*nods* That makes sense. Do you know a good reference that talks about that? In my cursory look, I didn't find any details on the NT arch's memory layout, although Win 9x used the upper 2GB for kernel memory.
Looking back at your original comment, I guess I'm not totally convinced that there wouldn't be driver issues with PAE enabled, especially considering the thousands of drivers floating around out there.
Perhaps you have a totally different understanding of kernel and user space in Windows but I thought the total address space was split in half between kernel and user mode. (I think it came be modified so userspace gets 3GB and the kernel gets 1GB though.) Are you saying that with PAE enabled, kernel drivers are loaded only into lowest 2GB and never into the highest 2GB?
Ya they do. Around here the police take DNA samples from kids during the annual "Take Back the Night" event for families. Parents line up to have their kids sampled for free just in case they get kidnapped.
I'm not sure about individual states but federally welfare has a 5 year lifetime maximum. Additionally a person may not receive welfare for more than 2 years continuously. Your point though is totally solid.
Totally agree with you but I think I should clarify that technically welfare is not an entitlement program. I was until the welfare "reform" of the 1990s but no longer.
We're probably not killing millions or billions right now. In the long term though, we can't sustain the current number of people so in effect we're stalling the effect of our natural carrying capacity. As these methods become too expensive to use, people will die unfortunately. We just have to hope that we'll have gotten population growth under control so we never get to that point.
I don't buy organically personally but I understand the need for more sustainable agriculture. Pesticides over time simply stop being effective due to natural selection. Additionally the soil becomes less fertile because the dead organic material that used to be left in the soil is instead taken out as produce. The only way to fix this is to let the field stay fallow for many years (20 or so).
A number of Native American cultures, especially in South America, could yield the same amount of food per land using sustainable farming methods. Interspersing types of plants that support each other and reducing the amount of open soil are two of the ways they did so. The major difference is that their methods are more labor intensive.
Actually I didn't say that. I said reduce the amount of hot water in particular because likely you will use more hot water than cold water in the shower. You'll still use cold water but your original comment was that low-flow showerheads didn't make sense for you given the abundance of rainwater where you live so I discussed hot water in particular.
We worked out the effect of long-term transportation of produce on the environment in a college class last year. I wish I had the numbers but it would take some really, really inefficient local organic farmers for your situation to pan out.
The parent hit on one of the most important issues related to local agriculture: seasonality. Getting produce when it is naturally in season in your area will really reduce carbon output for the produce. My prof subscribed to a local organic agriculture program where he received produce in season for over half the year. Not only did he reduce his carbon footprint but he liked the fact that every few weeks he'd get something totally different (with suggested recipes). He'd get types of produce he'd never seen before and couldn't buy in a store if he wanted to.
Low flow shower heads help reduce the amount of hot water used in particular, not just plain old tap water. No matter where you live you're going to use some resources, usually fossil fuel based, to heat that water. Just because you have tons of rainwater, doesn't mean you/the environment won't benefit from your use of low-flow shower heads.
If you don't understand the usability issues with having a touchscreen in a car, you need to take a class on usability.
Having multiple control consoles in one area is great IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THEM. In a car you can't safely do so. As a sibling mentioned, feel regular keyboard and the nubs on the j and f keys. We use that to orient our fingers without needing to look. Even then, its not perfect. I've typed without looking for 15 years and I still sometimes put my fingers in the wrong place when I sit down. A touchscreen causes so many more problems for people who can't look at the screen.
Fortunately, some research is being done on tactile feedback for touchscreens but its a ways out. Until then, I'll happily take my mass of buttons and switches on my dashboard, even if it's hard to learn.
Is it actually dying or are you screwing up the filesystem in some way? I've done the latter but the former has happened once in 15 years.
The reasons hard drives go first is due to the fact that they're mechanical. Look at the size of a hard drive. Inside there you've got these incredibly tiny read heads hovering tens of nanometers above platters, which spin at 7200 rpm. The acceleration at the head reaches 250g's. That's an astounding amount of pressure on tiny parts. Additionally the motor has to run at 7200 rpms consistently while the computer is being used. For geeks like us, that can be 8 hours or more per day. Taking all that into account and you can see the stresses that hard drives have to deal with.
Everything else in your computer (excluding fans) is stationary. They don't have motors to fail and parts with huge amounts of pressure put upon them relative to their size. I think its astounding that hard drives last as long as they do.
Think about this for a second: in Wisconsin (and I would assume most states) its illegal to discriminate on the basis of criminal record unless the crimes relate to the job. If you served time for drug possession, they can't use it against you if you're applying to be a programmer but if you're convicted of child molestation they can use it against you if you're applying to be a teacher.
