The rest of what you put down is an incoherent rant that really doesn't have much to do with the issue at hand.
You have to understand, he really hates Hillary Clinton, regardless of facts.
Oh, and government, he really hates all government. And black people. Just be glad the topic isn't black people, black people in government, or government helping poor black people.
Just like you, I do not know the reasons. But I can see, that Asian Americans are more successful than White Americans, and White Americans â" more successful than Black ones. It is evidenced in disproportional college admittance, arrest-records and other measures.
While these things may be your personal beliefs, you actually have not presented any evidence supporting any of it.
Whatever the reasons, the results are indisputable. Calling me "racist" over this is as stupid as blaming someone for stating, Blacks have more melanin in their skin...
The "results" may or may not be true, but you haven't presented any evidence.
I see you only responded to my assertion "you clearly believe black people are inferior," but you don't bother challenging that you haven't supported your claims [...]
Once again, my person is not the topic of this â" nor any other forum on/. Not yet, anyway.
Nice attempt at redirection, but you still haven't addressed your inability to support your claims on the three threads I linked.
Turning the conversation onto the person of your opponent is, by definition, an ad hominem attack. You automatically lose whatever the debate was about...
I see you still do not understand what an ad hominem attack is. If I said "mi is racist, therefore he is wrong about everything," that is an ad hominem attack. Instead, I have debated your claims by researching the topics and building arguments that refute your claims. It wasn't hard, because you have shown yourself to be a poor researcher.
I have also attacked your character, which you have also made easy. I've seen you frequently attack others, and show clear patterns of hate, so you deserve it.
See why I said you wouldn't survive in an academic setting?
Darling, I handed your sorry ass back to you so many times already, I'm surprised, it is not yet falling off on its own. Or maybe it does? That would explain a thing or two...
Actually, you have lost every debate we've had. Linking to opinion pieces may be emotionally satisfying for you, but you have yet to prove a single claim. Most of the time, you haven't even tried; you've clearly just pasted links to articles where the summary agrees with your opinions, but you haven't actually read the articles.
Seek help â" your obsession with my person, however illustrious, has already lead you to stalking â" it is not healthy...
Ha, no, you are posting hate speech in a public forum, so you should expect a strong response. There are young people trying to form opinions here, so I feel obliged to refute you.
You do make specious arguments, but they are exactly that: specious. They do not hold up to a serious inquiry.
Well, here is one from the post you just responded to:
That the Big Education discriminates against Asians and Whites has long been very well known. [...] They simply must discriminate against the more successful races, because otherwise they will have disproportionately many Asians and too few Blacks.
You say asians and whites are "more successful races" than blacks. Are you saying they are more successful because blacks are inferior, or are you saying they are more successful for some other reason?
Or would've been needed, if this article was about my (deeply flawed) person.
Correct! Now, care to respond to my other post asking you for your economic qualifications? You asserted that "market-failure is an anti-capitalist lie," and defended it by saying anyone who doesn't subscribe to the Austrian economic theories is a dishonest Marxist, but couldn't muster support for that dichotomy.
It is not, so shove your little impotent vendetta where the sun don't shine and leave me alone. If you can...
Too much fun!
I see you only responded to my assertion "you clearly believe black people are inferior," but you don't bother challenging that you haven't supported your claims, hate a wide swath of groups, and are attempting to martyr yourself as a hate victim when you just can't defend your own, bigoted beliefs. So you must be conceding those things.
See why I said you wouldn't survive in an academic setting?
Darling, even when evidence is not to your little heart's liking, it is still evidence.
That is true, but irrelevant. You haven't presented facts that indicate your claims are true. That's what evidence is.
That the Big Education discriminates against Asians and Whites has long been very well known.
They simply must discriminate against the more successful races, because otherwise they will have disproportionately many Asians and too few Blacks.
Dats right mah man, mi be da racist for sure...
Yes, you sure are racist. You clearly believe black people are inferior. Believing some races are superior than others is literally the definition of racist.
it sure looks like you hate black people, hate universities, hate Obama, hate towns that start their own broadband, and yeah, really hate black people!
Your grammar as wanting, though â" in the context like this, the preposition "on" is mandatory: "hate on towns", "hate on Black people!", et cætera.
