At the first hearing of nearly every criminal case the defendant is asked to "waive time" Which if agreed to, waives the right to a speedy trial.
Is the choice between a speedy trial and indefinite detention? Or can the defendent waive it for a period of time of his specification after which he can choose to extend it or start the trial?
Back in the old days there was lots of talk and more than a couple of companies working on micropayment systems. The idea was that you could pay something like half a cent for a webpage. Prices could be adjusted depending on things like demand and target audience. Quality web sites would prosper, crappy ones would die out. All the good stuff you get from a free market.
But somewhere along the line, advertising usurped that role and no micropayment system ever achieved viability. So now we get useless ad-farms filled with seo-bait, articles on web-sites broken down into one paragraph a page to maximize ad-impressions and worst of all a brain-drain focused on spending billions of dollars for tracking systems to (presumably) more effectively target advertisements (never mind the societal cost of using these tracking system for other purposes) rather than creating new and innovative technology that would benefit man-kind in general.
So I welcome a show-down between advertisers and ad-blockers. There will be casualities, maybe even bullshit where adblock authors see some jail-time. But if the end result is that advertising recedes and we come up with another more straight-forward, less socially-destructive way to fund the creation of high-quality content on the internet it will be a huge step forward for society.
Perhaps they don't bother because the cost of entering an arms race would be too high. If any major site were to block adblock users, you would expect the plugin to quickly route around their attempts.
The internet interprets advertising as damage and routes around it.
Things like "tradition" and "religion" are more about maintaining control than they are about anything else.To ignore that observable social behavior is folly
When I was 18 I would have been right there with you. I would also have said things like government is corruptible so the best thing to do is get rid of all government. Somewhere along the line I learned about nuance -- that black-and-white thinking is rarely a good model for how the world actually works.
With that, I will say that you are absolutely wrong. Tradition and religion are systems for organizing and keeping the continuity of a society and that the vast majority of the time they are useful tools to that end. But nothing is perfect and there will always be people looklng to take advantage of a system to further their own goals. That's going to happen in any system we use to organize civilization, it is inevitable, it is part of the human condition. The trick is to make sure we don't let the system, whatever its basis, calcify in such a way that it prevents us from recognizing and correcting those kinds of situations.
When the role of women in society is to bear and care for children, forcing a woman into spinster-hood is not restitution, even if you pay her way. You are looking at history through a modern lens. Priorities have changed, but that doesn't mean you can pick and choose which parts of the historical context to ignore. Well you can, but it doesn't serve the truth to do it.
OK, so there are parts where men considered superior and parts where women are considered superior.
Well, off the top of my head it is basically that men are considered to be dogs. I mean that in the modern slang sense. The whole bit about women dressing modestly and not being alone in the company of unrelated men is about the belief that men are fundamentally incapable of controlling their sexual urges. Because men have been deciding on the interpretation of things, the result has been that the more regressive the society the more men have used their position of power to push that on to women. For example the idea was originally that men had a duty to accompany the women in their family for their protection, but in regressive and patriarchal places like Saudi that was turned into women requiring permission from a man in their family. Tragically, pre-russian invasion Afghanistan was an example of the opposite where islamic principles had been interpreted to put much of the responsibility for being a dog on the dog, probably even more so than the practical reality of rape prosecutions in the US at the time.
That's true: assholeishness is pervasice throughout the world and is therefore codified in all religions. That's why civilised countries do not base laws on religion.
Religion does not have a monopoy on being an asshole, nor is there anything that fundamentally requires religion to codify asshole beliefs. No matter the system, it all boils down to the people doing the interpretation. There is plenty of scripture in all the major religiions that is anti-asshole. If the people interpreting the law want to be just and fair they can focus on those parts just as judges in secular systems frequently choose between being an asshole on technical grounds rather than actually judging in the spirit of fairness.
Western law now very explicitly makes an effort to codify equality.
How very western of you to read "elevate women above western standards" to mean the western ideal of equality - despite quoting the very first sentence I wrote about islam believing men and women to be different.
