result, some things run slower and some things run faster, depending on the nature of the application. On average its likely to be a wash.
The big exception are those that use the PAE 32-bit extensions. Generally speaking, 64-bit is going to be a lot faster. Even still, there are some odd exceptions which will hopefully fuel the imagination of possibilities.
One such exception comes from the PostgreSQL guys. For example, on Windows, they strongly recommend running 32-bit PostgreSQL on 64-bit Windows. This seems really non-obvious at first but there is a good reason for it. If you use 64-bit OS, that means you get large pointers which can access large quantities of memory without using PAE tricks. But, since PostgreSQL spawns processes for each back-end, that means you can run more heavy hitting (very large data sets, heavy queries, etc), concurrent back-ends without taking a performance hit. Additionally, PostgreSQL relies heavily on the OS to cache files. With a 64-bit OS cache, large data sets can be readily cached by the OS and quickly return results to the 32-bit PostgreSQL. This means PostgreSQL directly benefits from 64-bit size file caches; despite running as a 32-bit application. And best of all, a 32-bit PostgreSQL means smaller data structures and more efficient cache use, with twice the available cache a 64-bit application would require. Its almost the best of both worlds.
As the above example illustrates, sometimes a mix can provide ideal results, but on average, consider it a break even unless you plan on having 4GB or more in your box. And even then... ;)
The worst I've seen is seven days. Happened only once.
More recently (within the last 45-days) I received a SMS from a Sprint user at 4-something am in the morning. I wasn't happy about that. I asked the sender why they sent it at such a time. Turns out they had sent it at ~6:00pm the previous day. They were actually annoyed I hadn't responded sooner.
I don't know what the deal is with Sprint and SMS/MMS, but something needs to be done.
My big complaint with Sprint is cross carrier SMS and MMS. Everyone I know finds Sprint extremely unreliable about sending or receiving anything which comes from or goes to Sprint's network. I've literally waited an hour for text message to appear on the phone next to me. They also seem to drop a huge number of messages; again, cross carrier. At one point, I'd guess perhaps as high as 80% drop rate - though that high is not what I'd call typical.
I don't know if other carriers are purposely causing problems for Sprint or if Sprint is purposely causing problems for other carriers, or they are just well beyond their capacity. But, unless things improve and you SMS or MMS heavily with people on other carriers, I could never recommend Sprint.
Also, one last note, Verizon has not crippled any Android phone features. While Verizon has a terrible history here, thus far they've been true to their word on Android. Now hopefully Verizon's upcoming Android 2.1 update will fix various bugs and incompatibilities vs every other Android phone available. If not, then I'd recommend people staying away from Android+Verizon.
So he says, but the parent comment is right, any paradigm could suffer from the same barriers.
I'm not arguing they can't. I'm saying the current status quo actively encourages communication barriers. The new paradigm actively encourages open communication. Therefore, the later is far less likely to suffer from communication breakdown.
Not in my experience, which actually sees IT organizations dramatically misunderstanding the business paradigm they trying to adopt with the customer model. Many of the policies that many IT folks adopt in that paradigm would not make for a successful business or customer service experience.
I think we're more of less saying the same thing with only a slight difference in perception and/or manifestation. In other words, two sides of the same coin.
The article highlights the flaws of poor communication skills, attributes these flaws to "IT as a business", and then suggests a new method...which is just as susceptible to communication flaws.
I don't think you understood what you read else you couldn't have come to the conclusion you have. Right now, "IT as a business", creates a multitude of barriers which by their very nature inhibit communication. In many places this is actually by design and intent.
By stopping the impenetrable castle defense of IT from hiding behind ticket systems, voice mails, and layers of management, IT needs to be in bed with business. A shared pain is a fixed problem so long as money can be found. And if it can't, everyone understands rather than it being, "that damn IT group preventing my success."
Since IT is always treated as a cost center, the rest of the company is always looking to save money but axing IT. In turn, for IT to justify IT's continued existence, IT is always looking to build a billable project out of a mole hill. This does nothing but create an internal adversarial relationship between IT and the rest of the company. This in turn creates the human factors which create barriers in communication.
In most every large shop I've been in, IT actively works to provide value to the company and desperately wants to contribute to the company's overall success. The problem is, the entire rest of the company sees IT as a cost center and they are therefore actively working to eliminate IT, directly or indirectly. This requires IT justify EVERYTHING.
Until corporate culture changes, the "rest of the company" is the sole reason why IT not only costs more than it should but why mole hill tasks becomes a mountain of a project. Simply put, IT has no other choice as survival rides on it. Which finally brings us full circle. Companies have two choices; one, isolate IT and demand they justify their existence every day at every turn, whereby human factors take over, including breakdown of communication. Two, integrate them and empower them to help them help you; whereby IT's business becomes the company's success. Integration requires communication. The later of the two means those same human factors which cause so many problems in the first case, actually benefit the entire company in the second case. The second case is only possible with effective communication, and tearing down barriers is in everyone's self interest.
In short, communication is important to all businesses. The question is, are you creating barriers or enlisting everyone to assist in your success? Right now the common business mantra is the former rather than the later. If businesses want better IT bang for the buck, they need only look at their own corporate culture and ask, "how can I help you help me?" Synergy, when not used as a worthless buzzword, really can be a wonderful thing.
He actually had success with smaller scale projects. The US wasn't interested because a large immobile cannon make for an easy target. In an era of lightening war and shock-n-awe, such implements of war are anachronisms.
In fact, the US believed his technology was so likely to succeed that they actively worked to prevent the completion of the project via the CIA, in combination with the Israelis.
There are at least documentaries on this guy's story and almost everyone took his technology seriously.
Please stop intermingling the words, "hemp", and, "marijuana". While marijuana is a type of hemp, hemp is generally not marijuana. Real hemp can not make you high and has nearly undetectable levels of thc. Smoking hemp will only provide a killer headache. In fact, there are now hemp species which literally have zero thc.
The rate at which people confuse the two is almost like randomly exchanging the words, "heroin" and "poppy seeds". Please stop it.
I'd like extra heroin on my bread please. I like big hemp cigarettes. Neither of these statements makes sense. So please, stop confusing hemp with marijuana. Real hemp is not marijuana.
I'm sorry but that's just wrong. While a CH-53E might not be able to carry quite as much as a truck. It's pretty close. And I don't think it would take days to get 2 of them there.
You're forgetting several key factors. One, helicopters can't stay in the air as long as trucks can stay on the road. Two, helicopters are several orders of magnitude more maintenance intensive. Three, trucks are far more common than helicopters, even in the likes of Hatti.
I was replying to your comment - not the article. Which makes since given I quoted you and not the article.
the WTC collapse seems positively surgical.
Look how much preparation goes into each one of those planned demolitions. In all cases for buildings like the WTC, they would be forced to drill holes and cut the shit out of ibeams to ensure they collapsed (not in a random direction, I mean to ensure they collapse at all). I'm pretty sure people would notice dozens of people running around for two weeks tearing holes in walls on every floor, cutting wiring and conduit, placing explosives, so on and so... Seriously, it takes weeks of on site work to demolition buildings that size.
Anyone who believes the WTC buildings were demolition-ed, are truly the definition of ignorance and stupidity.