Egads - sifting for the awesome sysinternals boot-defrag file [now owned by the Borg = MSFT] led to.../... PS: how cute, the 2nd google hit for search of " uncapitaulated " is this totally ACCURATE [and of COURSE ignored by quislings everywhere...] rant here:
There is only one reason for insanity of this kind: we are absolutely convinced we are "entitled" to rule the world, by military force on a scale never before seen in all of world history. If that is what you believe, then say so -- and be damned. [2+ articles condensed at page-bottom] don't miss: http://infowars.net/articles/december2005/121205neocons.htm
2005-11-19 Hyperthreading Hurts Server Performance?
The code wasn't changed(Score:5, Informative) ( http://www.ocelotbob.org/ )I read the intel assembly guide section regarding hyperthreading, and it clearly states that performance will drop if you don't take the shared cache into consideration..../... It's been known that way since the beginning, and frankly, is silly that MS is scratching their heads wondering why this is..--
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Errare humanum est, persevare diabolicum !
The inherent vice of capitalism is the uneven division of blessings, while the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal division of misery. Winston Churchill
Re:Singularity is truly an intriguing system.
In twenty or so years we may look back at Microsoft Research
with the same admiration we have for Bell Labs. I just shot soda out of my nose. You owe me a keyboard. -- Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos .
Isn't it telling that the idea of Microsoft telling the truth is considered front page news on /.?
5 Steps of Grieving
hmm funny, the last step is Acceptance. Too bad it seems Microsoft skipped the "bargaining" step. -- Microsoft is a Convicted Monopolist [microsoft.com ].
Early Warning by William M. Arkin - washingtonpost.com: "I don't know how you can possibly sit there and make the argument that everyone believed it until after the war. I sat and explained to my kids in the days before the invasion that the U.S. was ignoring the truth provided by U.N. inspectors. This is no 'hindsight' argument. The world did not participate in this invasion for the obvious reason that there was NO proof of WMD. The U.N spent months and months looking. And even if Saddam played games here and there, eventually the U.N. got in. And as ed pointed out, if they were busy moving these masses of WMDs around, there would be satellite proof. There was none. Bush wanted a war and he got one. And he has made the world far more dangerous with his tactics. It is well known that there was little or no terrorist activity in Iraq prior to the war. It is well known that Al Queda wanted nothing to do with Saddam. This is the endless cosmic joke of this war. Mr. Arkin, get it right. This article is a joke. No one is saying there aren't WMDs in this world. No one is saying the U.S. should disarm. No one is saying that we shouldn't keep our guard up. Sure, governments use the WMD spectre to maintain a vigilant stance. But that is not an argument to invade a country that had shown no capability and no evidence of possessing any."
-I also agree with Keith. The inspectors were in Iraq PRIOR to the invasion. In the few weeks before the invasion they had found nothing. Bush did not trust the inspectors, he said it himself. At the time I wondered why he felt so threatened by a country that had UN weapons inspectors on the ground and UN no-fly zones where US aircraft could restrict Saddam and even spy on the country. I'm sure we had spies on the ground as well. So I agree with Keith that at the time I found it hard to believe Saddam had any significant WMD that he could threaten us [no, the USA was not remotely in danger... it was only AIPAC that wanted the puny furball expunged, and the World-Owning Oil Cos which hated Saddam's frequent LOWERING of prices and Increasing of oil supplies.... /js zog]
What is most inexplicable are the following:
-Why when no WMD were found was the director of CIA given the medal of freedom?
-Why was there no post-war planning? ["SLAM-DDUNK" did not mean there was a shred of proof, it meant the gullibility of sheeple to pentacon FUD pelted from the media megaphones ....the empire annex-ers KNEW 14 permanent bases were required, doh!, to be admitted publicly years later / all the truth-inverters from wtc hoax were ALSO promoted not rebuked.../... see a pattern, like "heckuva job Brownie".../... / js zog ]
-What was the urgency to invade when inspectors were on the ground?
-Why was it so important to replace the Baath party and not just mount an invasion that supported an overthrow of Saddam?
-Why was no one fired for the lack of post-war planning and the bad intelligence.
-Why, when looting was rampant in Baghdad was Rummy not fired for saying: "Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things" After all that has happened, if Bush were running a company where I sat on the Board, I'd call for his firing. And considering that the US government is set up so that the people act like a corporate board that places individuals in positions of power, I think it is time to call on Congress to begin an investigation into the incompetence this administration has shown and impeach Bush based not on the probable lying and not on probable manipulation of intelligence, but on pure incompetence which I believe the vast majority of the American people can agree on and support
February 15, 2003 was a global day of protests against the imminent invasion of Iraq. Millions of people protested in approximately 800 cities around the world. The event was listed in the 2004 Guinness Book of World Records as the largest mass protest movement in history. According to the BBC between six and 10 million people took part in protests in up to 60 countries over the weekend (the 15th and 16th). Iraq wasn't invaded for another month. Millions of people worldwide did not believe that Iraq had WMD. You are a total right-wing liar to try and say otherwise.