I'm not saying that a sharia-based system can't or shouldn't result in effective equality, I'm saying that to judge it based on the results in socially regressive third-world, war-torn dictatorships is putting the cart before the horse. When a deeply religious and regressive country like Pakistan can beat out most of the western world to elect a female leader it should be obvious that there is a lot more to it than the over-simplfied stereotypes that make up most of the public discourse here in the west.
Not being unique to Islam doesn't make it not blaming the victim, which is what it is.
In the original context, the idea was that a woman would not be able to marry unless she was a virgin. So the guy who took her virginity had to make restitution by marrying her. I guess I should have spelled this out, I keep forgetting how little knowledge people have of historical context. But as I said, that sort of result is due to hardline interpretations, there is nothing that says a modern sharia-based justice system must rule that way.
The west has succeeded in fact in codifying equality for women in numerous cases.
I didn't say equal. In fact, I explicitly said different. You are basically arguing that what I wrote is true.
And some law is slanted in favor of women today, e.g. sexual harassment law.
I think you would be hard pressed to find statutes that were slanted in favor of women. Specific rulings and the resultant case law, sure. But that's all about interpretation and sharia is just as much open to interpretation as any other form of law.
Extremism is certainly a problem. But that's orthogonal to men deciding how to apply the rules to women. Both sets of problems are inherent to human nature and not unique to islam.
In islam men and women are believed to be different. Not inferior or superior but different sets of strengths and weaknesses. The part about women's testimony being worth less than a man is only in specific cases, like those involving finances. In the west, you'll find plenty of belief that women are not as good at math as men as well, so it isn't like that is unique to islam. Sure, there are some places which have decided that means in all cases, but again that's men deciding how things are in their favor.
Same thing with rape. The quran does not put the blame on the woman. The remedy is marriage, which is barbaric by modern standards and sure as hell seems like blaming the victim, but it is hardly unique to islam. I personally know an upper-middle-class catholic filipina who was forced to marry her rapist and bear his children -- it took her 15 years and a public skull-bashing on the street at his hand before the same priest finally granted her an annulment. That sort of thing is due to hardline, and frankly uneducated, interpretations by men were the welfare of the woman is secondary.
As for sharia elevating women aboive western standards, it is empirically true because the west doesn't make an effort to codify that at all. Whether in practice it succeeds is another thing entirely. But that was my point - islam shares this problem with plenty of other cultures, like the machismo/marinisma duality of latin culture which was intended to protect women but frequently results in their oppression and the confucian deference to elders who too often use that for personal advantage.
What I'm saying here is that you are naive. You clearly have not "read that good book, and the various legal documents surrounding sharia" either. But having married a girl from an average muslim family, I'm pretty sure I've got a much better handle on this. If I had to guess, I'd say everything you know comes from people with an agenda to denigate islam rather than from the people for whom it is no big deal.
this is in accordance with sharia law too. Which is supposed to elevate women above western standards, or so flappy headed groups keep telling us.
It is suppossed to. The problem is that men are in charge of the implementation and that's a common problem across the entire world. Regardless of the laws on the books, if the people interpreting them are not representative of the people they are applied to, the end result is going to be biased like health insurance paying for viagra but not birth control pills.
The point of the article was that as the number of nodes involved in the calculation increases, the frequency at which at least one of them fails increases too (provided that the individual node failure rate is kept constant). Since you want at least one checkpoint between each typical failure, you would therefore have to checkpoint more and more often as the number of nodes is increased. Hence, the overhead involved with checkpointing goes up as the number of nodes involved increases, and with 100 times more nodes than most clusters use now, this overhead grows to overwhelm the amount of resources used for the actual calculation.
Thanks for spelling that out. I don't know why I missed that reading the article. Your post deserves to be modded +5 informative.
Some of us nerds aren't jealous of athletes because we also get off our asses and do stuff in the real world like play sports and exercise (something other than our typing fingers). Get over yourself.