Well, no, you clearly hate black people, hate Obama, hate universities, and hate all forms of government. You openly, passionately dislike all these things. That is what hate means. Don't take my word for it, just google "define hate."
I think I get it! This is what you mean by hating!
No, actually, it is primarily the name-calling and the ad hominem arguments, that dywolf and yourself are so fond of (for lack of anything else), that I consider hateful.
Oh, so you are re-defining what "hate" means. You don't get the play the hate-victim here. I've argued against your claims in 3 threads using fact and reason, and you haven't been able to support anything you've said. That just means you aren't good at debating.
BTW, given the diligent attention you pay to my posts, are you sure, you don't wish to subscribe to my newsletter?
Yes, please! I want to read the most highly biased, poorly researched newsletter on the planet. It amuses me to watch you flounder.
As an aside, you might not do as well in a true meritocracy as you seem to think. Your argumentation is so poor, you could not survive in an academic setting.
Hey, mi! In a previous discussion, you made some bold claims about American universities and black people that you were unable to support with any citation:
That the Big Education discriminates against Asians and Whites has long been very well known.
They simply must discriminate against the more successful races, because otherwise they will have disproportionately many Asians and too few Blacks.
In another discussion, you claimed that towns who attempt to run their own broadband will most likely fail spectacularly, but you were unable to support these claims with a citation:
What I meant is that if the town does not have people capable of running an ISP, but creates one anyway, the service will be horrible and yet, because of governmental monopoly, nobody else would offer competing service either. The townfolk will be settled with that bond (or, more likely, a tax-hike) and shitty service. Congratulations.
And in another discussion, you asserted that anyone who didn't believe 100% in the Austrian economic theories is a dishonest Marxist, but you couldn't explain why, or offer any economic credentials.
If you can't provide evidence for all these claims, are you going to rescind them?
More importantly, if you can't support your claims, are you going to still believe them?
Because, if you can't support these claims yet continue to believe them, it shows you are highly biased.
Wait a minute.. it sure looks like you hate black people, hate universities, hate Obama, hate towns that start their own broadband, and yeah, really hate black people!
I think I get it! This is what you mean by hating!
My question was, why -- if people capable of running an ISP live in or near the own -- would they not form a private ISP of their own, enjoy the modest 45% profit margin and the adoration of neighbors?
Well, 45% isn't necessarily a modest margin, depending on the business model and whether you're talking net or gross, but I take it you are offering this as a workaround to the state law banning municipalities from running broadband service.
The most immediate problem would be getting the business loan. Rolling out these services takes a lot of up-front capital, which is one of the reasons why these towns don't have broadband from Comcast/Time Warner/whoever. Those companies didn't think it was worth their investment. A town can secure a bond because it has the backing of a municipality.. It might be very difficult for a fledgling business to get such a large loan.
Maybe you're asking about the townspeoples' motivation? Or suggesting that, since they don't work at an ISP, they won't have the skills to run a small provider? These questions are too abstract to answer. But, if they aren't hurting anybody, I don't see why the state government should ban the behavior.
because, infamously, you can not fight city hall
The people of the town can elect or depose the leaders of city hall.
Yes. Same applies to the State legislature.
Not really relevant - more of a non sequitur.
What I meant is that if the town does not have people capable of running an ISP, but creates one anyway, the service will be horrible and yet, because of governmental monopoly, nobody else would offer competing service either. The townfolk will be settled with that bond (or, more likely, a tax-hike) and shitty service. Congratulations.
I think you're getting too far into conjecture here. You seem to be assuming the town will fail at their service. You're also assuming the government will enforce a monopoly. Can you make the argument that municipalities are inherently unable to run a service? Even if you can, do you have the right to take away their right to try?
Very simply, if the town has expertise to run an ISP, why wouldn't not those people form a private company to do it?
Ignoring your double negative, it's because the town doesn't want to pay obscene 90+% profit margins that leave the town and don't help its economy. They want to pay the upfront costs using a bond, then run the broadband service at cost.
Private companies know they can't compete with a service run at cost, and that's why they lobby to ban them outright.
because, infamously, you can not fight city hall
The people of the town can elect or depose the leaders of city hall.
And if they don't, their establishing a governmental ISP anyway will preclude anybody with a clue from ever setting up shop...
