OSX does have some portions of it with a microkernel architecture, complete with userspace servers, but the vast majority of it deals with talking back and forth to the massive monolithic BSD tumor grafted onto the side of Mach. I guess you could technically call it a "hybrid", but for most intents and purposes, it's a monolithic kernel with some microkernel primitives that are bloody awkward to use.
Of all the kernel work I've done, there's nothing more vile than working with Darwin, while Minix, complete with its shortcomings is actually a breeze to work in.
Well sure, that's the anaerobic decomposition portion of the equation.
However, do you think those little microbes are pulling carbon from the rock?
Of course the production of any and all fossil fuels is ongoing. The problem is the time scales needed to produce an appreciable amount of them, and the geological structures required to facilitate the wholesale conversion into an extractable hydrocarbon.
In summary, and correct me if I'm wrong (with real citations, please), things die. These dead things leave carbon in the ground. Heat, pressure, and in some cases bacterial processes convert said carbon into hydrocarbons. If the geology is right, you'll get a big concentration of these. How is the fuel not fossil? What evidence that a significant amount of hydrocarbons with a recent origin have been extracted from a well? (Why did they just start eating that organic carbon that was fixed into the ground hundreds of millions of years ago?)
It's not a product of the anaerobic decomposition of millions of years worth of dead plankton, algae, and any other carbon-based microbiota that lived in ancient seas?
I never fell in love with a programming language until I met Lua. I don't get to use it much these days, but I have fond memories of tasks accomplished in beautiful ways with it.
I also have a bizarre sado-masochistic relationship with Perl, though, so I probably can't be trusted. I just can't let it go. It's so dirty. I wouldn't marry it, but it will it do a lot of things your wife won't.
Again, no. That is not what this ruling allows.
It's far more narrow than that.
The ruling allows a government to take private property with just compensation for the benefit of another private party where that private party's good coincides with the public good.
This was an ex parte temporary restraining order. An order where a single party asks for relief from the judiciary under extreme circumstances temporarily without the other party having to be present.
I fully understand the similarities you are trying to point out, but they still *do not apply*.
Anyone who has been in an unfortunate business partnership has probably seen their private property temporarily controlled by another party under the order of an ex parte TRO, or at least an attempt at it. A common use is to seize assets before someone can wipe your data off of them.
Basically, any injunction that a judge has the power to grant on a retraining order can be done ex parte, where law allows.
About the only leg you have to stand on is that David Souter eventually became *less* conservative.
But voting with Scalia 85% of the time is pretty much as close to "Not Liberal" as one gets.
The right wing may be disappointed in their picks, because these specific Justices aren't quite cartoon-character right-wing ideologues, but they're definitely far from liberal.
It does actually. A single sentence, the 5th amendment, applies to the states via the 14th.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It's called "the Takings clause".
Kelo was limited to eminent domain cases. Specifically, eminent domain cases and the interpretation of "public use".
A dissent does not set precedent, and I fully agree with her dissent.
That said, it *still* does not apply to an ex parte TRO. What MS did has been done for a long time in many jurisdictions. This may be the biggest profile questionable application of the ex parte TRO, but it's not the first or last of its kind, and it's in no way relevant to an eminent domain ruling.
Or the liberal Presidents who appointed them! Like Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill Clinton.
This is also hardly a case of a municipality taking property by right of eminent domain and giving it to another private party for economic development.
That ruling has sets absolutely no precedent that applies to this case.
The liberal Justices nominated by Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Bill Clinton?
Me thinks your world-view is distorted by the political fog you've immersed your brain in.
Beyond that, this isn't remotely a case of eminent domain. That case sets no precedent for this, or is even useful as a reference. I see you have been accurately moderated.
You took a serious concern about importing indentured servants and turned it into a stereotype of a racial stereotyper?
I have no problem with immigration, and I have no problem with corporate sponsored visas to that end. The problem I, and many have, is that an H1-B visa allows you to pull someone in with highly theoretical rights. Given legislation that already makes it so programmers in general are commonly subjected to a de-facto requirement of uncompensated 20-30 hours past 40, you cannot tell me there is a shortage of actual labor. Only a shortage of cheap labor. And in an industry that has cash spewing out of its pores, that's a pile of bullshit. At least right now though, I can use my extra hours to justify a wage significantly above "prevailing". Every person they pull in from a culture that is more used to their people being corporate slaves increases the economic pressure for me to behave like one.
The H1-B needs fixing. If they want to import labor due to an actual labor shortage, import them without caveat. That labor shortage doesn't really exist though.