Complaining that a professional sport (yes, given all the money involved, collegiate sports are essentialy professional) is boring and irrelevant doesn't necessarily indicate jealousy. Lots of people who actually play for personal pleasure think the same thing. Bread and circuses don't become more meaningful just because you like to eat bread yourself.
And for reference, what you describe in your first paragraph is EXACTLY a MapReduce problem. First 100 nodes Map, second hundred nodes Reduce the results. Rinse, repeat.
No it's not. The problem with your description is the "rinse, repeat" part. He's not talking about repeating with new input data. He's talking about a serialized workload where, for example, the output of the first 100 jobs is the input for the next 100 jobs, which then creates output that is the input for the next 100 jobs. It's not a case of repeating, its a case of serialization where if you have not done state check-point and things crater you have to start from the begining to get back where you were. No "standard of coding" can fix that.
The joke in the industry is that supercomputing is a synonym for unreliable computing. Stuff like checkpoint-restart was basically invented on super-computers because it was so easy to lose a week's worth of computations to some random bug. When you have one-off systems or even 100-off systems you just don't get the same kind of field testing that you get regular off-the-shelf systems that sell in the millions.
Now that most "super-computers" are mostly just clusters of off-the-shelf systems we get a different root cause but the results are the same. The problem now seems to be that because the system is so distributed so is the state of the system - with a thousand nodes you've got a thousand sets of processes and ram to checkpoint and you can't do the checkpoints local to each node because if the node dies, you can't retrieve the state of that node.
On the other hand, I am not convinced that the overhead of checkpointing to a neighboring-node once every few of hours is really all that big of a problem. Interconnects are not RAM speed, but with gigabit+ speeds you should be able to dump the entire process state from one node to another in a couple of minutes. Back-of-the-napkin calculations say you could dump 32GB of ram across a gigabit ethernet link in 10 minutes with more than 50% margin for overhead. Doing that once every few hours does not seem like a terrible waste of time.
Basically, since the firearm was unloaded, it was was not an attack, but discharging firearms or making loud noises like that around the head of state is usually not a good thing for anyone.
So a woman claims sexual harassment, states that all the evidence is on her phone, email and facebook, and we're supposed to be outraged that the judge wants the evidence?
Yes, I checked the linked articles to make sure
What?
I checked and rechecked the linked articles and they sure as shit don't say that the plantif stated the evidence is contained in any of those things.
What they do say is that the plantif discussed what she hoped to gain by the lawsuit (money), what kind of employment she might be able to get in the aftermath of the lawsuit and then a whole bunch blame-the-victim kind of thinking. Like complaining that the plantif wore a shirt that said CUNT on it and that because of that she shouldn't have taken offense at a supervisor who called her a cunt.
i would bet if you flipped this backwards the guy himself would have been hung
That's true. It is also irrelevant. The measure of a free society is not in the policies of possibly the worst society in the world. It is measured in how well it lives up to the ideals of freedom.
When your defenses are tested on a regular and ongoing basis, they become very good.
As an aside, that's also the reason the TSA is so utterly incompetent - there have been no serious attacks on the TSA's security system so they have had no motivation to do a good job. If terrorism were as much of an existential threat as so much of the US government keeps telling us, the TSA would be battle-hardned and completely on point instead of the laughingstock they are now.
Probably the best business move that Ebay ever made - sucks for customers but the vertical monopoly it created is great for Ebay. Also occured while Whitman was CEO there.
I'm not a Whitman sycophant, I just think that if you are going to cherry-pick you should at least pick a good cherry when you pick a bad one.
Slashdot Mirror
Understanding the past has nothing to do with making excuses and everything to do with seeking truth.
At the first hearing of nearly every criminal case the defendant is asked to "waive time" Which if agreed to, waives the right to a speedy trial.
Is the choice between a speedy trial and indefinite detention? Or can the defendent waive it for a period of time of his specification after which he can choose to extend it or start the trial?
When women are being assigned a role, they're not being offered restitution.