Now extrapolate out for a second. If I am convicted of possession and there's a picture of me online using drugs, they can't use my conviction against me but if I haven't been convicted, they can. With the internet, employers are free to restrict behavior in ways the law cannot and actually enforce it. It's perfectly legal to for an employer to fire all their Republican employees. Previously it was hard to enforce but if a person is on Facebook they could accidentally let it out or someone could out them in some way.
Employers would survive just fine if they were restricted from using non-employment related information. Heck they did have to do that from the 70s (when race and sex discrimination became really illegal) till a few years ago.
I totally agree with your conclusion. IANAL but as far as I can tell, they're not defending the State Secrets Doctrine per se, they're arguing over which court has jurisdiction for an appeal and to stay the ruling until that appeal happens. It even says that they're not taking a stand on whether the wiretapping was legal or not, just that they have the right to appeal the ruling and to whom they appeal.
I wish they'd drop the appeal but from the article and story you'd think they took the stand that warrantless wiretapping is totally legal, which they did not. Can't we just wait until Obama has his own DOJ and takes an actual stand in this case before we get the pitchforks out?
I'm curious as to your opinion on this. Are the problems you find with Desktop environments inherent in them or is it due to incorrect design? Troubleshooting information should never be unavailable but more importantly software should anticipate such problems and/or assist the user in fixing their problem.
You're really that deluded that you think all 1 billion Muslims are responsible for extremist interpretations, past and present? Just like Jews are responsible for killing Christ?
I support the rights of people to express their opinion but that doesn't mean I support every single one of those opinions. I don't agree with Christians who hate gays, Muslims who hate women or white people who hate black people. I'm also mature enough and have had enough interaction with people to know that not everyone of the people in those three general groups feel that way.
You really think that an 8th century agreement, one that scholars don't think is a fraud, has bearing on the beliefs of all 1 billion Muslims? If you do, you're not just a sectarian prick, you're a fool as well.
I think its interesting that you can make pronouncements about who is and who is not really Christian and what constitutes proper Christian doctrine. Are you in possession of some spiritual knowledge that gives you the authority to make these pronouncements?
What evidence do you have that most western Muslims fit those extremist stereotypes?
Sharia "law" as it applies in England is a form of binding arbitration that is chosen by the parties involved. No party is forced to have their disputes tried in a Sharia court. If two people have a dispute and both legitimately choose to have that dispute decided by an arbiter, they are free to do so. I would advocate against people making that choice but it is their choice to make not mine.
Sharia law encompasses a majority of non-free countries? That's a possibility although the most populous non-free country, China, is a huge exception. I don't support Sharia law, especially in its most extreme forms, as the law of the land. It is barbaric. But all you've proven is that some Muslim countries use some form of Sharia law (its not as extreme in every country). Do you actually think everyone in the country or even 50% of the people in those countries support every application of this law?
You continue to assume all Muslims act the same as an extremist subsection without any evidence that to support that generalization. Where is your evidence? You seem to
There certainly is much disagreement about the importance of different parts of the Bible among Christians. I think its important for everyone to remember that most religions have very similar debates and disputes. That's why I responded to a comment implying that because something offensive was in the Quran it automatically implied all Muslims lived by it equally.
Actually it doesn't say that and secondly its not relevant. It's ridiculous to compare people who don't support an offensive reading of a religious text as akin to Nazis. How is it that people who don't support inter-religious violence are Nazis because other people support inter-religious violence? I'm an agnostic who doesn't live by that verse from that translation of the Quran too. Apparently that's equal to being a Nazi.
I apologize about thinking the stoning of rape victims applied to Christians. You are correct.
Of course birth control is not in the Bible. (Interesting though that to you its "only" a church doctrine in the case of Catholicism) In Catholicism, while the Bible is primary, the Church does God's work on Earth and the Pope speaks the word of God in certain situations, including when it comes to the ban on use of birth control. (Oddly enough that ban is justified in part by the Old Testament but nevertheless).
Did I defend extremist Muslims, the Taliban or Iran? Please tell me where I did. Curious, I get involved in Amnesty International in part to stop discrimination against gays, women, people of all religions and political background.
I don't see why you bring up violent Muslim regimes. At no point did I bring up crimes committed by Christians, Jews, Hindus or others in the name of their respective Gods.
Some Christians disagree with your interpretation of Old Testament laws. It's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Which leads back to my original point that not everyone applies equally or even knows every religious doctrine. Muslims who don't view "non-Muslims as the filthiest animals on earth" shouldn't be viewed negatively based on that anymore than Christians and Jews who don't support the use of the curse of Ham to discriminate against Africans should be viewed negatively based on it.
Slashdot Mirror
*nods* That makes sense. Do you know a good reference that talks about that? In my cursory look, I didn't find any details on the NT arch's memory layout, although Win 9x used the upper 2GB for kernel memory. Looking back at your original comment, I guess I'm not totally convinced that there wouldn't be driver issues with PAE enabled, especially considering the thousands of drivers floating around out there.