No, not 'EVERYONE' believed Iraq had WMDs. Far from it. Millions crowded European streets saying just that. And from the beginning nothing really made sense. On the one hand the USA was stating flatly that Iraq had weapons and the Intel community knew where they were. On the other hand, they refused to give this information to UN inspectors in Iraq equipped with helicopters and the right to go anywhere, anytime. The yellow cake scare had been blown apart - disturbingly under-reported, but very much a discredited [gee, the Scooter Libby circus of lying goats, 4 years later, all cornpone all the time, WHEE! ] causus belli long before war. And Powell's pictures of fuzzy milk trucks raised more questions than they answered. I think, perhaps, a portion of Americans may have thought there was a consensus on the existence of WMDs (it's easy to get lost in a sea of flags) but I can assure you over an Irish pint, a Canadian doughnut or a French coffee there was increduilty at American motives and rationale
Ingoring the UN to attack Iraq for ignoring the UN - pathetic.
If we don't want to be part of the UN, then fine, but don't go and ask permission to invade Iraq because they were ignoring the UN, then get a "no" vote and say screw it were going in anyhow.
If the President, ANY PRESIDENT, isn't responsible for the words he speaks in the state-of -the-union-address, then we should not bother having a president All that w can say now "everyone else thought the same way." We don't even let kids off with that excuse
The first question of every news conference should be - Mr President, have you had anything to drink yet today?
Think. It should be apparent to the intelligent that one has to agree to be lied to for a lie to work. Did anyone NOT know that Bush/Cheney & Co. wanted to attack Iraq? How could you miss it? The neo-cons published it. [PNAC.com,
oops, was it scrubbed from AEI site?] We all knew. Every government needs to have a reason that decent people can support to cripple an economy or two, sacrifice our soldiers, kill civilians, and make war on another man's home. It's in the history books, folks, right there at the beginning of every war. Lies beforehand. Lies now. Only the unspeakably dense, superstition devotees, and human grist will waste time seeking more and more "facts". You already knew and you already know
Mom Makes Website, Gets Sued for $2 Million Haven't we been over this already? by (918562) Here are the rules: 1) Money is all that matters. 2) If you are not a millionaire, you are a second class citizen 3) You are not allowed to buy from a small company if there is a bigger one available 4) If something a company sells you is crap, well, too bad. 5) If you buy something from a company, they own you [DRM lock-ins] 6) Speaking against anyone or anything richer than you is illegal. 7) It is the government of the companies, by the companies, for the companies. 8) Anyone who doesn't go to the Commerce School deserves to be screwed over Let's see, we're all guilty of...well,
pretty much everything.
Re:Haven't we been over this already?
Wow, it's nice to see that you've done a good job of surpressing yourself.
Who needs to bother creating a Big Brother when the cowards take care of themselves? --
A letter from the woman being sued by (589264)
She sent this to someone at rabble.ca, which is were I pasted it from:
------ Thanks so much! I have a pretty strong case of defence at my end including many letters of thanks from the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Labour. To want to sue me for $2,000,000 is just a way of "SLAPPing me." "SLAPP" stands for "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation". SLAPPs are legal actions (usually defamation actions) launched for the primary purpose of shutting down criticism, and without a strong cause of action. The plaintiff's goal in a SLAPP is not to win the lawsuit, but is rather to silence a critic by instilling fear of large legal costs and the spectre of large damage awards. Despite their right to free speech, critics may be frightened into silence e.g., taking down websites or comments made on line - if they are threatened with a defamation-based SLAPP. This method will not work with me. I've got way to much evidence at my end. I could actually counter sue for what I have been through so we'll see what happens. Either way, I'm glad it's out there in the media. Folks really need to know. With letters like yours it's great to know the message is getting out there. Thanks for your support! L. Lanteigne Waterloo Ont. -----
Let this be a lesson. In the days of cheap digital cameras, if you're going to take on a task like this woman did, you might as well photograph every last thing and notate when the pictures were taken, and under what circumstances.
If that became a common practice, it's easy to imagine the bigger engineering companies collaborating with our elected officials to create laws and ordinances against "photographing at a construction site" or some shiite... Something unconstitutional but meant to up the ante a litle bit for anyone who wants to take this task on.