You seem to be more interested in random misplaced snark than in seeking truth, so have fun with that.
Back in the old days there was lots of talk and more than a couple of companies working on micropayment systems. The idea was that you could pay something like half a cent for a webpage. Prices could be adjusted depending on things like demand and target audience. Quality web sites would prosper, crappy ones would die out. All the good stuff you get from a free market.
But somewhere along the line, advertising usurped that role and no micropayment system ever achieved viability. So now we get useless ad-farms filled with seo-bait, articles on web-sites broken down into one paragraph a page to maximize ad-impressions and worst of all a brain-drain focused on spending billions of dollars for tracking systems to (presumably) more effectively target advertisements (never mind the societal cost of using these tracking system for other purposes) rather than creating new and innovative technology that would benefit man-kind in general.
So I welcome a show-down between advertisers and ad-blockers. There will be casualities, maybe even bullshit where adblock authors see some jail-time. But if the end result is that advertising recedes and we come up with another more straight-forward, less socially-destructive way to fund the creation of high-quality content on the internet it will be a huge step forward for society.
Perhaps they don't bother because the cost of entering an arms race would be too high. If any major site were to block adblock users, you would expect the plugin to quickly route around their attempts.
The internet interprets advertising as damage and routes around it.
Things like "tradition" and "religion" are more about maintaining control than they are about anything else.To ignore that observable social behavior is folly
When I was 18 I would have been right there with you. I would also have said things like government is corruptible so the best thing to do is get rid of all government. Somewhere along the line I learned about nuance -- that black-and-white thinking is rarely a good model for how the world actually works.
With that, I will say that you are absolutely wrong. Tradition and religion are systems for organizing and keeping the continuity of a society and that the vast majority of the time they are useful tools to that end. But nothing is perfect and there will always be people looklng to take advantage of a system to further their own goals. That's going to happen in any system we use to organize civilization, it is inevitable, it is part of the human condition. The trick is to make sure we don't let the system, whatever its basis, calcify in such a way that it prevents us from recognizing and correcting those kinds of situations.
When the role of women in society is to bear and care for children, forcing a woman into spinster-hood is not restitution, even if you pay her way. You are looking at history through a modern lens. Priorities have changed, but that doesn't mean you can pick and choose which parts of the historical context to ignore. Well you can, but it doesn't serve the truth to do it.
OK, so there are parts where men considered superior and parts where women are considered superior.
Well, off the top of my head it is basically that men are considered to be dogs. I mean that in the modern slang sense. The whole bit about women dressing modestly and not being alone in the company of unrelated men is about the belief that men are fundamentally incapable of controlling their sexual urges. Because men have been deciding on the interpretation of things, the result has been that the more regressive the society the more men have used their position of power to push that on to women. For example the idea was originally that men had a duty to accompany the women in their family for their protection, but in regressive and patriarchal places like Saudi that was turned into women requiring permission from a man in their family. Tragically, pre-russian invasion Afghanistan was an example of the opposite where islamic principles had been interpreted to put much of the responsibility for being a dog on the dog, probably even more so than the practical reality of rape prosecutions in the US at the time.
That's true: assholeishness is pervasice throughout the world and is therefore codified in all religions. That's why civilised countries do not base laws on religion.
Religion does not have a monopoy on being an asshole, nor is there anything that fundamentally requires religion to codify asshole beliefs. No matter the system, it all boils down to the people doing the interpretation. There is plenty of scripture in all the major religiions that is anti-asshole. If the people interpreting the law want to be just and fair they can focus on those parts just as judges in secular systems frequently choose between being an asshole on technical grounds rather than actually judging in the spirit of fairness.
Western law now very explicitly makes an effort to codify equality.
How very western of you to read "elevate women above western standards" to mean the western ideal of equality - despite quoting the very first sentence I wrote about islam believing men and women to be different.