Perhaps you have a totally different understanding of kernel and user space in Windows but I thought the total address space was split in half between kernel and user mode. (I think it came be modified so userspace gets 3GB and the kernel gets 1GB though.) Are you saying that with PAE enabled, kernel drivers are loaded only into lowest 2GB and never into the highest 2GB?
Ya they do. Around here the police take DNA samples from kids during the annual "Take Back the Night" event for families. Parents line up to have their kids sampled for free just in case they get kidnapped.
That would be the gist of it unfortunately. Welfare only applies to adults with children as well.
I'm not sure about individual states but federally welfare has a 5 year lifetime maximum. Additionally a person may not receive welfare for more than 2 years continuously. Your point though is totally solid.
Totally agree with you but I think I should clarify that technically welfare is not an entitlement program. I was until the welfare "reform" of the 1990s but no longer.
We're probably not killing millions or billions right now. In the long term though, we can't sustain the current number of people so in effect we're stalling the effect of our natural carrying capacity. As these methods become too expensive to use, people will die unfortunately. We just have to hope that we'll have gotten population growth under control so we never get to that point.
I don't buy organically personally but I understand the need for more sustainable agriculture. Pesticides over time simply stop being effective due to natural selection. Additionally the soil becomes less fertile because the dead organic material that used to be left in the soil is instead taken out as produce. The only way to fix this is to let the field stay fallow for many years (20 or so).
A number of Native American cultures, especially in South America, could yield the same amount of food per land using sustainable farming methods. Interspersing types of plants that support each other and reducing the amount of open soil are two of the ways they did so. The major difference is that their methods are more labor intensive.
I don't know, have you converted your Hummer to run on jackass?
Actually I didn't say that. I said reduce the amount of hot water in particular because likely you will use more hot water than cold water in the shower. You'll still use cold water but your original comment was that low-flow showerheads didn't make sense for you given the abundance of rainwater where you live so I discussed hot water in particular.
We worked out the effect of long-term transportation of produce on the environment in a college class last year. I wish I had the numbers but it would take some really, really inefficient local organic farmers for your situation to pan out.
The parent hit on one of the most important issues related to local agriculture: seasonality. Getting produce when it is naturally in season in your area will really reduce carbon output for the produce. My prof subscribed to a local organic agriculture program where he received produce in season for over half the year. Not only did he reduce his carbon footprint but he liked the fact that every few weeks he'd get something totally different (with suggested recipes). He'd get types of produce he'd never seen before and couldn't buy in a store if he wanted to.
Low flow shower heads help reduce the amount of hot water used in particular, not just plain old tap water. No matter where you live you're going to use some resources, usually fossil fuel based, to heat that water. Just because you have tons of rainwater, doesn't mean you/the environment won't benefit from your use of low-flow shower heads.
But this is America, where you can say anything in a contract and get away with it :)
If you don't understand the usability issues with having a touchscreen in a car, you need to take a class on usability.
Having multiple control consoles in one area is great IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THEM. In a car you can't safely do so. As a sibling mentioned, feel regular keyboard and the nubs on the j and f keys. We use that to orient our fingers without needing to look. Even then, its not perfect. I've typed without looking for 15 years and I still sometimes put my fingers in the wrong place when I sit down. A touchscreen causes so many more problems for people who can't look at the screen.
Fortunately, some research is being done on tactile feedback for touchscreens but its a ways out. Until then, I'll happily take my mass of buttons and switches on my dashboard, even if it's hard to learn.
Is it actually dying or are you screwing up the filesystem in some way? I've done the latter but the former has happened once in 15 years.
The reasons hard drives go first is due to the fact that they're mechanical. Look at the size of a hard drive. Inside there you've got these incredibly tiny read heads hovering tens of nanometers above platters, which spin at 7200 rpm. The acceleration at the head reaches 250g's. That's an astounding amount of pressure on tiny parts. Additionally the motor has to run at 7200 rpms consistently while the computer is being used. For geeks like us, that can be 8 hours or more per day. Taking all that into account and you can see the stresses that hard drives have to deal with.
Everything else in your computer (excluding fans) is stationary. They don't have motors to fail and parts with huge amounts of pressure put upon them relative to their size. I think its astounding that hard drives last as long as they do.
Think about this for a second: in Wisconsin (and I would assume most states) its illegal to discriminate on the basis of criminal record unless the crimes relate to the job. If you served time for drug possession, they can't use it against you if you're applying to be a programmer but if you're convicted of child molestation they can use it against you if you're applying to be a teacher.