Read the Militia Act sometime. No, the National Guard is NOT the State militia.
To which Militia Act do you refer? 1903? The 1933 bill that made it a component of the Army Reserve?
I'm not sure a change to create a national standard for militia fitness and organization really makes it "not a State Militia" anymore.
Each State's national guard (minus a period between 2007-2008 when section 1078 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 was in effect) is still answerable to that State's Governor as the sole Commander In Chief, when not federalized.
I think we all agree that it's bullshit federalizing them to fight wars that are anything but existential threats, but they've been federalized during national emergencies from the get-go, and indeed Article II of the Constitution provides for congressional organization, regulation, and federalization of the State Militias, the ability to call them into service for the US, and delegate that authority to the Executive, should Congress so wish it.
"good faith", or in legalese, bona fide, actually has a huge part to play in all civil law.
Judges have also traditionally been pretty unsympathetic to people acting in a non bona fide fashion, whether it's specifically in the contract or not.
You don't load-balance inbound data across multiple providers.
We peer with Netflix for precisely this reason. They were crushing a single of our upstreams at any point in time. Unfortunately, Netflix does *not* peer openly, unless they're doing it on a public IX. Once they started peering at SIX though, we jumped on the wagon quick.
That is to say- Internet connections are *not* resilient in the way you're using the word, or even designed to be so. In the case of failure, routing protocols are certainly designed to find alternate paths, but you simply don't get load balancing across multiple ASNs.
Should I also be able to force Netflix to peer with me?
Should every company in my building with "eyes" (customers) be able to force Netflix to peer with them?
I can't defend Verizon's business choice to refuse to address the needs of some large portion of their customer base, but I, as Network Engineer for a smaller ISP, can say with absolute certainty that forcing peering arrangements is ridiculously bad. It's equivalent to forcing a gas station operator to have fittings for every possible form of vehicle gas receptacle, with nothing to standardize it. You *have* to let the market determine these sorts of things, otherwise, we need a new bill in the legislation for every network we feel is important enough to circumvent the freedoms of the market.
No ISP promises the provisioned bandwidth to any network on the internet.
You're paying for a connection to the internet, and a certain amount of bandwidth from your home to the edges of your provider's network. If your providers peering arrangements suck, then you get a new provider. If you can't get a new provider, then you lobby for service provider de-monopolization.
OR, I suppose you could just try to force them to peer with everyone via legislative fiat. Because that will scale fantastically.
Please stop using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. It's not some political epithet to throw around at any political entity that flips its finger to checks and balances.
I recently upgraded my Q9650 to a Haswell i7 4770.
I loved my Q9650. It performed stably and admirably and stayed relevant for a very long time (and is still relevant today), but my 4770 eats its lunch in ways I never imagined when buying it.
I write a lot of memory-intensive multi-core one-off software, and in some workloads my 4770 is close to twice as fast.
Anecdotal, and YMMV on real-world workloads, but the generations after Nehalem really are worth the money if you're lifting heavy weight with your CPU.
"The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by an arm of the United Nations most recently in 2005, shows the difference between reported crime and all crimes committed by conducting polls that ask people if they've been victims of specific crimes. Polling data showed that England and Wales had 2,600 cases of robbery per 100,000 population and 8,100 cases of "assaults and threats" per 100,000. While those figures are even higher than the meme suggested, the U.S levels are also much higher -- 1,100 cases of robbery and 8,300 cases of assaults and threats per 100,000. And the rate of sexual assault is actually about 50 percent higher in the United States than it is in England and Wales. So this data set doesn’t support the thrust of the meme, either."
"We rate the claim False."
But ya, you're totally right. The irony in posting a debunking of a political ideology propaganda meme in support of the message of the propaganda, and then using the mistaken post to support the claim that is intolerant of facts... is pretty awesome actually. The debunking of a meme gets assimilated by the meme, and used to further spread the meme, in the hopes that none of the meme's targets actually read the debunking. Could make an interesting psychological virology thesis.
Slashdot Mirror
OSX does have some portions of it with a microkernel architecture, complete with userspace servers, but the vast majority of it deals with talking back and forth to the massive monolithic BSD tumor grafted onto the side of Mach. I guess you could technically call it a "hybrid", but for most intents and purposes, it's a monolithic kernel with some microkernel primitives that are bloody awkward to use.
Of all the kernel work I've done, there's nothing more vile than working with Darwin, while Minix, complete with its shortcomings is actually a breeze to work in.
Well sure, that's the anaerobic decomposition portion of the equation.