I'm not saying that a sharia-based system can't or shouldn't result in effective equality, I'm saying that to judge it based on the results in socially regressive third-world, war-torn dictatorships is putting the cart before the horse. When a deeply religious and regressive country like Pakistan can beat out most of the western world to elect a female leader it should be obvious that there is a lot more to it than the over-simplfied stereotypes that make up most of the public discourse here in the west.
If you married into a Muslim family, then they're exceptional, not average.
Shows how little you know about the real world.
Muslims are no more tribal than any other religious group.
Not being unique to Islam doesn't make it not blaming the victim, which is what it is.
In the original context, the idea was that a woman would not be able to marry unless she was a virgin. So the guy who took her virginity had to make restitution by marrying her. I guess I should have spelled this out, I keep forgetting how little knowledge people have of historical context. But as I said, that sort of result is due to hardline interpretations, there is nothing that says a modern sharia-based justice system must rule that way.
The west has succeeded in fact in codifying equality for women in numerous cases.
I didn't say equal. In fact, I explicitly said different. You are basically arguing that what I wrote is true.
And some law is slanted in favor of women today, e.g. sexual harassment law.
I think you would be hard pressed to find statutes that were slanted in favor of women. Specific rulings and the resultant case law, sure. But that's all about interpretation and sharia is just as much open to interpretation as any other form of law.
Extremism is certainly a problem. But that's orthogonal to men deciding how to apply the rules to women. Both sets of problems are inherent to human nature and not unique to islam.
In islam men and women are believed to be different. Not inferior or superior but different sets of strengths and weaknesses. The part about women's testimony being worth less than a man is only in specific cases, like those involving finances. In the west, you'll find plenty of belief that women are not as good at math as men as well, so it isn't like that is unique to islam. Sure, there are some places which have decided that means in all cases, but again that's men deciding how things are in their favor.
Same thing with rape. The quran does not put the blame on the woman. The remedy is marriage, which is barbaric by modern standards and sure as hell seems like blaming the victim, but it is hardly unique to islam. I personally know an upper-middle-class catholic filipina who was forced to marry her rapist and bear his children -- it took her 15 years and a public skull-bashing on the street at his hand before the same priest finally granted her an annulment. That sort of thing is due to hardline, and frankly uneducated, interpretations by men were the welfare of the woman is secondary.
As for sharia elevating women aboive western standards, it is empirically true because the west doesn't make an effort to codify that at all. Whether in practice it succeeds is another thing entirely. But that was my point - islam shares this problem with plenty of other cultures, like the machismo/marinisma duality of latin culture which was intended to protect women but frequently results in their oppression and the confucian deference to elders who too often use that for personal advantage.
What I'm saying here is that you are naive. You clearly have not "read that good book, and the various legal documents surrounding sharia" either. But having married a girl from an average muslim family, I'm pretty sure I've got a much better handle on this. If I had to guess, I'd say everything you know comes from people with an agenda to denigate islam rather than from the people for whom it is no big deal.
this is in accordance with sharia law too. Which is supposed to elevate women above western standards, or so flappy headed groups keep telling us.
It is suppossed to. The problem is that men are in charge of the implementation and that's a common problem across the entire world. Regardless of the laws on the books, if the people interpreting them are not representative of the people they are applied to, the end result is going to be biased like health insurance paying for viagra but not birth control pills.
The point of the article was that as the number of nodes involved in the calculation increases, the frequency at which at least one of them fails increases too (provided that the individual node failure rate is kept constant). Since you want at least one checkpoint between each typical failure, you would therefore have to checkpoint more and more often as the number of nodes is increased. Hence, the overhead involved with checkpointing goes up as the number of nodes involved increases, and with 100 times more nodes than most clusters use now, this overhead grows to overwhelm the amount of resources used for the actual calculation.
Thanks for spelling that out. I don't know why I missed that reading the article. Your post deserves to be modded +5 informative.
Yeah, I was just using a conservative interconnect that most people here could relate too.
Some of us nerds aren't jealous of athletes because we also get off our asses and do stuff in the real world like play sports and exercise (something other than our typing fingers). Get over yourself.