2005-11-13#8 Why the Hurricane Plan Got Trashed
Wired 13.11: START"Everybody talks about the weather," Mark Twain famously noted, "but nobody does anything about it." Sounds a lot like Hurricane Katrina. The experts in New Orleans and beyond talked about the potential for a levee collapse as far back as the 1960s. A 2001 study by the Federal Emergency Management Agency predicted most of what actually came to pass. And last year, National Geographic published a stunningly prescient step-by-step description of what ultimately befell the Crescent City. By the time Katrina roared ashore, every detail of the catastrophe had been foretold.
But the test of good scenario planning is not just better predictions but better decisions. And the decision-makers at every level "failed" to make the right calls in Louisiana. As a result, confusion reigned, more than 1,000 people died, and half a million homes were damaged or destroyed. The disaster ['should be' but won't be/js] will be etched in the nation's memory along with the 1871 Chicago fire, the 1889 Johnstown flood, and the 1906 San Francisco earthquake.
Turns out there's a huge difference between anticipating disaster and actually being prepared for it. Scenario planning is not a waste; computer models can now game the behavior of millions of variables and render nuanced predictions of everything from bioterror attacks to massive earthquakes. Too bad that when it came to a hurricane like Katrina, political expediency [sorry its "(DELIBERATE) INCOMPETENCE", for millionth time, as in WTC, WMD, Medicare, and everything the Govt = Corporatist boot-lickers contrive / zog and shortsightedness prevented adequate preparation. Everyone knew what was coming; they just failed to act on it.
Why? Cost, for starters. Planning for the worst is expensive, financially and politically. Government officials have a clear interest in pleasing constituents with projects and benefits that make a difference within one election cycle. Disaster prep gets pushed down the priority list. This year, for example, Congress and the Bush administration cut funding to improve levees in New Orleans from $27.1 million - the amount requested by the Army Corps of Engineers - to $5.7 million. The result: Construction was postponed indefinitely. Even when politicians are willing to take the threat of disaster seriously, the perverse incentives of short-term thinking can warp the effectiveness of the spending. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, Congress allocated $10.6 billion to homeland security. But instead of doling it out to the places most likely to be attacked, the money was widely distributed - effectively spreading the pork among [sorry its massively to GOP areas] congressional districts. Ranchers in Wyoming are getting more protection per capita [and in net dollars too, many cases are abject FRAUD/] than residents of targets like New York City and Washington, DC.
Then there's the insurance mentality. The brutal logic of risk dictates that it's cheaper to pay for the aftermath of a single, relatively localized disaster than it is to prepare for that same disaster in every place at every time. This is how insurance companies make money. But unlike government, they have actuaries who are able to accurately estimate value and thus assess risk. If the true value of New Orleans - especially its importance as a port - had been understood by government officials, the cost to prepare properly for a hurricane the strength of Katrina would have seemed a bargain. [sorry, that is pathetically naive, the GOVT WANTED all those POOR and DEM folks OUT OF THERE to enable enclaves for the 'clean', the counted, 'Americans' to usurp the entire future of the region... QED/ js]
Even when governments do face up to the likelihood of extreme disasters, politics can still undermine the results. In 1979, California Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, established an earthquake-preparedness task force that was a model of prudence and foresight. (Disclosure: I worked for Brown setting up the panel.) After Republican George Deukmejian was elected in 1982, he reversed many of the measures Brown had put in place. In 1985, he disbanded the task force. The people of the Bay Area paid for that lack of preparation in 1989 when the Loma Prieta earthquake caused a freeway collapse, fires in San Francisco's Marina district, and damage to the Bay Bridge.
All of this does not mean that scenario planning can't work or that attempting it is useless. As Jeanne, a Category 3 hurricane, approached the Florida coast in September 2004, computer modeling experts from Los Alamos National Laboratory supplied state and federal emergency teams with detailed - and uncannily accurate - predictions on power outages, flooding, and other storm effects. The result: Mandatory evacuations moved people safely out of what became the hardest-hit areas, and repair crews descended on damaged electrical centers almost before they went down. Power was restored much more quickly than it otherwise would have been. It's a modest example, but considering how wrong things can go in the face of a hurricane, it's a scenario worth following.
PS - chairs the Global Business Network and helped create the field of scenario planning.