However, do you think those little microbes are pulling carbon from the rock?
Of course the production of any and all fossil fuels is ongoing. The problem is the time scales needed to produce an appreciable amount of them, and the geological structures required to facilitate the wholesale conversion into an extractable hydrocarbon.
In summary, and correct me if I'm wrong (with real citations, please), things die. These dead things leave carbon in the ground. Heat, pressure, and in some cases bacterial processes convert said carbon into hydrocarbons. If the geology is right, you'll get a big concentration of these. How is the fuel not fossil? What evidence that a significant amount of hydrocarbons with a recent origin have been extracted from a well? (Why did they just start eating that organic carbon that was fixed into the ground hundreds of millions of years ago?)
It isn't?
It's not a product of the anaerobic decomposition of millions of years worth of dead plankton, algae, and any other carbon-based microbiota that lived in ancient seas?
I never fell in love with a programming language until I met Lua. I don't get to use it much these days, but I have fond memories of tasks accomplished in beautiful ways with it.
I also have a bizarre sado-masochistic relationship with Perl, though, so I probably can't be trusted. I just can't let it go. It's so dirty. I wouldn't marry it, but it will it do a lot of things your wife won't.
Again, no. That is not what this ruling allows.
It's far more narrow than that.
The ruling allows a government to take private property with just compensation for the benefit of another private party where that private party's good coincides with the public good.
This was an ex parte temporary restraining order. An order where a single party asks for relief from the judiciary under extreme circumstances temporarily without the other party having to be present.
I fully understand the similarities you are trying to point out, but they still *do not apply*.
Anyone who has been in an unfortunate business partnership has probably seen their private property temporarily controlled by another party under the order of an ex parte TRO, or at least an attempt at it. A common use is to seize assets before someone can wipe your data off of them.
Basically, any injunction that a judge has the power to grant on a retraining order can be done ex parte, where law allows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
About the only leg you have to stand on is that David Souter eventually became *less* conservative.
But voting with Scalia 85% of the time is pretty much as close to "Not Liberal" as one gets.
The right wing may be disappointed in their picks, because these specific Justices aren't quite cartoon-character right-wing ideologues, but they're definitely far from liberal.
Got it, since he's left of the current right, he's left.
I suppose that makes Hitler Good because Stalin was worse.
6 feet above 12 feet under water is still under water.
It does actually. A single sentence, the 5th amendment, applies to the states via the 14th.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It's called "the Takings clause".
Kelo was limited to eminent domain cases. Specifically, eminent domain cases and the interpretation of "public use".
A dissent does not set precedent, and I fully agree with her dissent.
That said, it *still* does not apply to an ex parte TRO. What MS did has been done for a long time in many jurisdictions. This may be the biggest profile questionable application of the ex parte TRO, but it's not the first or last of its kind, and it's in no way relevant to an eminent domain ruling.
Wrong again. But if you keep posting it, maybe 1 or 2 people will take your word for it instead of reading what that actually is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...
Or the liberal Presidents who appointed them! Like Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill Clinton.
This is also hardly a case of a municipality taking property by right of eminent domain and giving it to another private party for economic development.
That ruling has sets absolutely no precedent that applies to this case.
The liberal Justices nominated by Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Bill Clinton?
Me thinks your world-view is distorted by the political fog you've immersed your brain in.
Beyond that, this isn't remotely a case of eminent domain. That case sets no precedent for this, or is even useful as a reference. I see you have been accurately moderated.
Fuck you with a soldering iron, seriously.
You took a serious concern about importing indentured servants and turned it into a stereotype of a racial stereotyper?
I have no problem with immigration, and I have no problem with corporate sponsored visas to that end. The problem I, and many have, is that an H1-B visa allows you to pull someone in with highly theoretical rights. Given legislation that already makes it so programmers in general are commonly subjected to a de-facto requirement of uncompensated 20-30 hours past 40, you cannot tell me there is a shortage of actual labor. Only a shortage of cheap labor. And in an industry that has cash spewing out of its pores, that's a pile of bullshit. At least right now though, I can use my extra hours to justify a wage significantly above "prevailing". Every person they pull in from a culture that is more used to their people being corporate slaves increases the economic pressure for me to behave like one.
The H1-B needs fixing. If they want to import labor due to an actual labor shortage, import them without caveat. That labor shortage doesn't really exist though.
*section 1076
Read the Militia Act sometime. No, the National Guard is NOT the State militia.
To which Militia Act do you refer? 1903? The 1933 bill that made it a component of the Army Reserve?