Complaining that a professional sport (yes, given all the money involved, collegiate sports are essentialy professional) is boring and irrelevant doesn't necessarily indicate jealousy. Lots of people who actually play for personal pleasure think the same thing. Bread and circuses don't become more meaningful just because you like to eat bread yourself.
The reality of hegemonous computing is that failure is almost of no concern. If you have 1/1000 nodes fail, you lose 1/1000th of your capability.
Yeah, no surprise there. Historically, kings have never cared about what happens to the peons.
America would respond in ways that make the entire history of Israeli threat response look like acts of kindness.
That's like a guy who killed his wife saying, "at least I'm not a serial killer."
And for reference, what you describe in your first paragraph is EXACTLY a MapReduce problem. First 100 nodes Map, second hundred nodes Reduce the results. Rinse, repeat.
No it's not. The problem with your description is the "rinse, repeat" part. He's not talking about repeating with new input data. He's talking about a serialized workload where, for example, the output of the first 100 jobs is the input for the next 100 jobs, which then creates output that is the input for the next 100 jobs. It's not a case of repeating, its a case of serialization where if you have not done state check-point and things crater you have to start from the begining to get back where you were. No "standard of coding" can fix that.
The joke in the industry is that supercomputing is a synonym for unreliable computing. Stuff like checkpoint-restart was basically invented on super-computers because it was so easy to lose a week's worth of computations to some random bug. When you have one-off systems or even 100-off systems you just don't get the same kind of field testing that you get regular off-the-shelf systems that sell in the millions.
Now that most "super-computers" are mostly just clusters of off-the-shelf systems we get a different root cause but the results are the same. The problem now seems to be that because the system is so distributed so is the state of the system - with a thousand nodes you've got a thousand sets of processes and ram to checkpoint and you can't do the checkpoints local to each node because if the node dies, you can't retrieve the state of that node.
On the other hand, I am not convinced that the overhead of checkpointing to a neighboring-node once every few of hours is really all that big of a problem. Interconnects are not RAM speed, but with gigabit+ speeds you should be able to dump the entire process state from one node to another in a couple of minutes. Back-of-the-napkin calculations say you could dump 32GB of ram across a gigabit ethernet link in 10 minutes with more than 50% margin for overhead. Doing that once every few hours does not seem like a terrible waste of time.
Basically, since the firearm was unloaded, it was was not an attack, but discharging firearms or making loud noises like that around the head of state is usually not a good thing for anyone.
How does one discharge an unloaded firearm?`
So a woman claims sexual harassment, states that all the evidence is on her phone, email and facebook, and we're supposed to be outraged that the judge wants the evidence?
Yes, I checked the linked articles to make sure
What?
I checked and rechecked the linked articles and they sure as shit don't say that the plantif stated the evidence is contained in any of those things.
What they do say is that the plantif discussed what she hoped to gain by the lawsuit (money), what kind of employment she might be able to get in the aftermath of the lawsuit and then a whole bunch blame-the-victim kind of thinking. Like complaining that the plantif wore a shirt that said CUNT on it and that because of that she shouldn't have taken offense at a supervisor who called her a cunt.
i would bet if you flipped this backwards the guy himself would have been hung
That's true. It is also irrelevant. The measure of a free society is not in the policies of possibly the worst society in the world. It is measured in how well it lives up to the ideals of freedom.
When your defenses are tested on a regular and ongoing basis, they become very good.
As an aside, that's also the reason the TSA is so utterly incompetent - there have been no serious attacks on the TSA's security system so they have had no motivation to do a good job. If terrorism were as much of an existential threat as so much of the US government keeps telling us, the TSA would be battle-hardned and completely on point instead of the laughingstock they are now.
Two words: Skype purchase.
Two more words: Paypal purchase.
Probably the best business move that Ebay ever made - sucks for customers but the vertical monopoly it created is great for Ebay. Also occured while Whitman was CEO there.
I'm not a Whitman sycophant, I just think that if you are going to cherry-pick you should at least pick a good cherry when you pick a bad one.