As a follow-up, I found the final paper by Rubin. She revised "Underrepresented race/ethnicity" to "Membership in an under-represented group," and specifically addressed what this meant:
Further, when asked what "membership in an underrepresented group" means, several respondents clarified that it is not simply based on race, ethnicity, or income status, but that it could be under-represented in terms of academic interests, life circumstances, geography, or "a host of other factors."
But, jesting aside, the 2011 article you dismiss as "one-girl story" says:
Studies show that Asian-Americans meet these colleges' admissions standards far out of proportion to their 6 percent representation in the U.S. population, and that they often need test scores hundreds of points higher than applicants from other ethnic groups to have an equal chance of admission. Critics say these numbers, along with the fact that some top colleges with race-blind admissions have double the Asian percentage of Ivy League schools, prove the existence of discrimination.
That is not a citation. It says "studies show..." but there are no studies cited.
Seems rather convincing to me
Bias does not need evidence to convince it.
What? Since when is one girl's account not enough to prove everything and destroy the reputations of all involved?[unrelated links to rape allegation removed]
Ah finally! That's somewhat of a citation. That wasn't hard, was it? Let's actually read the article so we can parse what's going on.
A minority of elite colleges and universities (21 percent) starts off on measures of "institutional fit." These colleges do the initial cut based on student essays, recommendations and specific questions of whether particular students will thrive at and contribute to the college in various ways. In an interview, Rubin said she believed that these colleges also valued academic merit, but that the vast majority of applicants had an appropriate level of academic merit, so that could be weighed later, while other parts of "creating a class" needed to dominate at the point of first cut.
Ok, so the researcher says that 21% of elite schools consider "institutional fit" to cut down the volume of applications, because "the vast majority of applicants had an appropriate level of academic merit."
This is followed by a table that says, of that 21% of schools, 42% consider "Underrepresented race/ethnicity" as the most important variable in "institutional fit," and another 42% consider "Exceptional talent" as the most important variable.
And now you draw this conclusion:
They simply must discriminate against the more successful races
You've taken some very dilute evidence (42% of 21% of schools that responded to the survey report they consider underrepresented races, which are not necessarily black) to make a very strong claim against "Big Education," which I suppose includes all colleges and universities.
[...] because otherwise they will have disproportionately many Asians and too few Blacks.
The article said nothing about that. Here is what it does say:
One private university dean noted, 'The hardest part is that everyone [in the school community] wants more of something and it's a balancing act -- it's a zero sum game. Size [of the school] is fixed, but faculty, trustees, etc., want more students of color, more athletes, more great pianists....
So, this sounds like universities choose students holistically to fit their needs. This is not surprising... Grad schools don't always accept students based on raw GRE scores and GPA; they are frequently picked by how their research interests overlap with the specialties at the school. That's not meritorious, either.
You still haven't come close to proving your claims. Try again.
In Japan, in Korea, in China they do not have AA --- and their economies are growing leaps and bounds and everybody can attest to their technological achievements
The problems Affirmative Action is meant to address are complex, so beware of easy answers. On one hand, I've known high-achieving black people who don't like AA because they feel it cheapens their accomplishments. On the other hand, it's trying to set things right following a long, seriously fucked up history of institutionalized racism in the USA. Not that things are ever going to get set right. There's no goal line - maybe that's part of the problem.
This is a good argument for looking at more than meritorious criteria like GPA and SAT/GRE scores.
Good schools regularly look at more than these things. A good Statement of Purpose is essential for getting into most top-notch grad schools, and the SoP does not necessarily indicate merit; it paints a picture of who you are, how you think, and where your ambitions lie.
That the Big Education discriminates against Asians and Whites has long been very well known.
Citation needed.
Asians in particular have been advised to not identify their race [usatoday.com] at all â" this would put them into the same category as Whites, which is an improvement. For ultimate win, claiming to be Black [washingtonpost.com] â" if you can pull it off â" is the best. The suit, apparently, compares the treatment of Asians with that of Blacks â" which is a safer ground â" but the real outrage is the Black privilege [almostblack.com]... Too bad, the claimants in this suit are too chicken to go all the way.
None of these links cite any studies. The first is the story of a girl who believes that claiming Asian ethnicity would hurt her. The second and third are both the same guy's story, who believes that claiming he is black increased his chances. Nobody cites studies, and the guy even admits he hasn't proven anything (emphasis mine):
This page has extensive documentation [...] that supports my story that I applied to medical schools in 1998/1999 as a black man. And that I likely gained admission because of it.
