Since I doubt that this sub-question will get through the editor, I'll give you my answer now. My objection was to the use of bitkeeper due to its license. This is not the same as being in favor of violating the license. What Tridge did (invoking the "HELP" command on a TCP stream connection to the bitkeeper server) was not a license violation.

It's up to the editor when they run the replies. But I promise to answer mine.

Yes, I will answer the interview questions as soon as the editor gets them together.

If you have a specific question, you can always reach me via email to bruce at perens dot com or phone 510-4PERENS. Email usually works better.

To be fair, most liberal arts majors never reach this realization. They just get together in dirty groups and complain about how evil bankers are.

Kudos to this individual for connecting the dots and taking some personal responsibility, then acting on it to improve his or her situation.

You're part of an angry mob. I can almost hear the "rabble rabble rabble." Hate is ugly man and trying to pick some random person to vent your frustrations on is not cool. The Obama example is just to point out that your selection of targets is arbitrary.

I get that you're mad, but it makes you really ugly inside. Tolerance is live and let live. What you spout is just another kind of hate. I know your justification, I hear it all the time, but ever notice that all the people saying it are haters? Are you just another hater? Hate everyone for not agreeing with you so you can feel superior? Another guy in the mob too scared to think for yourself?

Because that's what I'm seeing and I'd really like to see that change.

> And then for no damn reason at all, you bring Obama into it.

Has everyone forgotten 2008 already? I'll just leave this here.

How strong are the final printed products. Have you ever compared them to pre-existing similar pieces? I'd imagine since the printed product is non-homogeneous, then it would be a bit weaker than a uniform injected similar plastic.

Well sport, since you like Wikipedia, we can use that if you like.

"The number of Crimean residents who consider Ukraine their motherland increased sharply from 32% to 71.3% from 2008 through 2011; according to a poll by Razumkov Center in March 2011,[10] although this is the lowest number in all Ukraine (93% on average across the country).[10] Surveys of regional identities in Ukraine have shown that around 30% of Crimean residents claim to have retained a self-identified "Soviet identity".[11]

Since the independence of Ukraine in 1991, 3.8 million former citizens of Russia applied for Ukrainian citizenship.[12]

This is particularly apparent in both the Russian and Ukrainian ethnic populations, whose growth rate has been falling at the rate of 0.6% and 0.12% annually respectively. In comparison, the ethnic Crimean Tatar population has been growing at the rate of 0.9% per annum.[13]

The growing trend in the Crimean Tatar population has been explained by the continuing repatriation of Crimean Tatars mainly from Uzbekistan."

As for the 1989 and 2001 census numbers, they're also up there on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Sadly enough, all this information was in a link right from the very page you originally linked. See, you've got to keep reading, sport. Can't give up as soon as you think you've found something to back up your incorrect, out of date beliefs. Now, am I still a CIA spy here to mislead the masses? Or is someone else perhaps a little guilty of drinking that Putin Kool-Aid delivered right from the RT pitcher? :)

Sorry, sport, you're a little out of date. Your Wikipedia numbers are pulling from the 2001 census (and it was 58% Russian then). Since that time, overall population in Crimea has been falling at about 0.4% per year. Numbers of ethnic Russians in Crimea has been falling at about 0.6% per year. Meanwhile, ethnic Tatars have been growing at a rate of about 0.9% each year.

If you look back a little bit, the trend (which has continued) shows up a bit easier. In the 1989 census, it was 67% Russian and 1.6% Tatar. By the 2001 census, it was 58% Russian and 12% Tatar. The shift is from mass repatriation of Tatars primarily resettling from Uzbekistan. So your 13-year old data just isn't valid anymore. Best estimates are that right now, it's about 51% Russian. Of those, a growing number would actually self-identify as Ukrainian. Putin's lies just don't work here. The memory hole doesn't go deep enough.

I'm particularly amused at your "now go back to langley" comment, essentially claiming I'm working for the CIA. That's pretty funny, but it actually just helps to confirm your disconnect from the facts on the ground. I'm not working for any government agency; I'm just a regular guy with better, more up to date information. Chin up though, sport, you'll get the hang of it. Just need to not use decades old data when making your point if there's any chance you're going to get caught.