I'm not sure a change to create a national standard for militia fitness and organization really makes it "not a State Militia" anymore.
Each State's national guard (minus a period between 2007-2008 when section 1078 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 was in effect) is still answerable to that State's Governor as the sole Commander In Chief, when not federalized.
I think we all agree that it's bullshit federalizing them to fight wars that are anything but existential threats, but they've been federalized during national emergencies from the get-go, and indeed Article II of the Constitution provides for congressional organization, regulation, and federalization of the State Militias, the ability to call them into service for the US, and delegate that authority to the Executive, should Congress so wish it.
"good faith", or in legalese, bona fide, actually has a huge part to play in all civil law.
Judges have also traditionally been pretty unsympathetic to people acting in a non bona fide fashion, whether it's specifically in the contract or not.
ISP Network Engineer here,
You don't load-balance inbound data across multiple providers.
We peer with Netflix for precisely this reason. They were crushing a single of our upstreams at any point in time. Unfortunately, Netflix does *not* peer openly, unless they're doing it on a public IX. Once they started peering at SIX though, we jumped on the wagon quick.
That is to say- Internet connections are *not* resilient in the way you're using the word, or even designed to be so. In the case of failure, routing protocols are certainly designed to find alternate paths, but you simply don't get load balancing across multiple ASNs.
Verizon is in the wrong from the perspective of their Netflix customers, I agree.
https://www.netflix.com/openco...
Should I also be able to force Netflix to peer with me?
Should every company in my building with "eyes" (customers) be able to force Netflix to peer with them?
I can't defend Verizon's business choice to refuse to address the needs of some large portion of their customer base, but I, as Network Engineer for a smaller ISP, can say with absolute certainty that forcing peering arrangements is ridiculously bad. It's equivalent to forcing a gas station operator to have fittings for every possible form of vehicle gas receptacle, with nothing to standardize it. You *have* to let the market determine these sorts of things, otherwise, we need a new bill in the legislation for every network we feel is important enough to circumvent the freedoms of the market.
JWW couldn't have been more wrong.
No ISP promises the provisioned bandwidth to any network on the internet.
You're paying for a connection to the internet, and a certain amount of bandwidth from your home to the edges of your provider's network. If your providers peering arrangements suck, then you get a new provider. If you can't get a new provider, then you lobby for service provider de-monopolization.
OR, I suppose you could just try to force them to peer with everyone via legislative fiat. Because that will scale fantastically.
Come on, seriously?
Are they to guarantee to-home bandwidth to every network on the internet?
What *is* your bar for forcing a peering arrangement between two networks?
I refuse to criticize Verizon for standing up to content-provider extortionists.
No. They paid for a cross-connect and a router port at a specified bitrate. They got it, and it still wasn't enough.
But I know, we should regulate evil Verizon to force them into peering arrangements with third-parties.
Incredible.
Certainly you can see that such idiocy doesn't scale...
Please stop using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. It's not some political epithet to throw around at any political entity that flips its finger to checks and balances.
Their behavior is however, appalling.
I recently upgraded my Q9650 to a Haswell i7 4770.
I loved my Q9650. It performed stably and admirably and stayed relevant for a very long time (and is still relevant today), but my 4770 eats its lunch in ways I never imagined when buying it.
I write a lot of memory-intensive multi-core one-off software, and in some workloads my 4770 is close to twice as fast.
Anecdotal, and YMMV on real-world workloads, but the generations after Nehalem really are worth the money if you're lifting heavy weight with your CPU.
From the politifact link:
"The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by an arm of the United Nations most recently in 2005, shows the difference between reported crime and all crimes committed by conducting polls that ask people if they've been victims of specific crimes. Polling data showed that England and Wales had 2,600 cases of robbery per 100,000 population and 8,100 cases of "assaults and threats" per 100,000. While those figures are even higher than the meme suggested, the U.S levels are also much higher -- 1,100 cases of robbery and 8,300 cases of assaults and threats per 100,000. And the rate of sexual assault is actually about 50 percent higher in the United States than it is in England and Wales. So this data set doesn’t support the thrust of the meme, either."
"We rate the claim False."
But ya, you're totally right. The irony in posting a debunking of a political ideology propaganda meme in support of the message of the propaganda, and then using the mistaken post to support the claim that is intolerant of facts... is pretty awesome actually. The debunking of a meme gets assimilated by the meme, and used to further spread the meme, in the hopes that none of the meme's targets actually read the debunking. Could make an interesting psychological virology thesis.