That said, I'm not surprised that this sort of thing goes on at Ivy League schools like Harvard, but primarily to allow them to admit "legacy" students, who are children of other Harvard alumni. Harvard has been open about this practice, and has also been open about the fact that they do it to collect more money from alumni: https://web.archive.org/web/20100414175342/http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2004_11/q_a.html
Yale Alumni Magazine: So part of it is straightforward financial self-interest. And what about the alumni who were legacies themselves? Are they better donors than the non-legacies?
Rick Levin, Yale President: Absolutely. No doubt about it. Legacy students, when they become adults, are on average significantly more generous donors. People develop an allegiance to the institution that strengthens over generations. Look at the people active as volunteers -- many are legacies.
My main question is how damn stupid are the humans they are using to have a >5% error rate looking at pictures.
This was the first thing I thought after reading the summary, too. I had to dig into a paper about the 2014 ImageNet challenge, but here is the likely answer:
The most common error that an untrained annotator is susceptible to is a failure to consider a relevant class as a possible label because they are unaware of its existence.
My second question was, if humans failed to label the images correctly, how did they get a correct label in the first place?
The methodology they used just to label the images is impressively sophisticated. Briefly, they crowdsourced through Amazon Mechanical Turk. A first person would draw bounding boxes around individual items in each image, then additional people would classify the items in each box. Only when a majority of labelers agreed on a label did they consider the label correct.
You're the third person to miss the point of what I wrote. The other two posted as AC, though, so I guess I should give you some credit. Here's what I wrote in reply to the first one:
I didn't compare anything. I suggested some muslims may be ignoring their religion, and gave examples from the dominant religion in my country and how its principles get ignored.
Hey, I think you have a pretty good summary of what the Bible teaches here, but I personally know Christians who do not live those values at all. That was my point.
Can't comment on the koran, as I've spent exactly zero time studying it. Something tells me we aren't going to have anybody stick up for islam on this thread.
And that some how compares to Islamic practice of running down reporters and meat cleaving them to death, gunning down authors, mass murder of dumping refugees into the ocean, and then the whole sale mass murder of civilians. Yeah, not the same. Being labeled an a**hat is far different than subjugating via murder.
As I told the other poster, I wasn't trying to compare acts. So, I didn't pick comparable acts. If I wanted to, there is a long history of murder and oppression in the West I could have listed.
I really love the part where you just compared chasing a guy down with machetes and cleavers to anything that happens in the US.
I didn't compare anything. I suggested some muslims may be ignoring their religion, and gave examples from the dominant religion in my country and how its principles get ignored.
If Islam is like American-style Christianity, its followers actively ignore the words of their own prophet so they can do whatever atrocious shit they wanted to do anyway.
For Christianity, that means hating gays, subjugating minorities, and living a selfish, materialistic life while judging others.
Not only is there no biblical basis for those things, the RED words in the bible point the exactly opposite direction.
What are you even talking about? journalctl -a -f will output the logs straight from memory.
I worked back through journalctl's "follow" code into the journal library, and this does not seem to be true. The journal library mmap()s the requested journal files to memory, and uses inotify event queues to watch for updates to the file. So, the disk is definitely in the middle, and I think my earlier criticism stands.
From your message, I thought maybe journalctl actually connected to journald and got copies of log messages before they were written out, but that does not seem to be the case.
OTOH, mmap()ing a large file should be more efficient than using the regular read() system calls, so at least there's that. But putting the disk in the middle is such a strange design decision. E.g. I assume if you don't write certain messages to a journal, then they can't be sent over the network.
You may be looking in the wrong place -- there is a lib for reading the journal, journalctl is just a simple client.
Indeed. I figured I would start at journalctl since I know the functionality is there.
Found pretty much what I was looking for - the journal library mmap()s the requested journal file and watches for additions using inotify event queues. So, everything is going through the disk before it goes out to the network.
I'm still not crazy about that design, but from what PeterHS was saying, maybe rsyslog is still the preferred method of sending logs over the network.