Now extrapolate out for a second. If I am convicted of possession and there's a picture of me online using drugs, they can't use my conviction against me but if I haven't been convicted, they can. With the internet, employers are free to restrict behavior in ways the law cannot and actually enforce it. It's perfectly legal to for an employer to fire all their Republican employees. Previously it was hard to enforce but if a person is on Facebook they could accidentally let it out or someone could out them in some way.
Employers would survive just fine if they were restricted from using non-employment related information. Heck they did have to do that from the 70s (when race and sex discrimination became really illegal) till a few years ago.
I totally agree with your conclusion. IANAL but as far as I can tell, they're not defending the State Secrets Doctrine per se, they're arguing over which court has jurisdiction for an appeal and to stay the ruling until that appeal happens. It even says that they're not taking a stand on whether the wiretapping was legal or not, just that they have the right to appeal the ruling and to whom they appeal.
I wish they'd drop the appeal but from the article and story you'd think they took the stand that warrantless wiretapping is totally legal, which they did not. Can't we just wait until Obama has his own DOJ and takes an actual stand in this case before we get the pitchforks out?
I'm curious as to your opinion on this. Are the problems you find with Desktop environments inherent in them or is it due to incorrect design? Troubleshooting information should never be unavailable but more importantly software should anticipate such problems and/or assist the user in fixing their problem.
You're really that deluded that you think all 1 billion Muslims are responsible for extremist interpretations, past and present? Just like Jews are responsible for killing Christ?
I support the rights of people to express their opinion but that doesn't mean I support every single one of those opinions. I don't agree with Christians who hate gays, Muslims who hate women or white people who hate black people. I'm also mature enough and have had enough interaction with people to know that not everyone of the people in those three general groups feel that way.
You really think that an 8th century agreement, one that scholars don't think is a fraud, has bearing on the beliefs of all 1 billion Muslims? If you do, you're not just a sectarian prick, you're a fool as well.
I think its interesting that you can make pronouncements about who is and who is not really Christian and what constitutes proper Christian doctrine. Are you in possession of some spiritual knowledge that gives you the authority to make these pronouncements?
What evidence do you have that most western Muslims fit those extremist stereotypes?
Sharia "law" as it applies in England is a form of binding arbitration that is chosen by the parties involved. No party is forced to have their disputes tried in a Sharia court. If two people have a dispute and both legitimately choose to have that dispute decided by an arbiter, they are free to do so. I would advocate against people making that choice but it is their choice to make not mine.
Sharia law encompasses a majority of non-free countries? That's a possibility although the most populous non-free country, China, is a huge exception. I don't support Sharia law, especially in its most extreme forms, as the law of the land. It is barbaric. But all you've proven is that some Muslim countries use some form of Sharia law (its not as extreme in every country). Do you actually think everyone in the country or even 50% of the people in those countries support every application of this law?
You continue to assume all Muslims act the same as an extremist subsection without any evidence that to support that generalization. Where is your evidence? You seem to
There certainly is much disagreement about the importance of different parts of the Bible among Christians. I think its important for everyone to remember that most religions have very similar debates and disputes. That's why I responded to a comment implying that because something offensive was in the Quran it automatically implied all Muslims lived by it equally.
Actually it doesn't say that and secondly its not relevant. It's ridiculous to compare people who don't support an offensive reading of a religious text as akin to Nazis. How is it that people who don't support inter-religious violence are Nazis because other people support inter-religious violence? I'm an agnostic who doesn't live by that verse from that translation of the Quran too. Apparently that's equal to being a Nazi.
I apologize about thinking the stoning of rape victims applied to Christians. You are correct.
Of course birth control is not in the Bible. (Interesting though that to you its "only" a church doctrine in the case of Catholicism) In Catholicism, while the Bible is primary, the Church does God's work on Earth and the Pope speaks the word of God in certain situations, including when it comes to the ban on use of birth control. (Oddly enough that ban is justified in part by the Old Testament but nevertheless).
Did I defend extremist Muslims, the Taliban or Iran? Please tell me where I did. Curious, I get involved in Amnesty International in part to stop discrimination against gays, women, people of all religions and political background.
I don't see why you bring up violent Muslim regimes. At no point did I bring up crimes committed by Christians, Jews, Hindus or others in the name of their respective Gods.
Some Christians disagree with your interpretation of Old Testament laws. It's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Which leads back to my original point that not everyone applies equally or even knows every religious doctrine. Muslims who don't view "non-Muslims as the filthiest animals on earth" shouldn't be viewed negatively based on that anymore than Christians and Jews who don't support the use of the curse of Ham to discriminate against Africans should be viewed negatively based on it.
Also Chapter 8, Verse 62 says that if non-Muslims incline towards peace then Muslims should as well.
MY GOD WHAT A HORRIFIC BOOK?! THEY WANT PEACE?!