 

No, people are making a big deal out of this because Russia marched troops and mobile armor into Ukraine, allowed (some would say encouraged) armed mobs of fanatical ethnic Russians to run amok, surrounded Ukrainian bases in Crimea, and then decided there should be a hastily organized vote on whether Crimea should join Russia immediately or become independent and let its leadership vote on whether to join Russia (no options to remain part of Ukraine). Ethnic Russians make up about 51% of Crimea. Since Crimea was handed to Ukraine some 60 years ago, younger generations of ethnic Russians have grown up as Ukrainians and largely self-identify as Ukrainian. About 15% of the population there are ethnic Tatars, who were brutalized and murdered by Russia until Crimea came under control of Ukraine. The rest is mostly ethnic Ukrainian.

So with Russian tanks and armed troops parked outside peoples' homes and armed mobs of fanatical pro-Russia groups roaming the streets uninhibited, a vote took place in which 97% of votes cast were to join Russia. 97%, despite the fact that at least 15% of the population would essentially be like Jews voting to have their homes fall under the control of the Nazis. The Russians claim this is somehow a legitimate vote and that the people of Crimea have the right to simply vote themselves part of any country they choose (so long as that country is Russia).

There's very little fighting going on. Much of the violence you're seeing in Crimea is from pro-Russian fanatics who've formed armed mobs supported by the Russian military. They've killed or wounded a small number of Ukrainian soldiers stationed at Ukrainian bases in Crimea and they're generally running amok because nobody's stopping them. The Ukrainian troops in Crimea aren't shooting because if they did, the Russians would just murder them (bombing from the air, rockets from helicopters, shelling from artillery; the Russians have a lot of options against small numbers in tight quarters armed only with small arms). As it turns out, about half the Ukrainian military on the ground in Crimea are joining Russian forces, likely because they don't want to be on the losing end of a potential slaughter and/or due to personal or familial Russian self-identification issues.

Amazing how the percentage keeps going up. Every decent source I've seen says 51% ethnic Russians. A poster here named etash claims it's 60%. You're claiming 65%.

Well I'm now claiming it's 104%! 104% of Crimea is ethnic Russians! 110% of them voted to join Russia! Vote is complete! It is fair and reasonable!

You'd need to adjust your analogy to assume the Nazis stayed in power (being that Putin is "ex" KGB and is running the place like the Soviet Union of old). So it would be like saying that if the Nazis who exterminated Jews still controlled the German government, all Jews who ran from Hitler would still hate/distrust Germans.

And yes, I think that's fair to say.

Even Russia doesn't claim that. I don't know if you're drinking Putin's Kool-Aid or if he's drinking your's.

There is no dispute that Crimea was part of Ukraine a month ago. Seriously, not even Putin has ever claimed any differently. The area belonged to Ukraine. The argument Putin has made is that the people there didn't want to be part of Ukraine anymore; they wanted to have Crimea be part of Russia again, and that the right of self-determination makes it all legal. But that's a far cry from claiming it was always Russian land.

Also, it isn't 60% Russian. It's about 51% ethnic Russian. Of those, the younger generations grew up only ever knowing it as part of Ukraine. Therefore, even among ethnic Russians, some percentage would self-identify as Ukrainian. Then you have the roughly 15% Tatars who've had nothing but persecution under Russian rule (the reason so many of them are there is that Russia got tired of beating the Hell out of them and expelled them from Russia ... to Ukraine). Between the ethnic Ukrainians, Tatars, and the younger generation of ethnic Russians who self-identify as Ukrainian, a fair vote would likely be something like 45% join Russia 55% not (some mix between becoming independent and staying with Ukraine).

The fact that it was 97% shows just what a Saddam Hussein style "vote" it really was.

Next you are going to tell me that the Republicans want to push grandma off the cliff, take food from starving children, and ruin the environment.

Yes... What's your point?

As someone who manages a decent sized VMware vSphere environment, I can tell you that core counts are not so important as you may think. My AMD-based ESXi servers have triple and quadruple the cores of my Intel-based ESXi servers, yet they experience chronic problems with CPU Ready Time at far lower over-subscription rates and even sometimes while under-subscribed if some oversized VMs are present. It's one of the reasons I'm pushing through a complete shift away from high-core count Opterons (24 and 32 core hosts) and moving toward lower core count (mostly 8 core) Xeon hosts.

And that deeply pains me as someone who's used AMD CPUs since the K6-2 days. Once Intel fell into the P4 clock speed trap, I thought AMD would finally be able to beat them into submission. Sadly, AMD has sat idly by and allowed Intel to dominate nearly every metric of raw performance. As much as I grew up loving AMD as the plucky underdog, I can't ignore reality and I have to make the smartest decisions from a professional standpoint. When licensing costs get added to the mix, Intel absolutely obliterates AMD from a TCO perspective in the server space. I hate it, but it's true, and I'm left with little choice if I want to be honest.