For what it's worth, the journalctl/libjournal code I looked through was pretty clean and easy to follow. There are a decent amount of sanity checks, which is a good sign. I disagree with the design decisions, but the code was a good bit better than most open source code I've seen. Hell, probably better than most closed source I don't get to see.
Take it easy - I'm not an anti-sysd zealot, just a skeptic.
Since you brought it up, though, the Unix way of forwarding logs has been to add an IP to/etc/syslog.conf. You shouldn't need to run userspace tools piped through netcat to get that (I understand that since sysd 216, you don't need to).
My original concern was that journald was not designed from the ground up to work in a large multi-system environment. Since I posted that, I found a doc from 2011 that announced journald and declared intent to make it distribute logs over the network, so I'll have to give the authors the benefit of the doubt until I dig in and understand the architecture better.
Speaking of the architecture, I'm still trying to find a doc or diagram that explains the memory mapping used by journalctl to follow logs. Haven't found it yet, so maybe I'll have to look through the source for that. It's really the kind of thing that should be documented, though. Lennart isn't some kid working out of his basement; this project has all the resources of Redhat behind it.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to understand, he really hates Hillary Clinton, regardless of facts.
Oh, and government, he really hates all government. And black people. Just be glad the topic isn't black people, black people in government, or government helping poor black people.
While these things may be your personal beliefs, you actually have not presented any evidence supporting any of it.
The "results" may or may not be true, but you haven't presented any evidence.
Nice attempt at redirection, but you still haven't addressed your inability to support your claims on the three threads I linked.
I see you still do not understand what an ad hominem attack is. If I said "mi is racist, therefore he is wrong about everything," that is an ad hominem attack. Instead, I have debated your claims by researching the topics and building arguments that refute your claims. It wasn't hard, because you have shown yourself to be a poor researcher.
I have also attacked your character, which you have also made easy. I've seen you frequently attack others, and show clear patterns of hate, so you deserve it.
Actually, you have lost every debate we've had. Linking to opinion pieces may be emotionally satisfying for you, but you have yet to prove a single claim. Most of the time, you haven't even tried; you've clearly just pasted links to articles where the summary agrees with your opinions, but you haven't actually read the articles.
Ha, no, you are posting hate speech in a public forum, so you should expect a strong response. There are young people trying to form opinions here, so I feel obliged to refute you.
You do make specious arguments, but they are exactly that: specious. They do not hold up to a serious inquiry.
Well, here is one from the post you just responded to:
You say asians and whites are "more successful races" than blacks. Are you saying they are more successful because blacks are inferior, or are you saying they are more successful for some other reason?
Correct! Now, care to respond to my other post asking you for your economic qualifications? You asserted that "market-failure is an anti-capitalist lie," and defended it by saying anyone who doesn't subscribe to the Austrian economic theories is a dishonest Marxist, but couldn't muster support for that dichotomy.
Too much fun!
I see you only responded to my assertion "you clearly believe black people are inferior," but you don't bother challenging that you haven't supported your claims, hate a wide swath of groups, and are attempting to martyr yourself as a hate victim when you just can't defend your own, bigoted beliefs. So you must be conceding those things.
See why I said you wouldn't survive in an academic setting?
That is true, but irrelevant. You haven't presented facts that indicate your claims are true. That's what evidence is.
Yes, you sure are racist. You clearly believe black people are inferior. Believing some races are superior than others is literally the definition of racist.
Well, no, you clearly hate black people, hate Obama, hate universities, and hate all forms of government. You openly, passionately dislike all these things. That is what hate means. Don't take my word for it, just google "define hate."
Oh, so you are re-defining what "hate" means. You don't get the play the hate-victim here. I've argued against your claims in 3 threads using fact and reason, and you haven't been able to support anything you've said. That just means you aren't good at debating.
Yes, please! I want to read the most highly biased, poorly researched newsletter on the planet. It amuses me to watch you flounder.
As an aside, you might not do as well in a true meritocracy as you seem to think. Your argumentation is so poor, you could not survive in an academic setting.
Hey, mi! In a previous discussion, you made some bold claims about American universities and black people that you were unable to support with any citation:
In another discussion, you claimed that towns who attempt to run their own broadband will most likely fail spectacularly, but you were unable to support these claims with a citation:
And in another discussion, you asserted that anyone who didn't believe 100% in the Austrian economic theories is a dishonest Marxist, but you couldn't explain why, or offer any economic credentials.