-- /////// yes FACTS are exposed here: I love it that Chris Floyd uses the identical Santa Claus metaphor which in NOV2007 become the cornerstone of my Prognosis and Paradigm for the infantility of Americanist denial-ism QED ////////////////////////////////////////
"Why the Stories We Tell Matter So Much ," our national mythology sees the United States as uniquely successful in world history. We see our success, and our power on the world stage, as inherently tied to superior moral virtue. We are so successful because we are uniquely virtuous, and our national power confirms our morality, in relation to which all other peoples and all other countries can only suffer in comparison. One of the many dangerous and inevitable consequences of this view is an often virulent racism that has been reflected in our treatment of many very numerous groups of people: the Native Americans, the slaves who were brought here and were an integral part of the new country's economy, Germans in World War I (German-Americans were the "scum of the melting pot," who now needed to be gotten "rid of"), the Japanese in World War II (the "yellow Japs," who were "regularly compared" to "monkeys, baboons, and gorillas"), and a number of other foreigners and immigrants. Very recently, we witnessed the sickening spectacle of this atavistic racism unleashed in the
unleashed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
I expressed the relevant part of this national mythology as follows:
In the most extreme (and, one could argue, most consistent) version of this tale, non-Western parts of the world are less than human -- and they are subhuman by choice. They are immoral, and sometimes even evil. Since we represent the good and they represent the evil, we are surely entitled to improve them, by invasion and bombing if necessary. If they do not threaten us today, they might at some indeterminate time in the future. And while we might kill many innocent civilians in our campaign of civilization, those who survive will be infinitely better off than they would have been otherwise. Besides, how "innocent" can any of them be -- since they are members of inferior, less than fully human civilizations, and since they are so by choice?http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/02/ dominion-over-world-vii-mythology-of.html
One point is crucial: a critical part of our national mythology is the insistence on viewing our nation and ourselves as Americans in comparative terms. When we insist that we are uniquely "good" and "virtuous," this logically necessitates a further conclusion: we are better than everyone else. We are "the Good Guys." The emphasis is not only on "Good," but on "the" : we are the Good Guys in a way that no one else is, or can ever be .../...
This kind of perspective arises in large part out of what [ a CHRISTIAN with Harvard Divinity Masters degree] in Chris Hedges calls "mythic war," a subject I discussed in the third part of my Iran series. Note how Hedges describes this phenomenon (from his book, War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning), ...The potency of myth is that it allows us to make sense of mayhem and violent death. ... By turning history into myth we transform random events into a chain of events directed by a will greater than our own, one that is determined and preordained. We are elevated above the multitude. We march toward nobility. And no society is immune.
March 01, 2007
A Nation of Children, Who Refuse to Give Up the [MYTHICAL] LiesBy the age of eight or nine, most children realize that Santa Claus isn't a real person, just as they know the Easter Bunny and similar pleasantries are only make-believe, tales of imagination offered to add a bit of fun to the holidays. The great majority of children give up these fantasies without experiencing emotional upheaval that remotely approaches serious trauma. Those very rare children fortunate enough to be raised by adults who accord them the seriousness and respect they deserve know such stories to be ones of invention from the beginning.
Unfortunately, the great majority of Americans -- led by a relentlessly trivial and mendacious political class and a comparably anti-intellectual media -- never approach again the psychological achievement of children who undergo this transition. Still more unfortunately, most of these same children, while able to recognize fabrications of the Santa Claus variety, become prisoners of the American mythology that I recently discussed . Their pathetic plight is understandable in one sense, since almost no one will disabuse them of the lies with which they comfort themselves. Nonetheless, one can legitimately hope and expect that upon attaining adulthood, more individuals would be prepared to exercise even limited independent powers of assessment. But if you have such expectations, you will almost always be disappointed.
Thus it is that we have repellently idiotic episodes of the following kind: .../...
.../... And so we debate whether these lives were "wasted." With the blind ferocity of religious maniacs, we enforce our new Puritan code, which demands that certain prohibited thoughts may never be uttered. Violation of this code means banishment from public life and from further "serious" consideration. Every matter of importance is reduced to the intellectual level of a remarkably backward house pet.
Meanwhile, no one will stop this criminal war and occupation. And no one will do a goddamned thing to stop the next war, which could alter all our lives forever.
How in the world do most Americans face themselves each morning? Someone needs to explain that to me. I truly would like to know. posted by Arthur Silber we gotta pull the plug on this COMATOSE NATION sometime soon... more antidote here: http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1050&Itemid=135
Our Serial Wars cannot be ended for only one reason. There remains one big, stubborn, grassroots block of support for war that will not fade away. We Hold These Truths calls it Judeo-Christianity; to others it is Christian-Zionism... Its adherents are our closest friends, brothers, wives, and parents. In trying to do good for Israel they enable death; but they are deserving of rescue. Judeo-Christians themselves are the most tragic victims of their own error!
43 minute slideshow==> "Christian Zionist Roots", Audio/Visual, http://www.whtt.org/show
-- Hey, there are some good LAUGHS in here, too... some sugar-coating for those inured to cornpone = ALL-Toob-Fed and ALL the Time the Terry Schaivo - nation,
hooked on hate-of-others and me-first-ism.