If you can't provide evidence for all these claims, are you going to rescind them?
More importantly, if you can't support your claims, are you going to still believe them?
Because, if you can't support these claims yet continue to believe them, it shows you are highly biased.
Wait a minute.. it sure looks like you hate black people, hate universities, hate Obama, hate towns that start their own broadband, and yeah, really hate black people!
I think I get it! This is what you mean by hating!
You seem to be saying there are only the Austrian school of economics and the Marxist school of economics.
There are a lot of actual economists who would disagree with you. How are you qualified to make this claim?
Well, 45% isn't necessarily a modest margin, depending on the business model and whether you're talking net or gross, but I take it you are offering this as a workaround to the state law banning municipalities from running broadband service.
The most immediate problem would be getting the business loan. Rolling out these services takes a lot of up-front capital, which is one of the reasons why these towns don't have broadband from Comcast/Time Warner/whoever. Those companies didn't think it was worth their investment. A town can secure a bond because it has the backing of a municipality.. It might be very difficult for a fledgling business to get such a large loan.
Maybe you're asking about the townspeoples' motivation? Or suggesting that, since they don't work at an ISP, they won't have the skills to run a small provider? These questions are too abstract to answer. But, if they aren't hurting anybody, I don't see why the state government should ban the behavior.
Not really relevant - more of a non sequitur.
I think you're getting too far into conjecture here. You seem to be assuming the town will fail at their service. You're also assuming the government will enforce a monopoly. Can you make the argument that municipalities are inherently unable to run a service? Even if you can, do you have the right to take away their right to try?
Ignoring your double negative, it's because the town doesn't want to pay obscene 90+% profit margins that leave the town and don't help its economy. They want to pay the upfront costs using a bond, then run the broadband service at cost.
Private companies know they can't compete with a service run at cost, and that's why they lobby to ban them outright.
The people of the town can elect or depose the leaders of city hall.
What do you mean?
Please, don't, hate
As a follow-up, I found the final paper by Rubin. She revised "Underrepresented race/ethnicity" to "Membership in an under-represented group," and specifically addressed what this meant:
That is not a citation. It says "studies show..." but there are no studies cited.
Bias does not need evidence to convince it.
Uhh.. what? Were we talking about rape?
Ah finally! That's somewhat of a citation. That wasn't hard, was it? Let's actually read the article so we can parse what's going on.
Ok, so the researcher says that 21% of elite schools consider "institutional fit" to cut down the volume of applications, because "the vast majority of applicants had an appropriate level of academic merit."
This is followed by a table that says, of that 21% of schools, 42% consider "Underrepresented race/ethnicity" as the most important variable in "institutional fit," and another 42% consider "Exceptional talent" as the most important variable.
And now you draw this conclusion:
You've taken some very dilute evidence (42% of 21% of schools that responded to the survey report they consider underrepresented races, which are not necessarily black) to make a very strong claim against "Big Education," which I suppose includes all colleges and universities.
The article said nothing about that. Here is what it does say:
So, this sounds like universities choose students holistically to fit their needs. This is not surprising... Grad schools don't always accept students based on raw GRE scores and GPA; they are frequently picked by how their research interests overlap with the specialties at the school. That's not meritorious, either.
You still haven't come close to proving your claims. Try again.
To be fair, China is growing in part due to "a massive transfer of wealth in the form of intellectual property that is unprecedented in history"
The problems Affirmative Action is meant to address are complex, so beware of easy answers. On one hand, I've known high-achieving black people who don't like AA because they feel it cheapens their accomplishments. On the other hand, it's trying to set things right following a long, seriously fucked up history of institutionalized racism in the USA. Not that things are ever going to get set right. There's no goal line - maybe that's part of the problem.
This is a good argument for looking at more than meritorious criteria like GPA and SAT/GRE scores.
Good schools regularly look at more than these things. A good Statement of Purpose is essential for getting into most top-notch grad schools, and the SoP does not necessarily indicate merit; it paints a picture of who you are, how you think, and where your ambitions lie.
Citation needed.
None of these links cite any studies. The first is the story of a girl who believes that claiming Asian ethnicity would hurt her. The second and third are both the same guy's story, who believes that claiming he is black increased his chances. Nobody cites studies, and the guy even admits he hasn't proven anything (emphasis mine):
That said, I'm not surprised that this sort of thing goes on at Ivy League schools like Harvard, but primarily to allow them to admit "legacy" students, who are children of other Harvard alumni. Harvard has been open about this practice, and has also been open about the fact that they do it to collect more money from alumni: https://web.archive.org/web/20100414175342/http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2004_11/q_a.html
This was the first thing I thought after reading the summary, too. I had to dig into a paper about the 2014 ImageNet challenge, but here is the likely answer:
My second question was, if humans failed to label the images correctly, how did they get a correct label in the first place?
The methodology they used just to label the images is impressively sophisticated. Briefly, they crowdsourced through Amazon Mechanical Turk. A first person would draw bounding boxes around individual items in each image, then additional people would classify the items in each box. Only when a majority of labelers agreed on a label did they consider the label correct.
You're the third person to miss the point of what I wrote. The other two posted as AC, though, so I guess I should give you some credit. Here's what I wrote in reply to the first one:
I didn't compare anything. I suggested some muslims may be ignoring their religion, and gave examples from the dominant religion in my country and how its principles get ignored.
Hey, I think you have a pretty good summary of what the Bible teaches here, but I personally know Christians who do not live those values at all. That was my point.
Can't comment on the koran, as I've spent exactly zero time studying it. Something tells me we aren't going to have anybody stick up for islam on this thread.
As I told the other poster, I wasn't trying to compare acts. So, I didn't pick comparable acts. If I wanted to, there is a long history of murder and oppression in the West I could have listed.
I didn't compare anything. I suggested some muslims may be ignoring their religion, and gave examples from the dominant religion in my country and how its principles get ignored.
I should add, not all the followers do those things, but the ones that do are pretty shameless about it.
If Islam is like American-style Christianity, its followers actively ignore the words of their own prophet so they can do whatever atrocious shit they wanted to do anyway.
For Christianity, that means hating gays, subjugating minorities, and living a selfish, materialistic life while judging others.
Not only is there no biblical basis for those things, the RED words in the bible point the exactly opposite direction.
I worked back through journalctl's "follow" code into the journal library, and this does not seem to be true. The journal library mmap()s the requested journal files to memory, and uses inotify event queues to watch for updates to the file. So, the disk is definitely in the middle, and I think my earlier criticism stands.
From your message, I thought maybe journalctl actually connected to journald and got copies of log messages before they were written out, but that does not seem to be the case.
OTOH, mmap()ing a large file should be more efficient than using the regular read() system calls, so at least there's that. But putting the disk in the middle is such a strange design decision. E.g. I assume if you don't write certain messages to a journal, then they can't be sent over the network.
Indeed. I figured I would start at journalctl since I know the functionality is there.
Found pretty much what I was looking for - the journal library mmap()s the requested journal file and watches for additions using inotify event queues. So, everything is going through the disk before it goes out to the network.
I'm still not crazy about that design, but from what PeterHS was saying, maybe rsyslog is still the preferred method of sending logs over the network.
For what it's worth, the journalctl/libjournal code I looked through was pretty clean and easy to follow. There are a decent amount of sanity checks, which is a good sign. I disagree with the design decisions, but the code was a good bit better than most open source code I've seen. Hell, probably better than most closed source I don't get to see.
Thanks for the links. Last time I looked into this, the remote features were still a feature request.
Maybe I'm not understanding you, but I thought journal was meant to be superior to syslog and eventually supplant it.
Take it easy - I'm not an anti-sysd zealot, just a skeptic.
Since you brought it up, though, the Unix way of forwarding logs has been to add an IP to /etc/syslog.conf. You shouldn't need to run userspace tools piped through netcat to get that (I understand that since sysd 216, you don't need to).
My original concern was that journald was not designed from the ground up to work in a large multi-system environment. Since I posted that, I found a doc from 2011 that announced journald and declared intent to make it distribute logs over the network, so I'll have to give the authors the benefit of the doubt until I dig in and understand the architecture better.
Speaking of the architecture, I'm still trying to find a doc or diagram that explains the memory mapping used by journalctl to follow logs. Haven't found it yet, so maybe I'll have to look through the source for that. It's really the kind of thing that should be documented, though. Lennart isn't some kid working out of his basement; this project has all the resources of Redhat behind it.