There's no such thing as a "natural" aspect ratio, because sitting with your eyes glued to a monitor isn't what we evolved to do.

Years of designing software have taught me one thing, which is that interfaces have to suit the task. When I'm writing or reading, I like a vertically oriented monitor. When I'm watching a movie, I like wide aspect ratio monitor. When I'm programming, I like a moderate aspect ratio landscape monitor, but very, very big. Bigger than I'd want to read a book on or watch a movie on.

So every monitor used for every kind of task is necessarily a compromise, but some monitors may be just the thing for a certain task. Maybe there's a task or mix of tasks where an 19" x 19" sqauare is a good compromise, or a single task where it's ideal. They seem to be pitching it at CAD users. I can see that. I've got my bridge drawings in a rectangular area on screen, but I still have another generous rectangular area for property sheets, tool palletes etc. When I'm working on my tower I arrange things into vertical rectangles.

Or this thing could be a nutty idea in search of a use. But there's probably one out there.

It's not 100% certain that there's geysers on Europa, and if they exist it's likely that they're only sporadic. But it is 100% certain that they exist on Enceladus, and probably constantly.

Anyway, what I'm really wondering is: does this guy want to give extra funding to NASA for an Enceladus mission, or does he just want to rob other programs?

Well, branch prediction doesn't get you much when most of your CPU cycles are going unused. Caching stuff in RAM can be a big win -- under certain circumstances. If adding more RAM means you can increase the probability of a cache hit significantly, good for you. But the fundamental fact remains that if a system is performing well enough, making it more powerful has limited practical utility.

I speak from decades of experience working with database sytems. It's wasteful to take a shotgun approach to performance improvement. You need to find where the bottleneck is, then widen that.

First off, get your facts straight. This is not an extradition case. It's a surrender case. Mixing up extradition rules and surrender rules is stupid because they're not the same.

Secondly, if you think Sweden's judicial system is so comparably terrible, you should complain to the peer-reviewers who passed the World Justice Project's methodology for ranking countries' judicial systems. Then you should complain to pre-charges-Assange for talking so highly of the Swedish system based on what he saw in the leaked cables. Then you should talk to the hundreds of US military deserters and other fugitives living in Sweden protected by Sweden's extradition law. For starters.

Concerning questioning, from the sworn statement of the prosecutor to the British courts: "Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."

It's pointless. He can't be åtalad outside of Swedish custody, and the prosecutor is already ready to åtala him, and has the Svea Court of Appeals' formal court findings against Assange of probable cause for rape as backup. So yeah, she could do this little embassy stunt, but why?

Not to mention that the regular prosecutor dismissed all these charges, but they were then reopened by the current prosecutor who works at a national unit for exploring legal boundaries.

Surely you know that about one in 8 cases in Sweden are reopened in exactly the same manner as this one was. It's a very good thing that Sweden has a process for victims to appeal a decision not to prosecute to a higher prosecutor. And are you seriously going to claim that Finne's handling of the case was proper? Heck, I find it bloody hilarious to see Assange's defenders pointing to Finne as a defense of him when in the beginning they were the ones who were bloody furious at Finne, first the info about him being under investigation leaking on her watch, then her issuing a warrant for him when he hadn't yet refused to cooperate. And then just the opposite, she dropped the SW-rape charge (but I should add, the AA charges were *never* dropped) in order to cancel the warrant after the (very justifiable backlash). Not to mention that the victim statement wasn't even in the computer system yet when she did that. Do you really think her handling of the case was appropriate and didn't warrant review? That's a bloody stretch.

Then, a special prosecutor somehow gets wind of the case

This doesn't even remotely resemble the actuality. The case was brought to Ny via an appeal from Borgström.

Wow, if paulcraigroberts.org says it, then clearly it must be true!

It's a reprint of a Pilger article, Pilger being one of Assange's main misinformation spreaders. First off, there's not even rape charges (yes, they're on the EAW as charges, in the charges section, enumerated as charges, and ruled by the British court system to be equivalent to charges) concerning the "women" plural. There's a rape charge (singular) concerning one woman (SW) and three lesser charges concerning the other woman (AA). AA has said she was not raped, but there are no rape charges concerning her. She has however said that she was a victim of a sexual assault, and reaffirmed that on her blog earlier this year (after being silent since the incident). SW told several people she'd been raped, according to the testimony collected by the police, before she went to the police. The fact that her goal of going to the police was not to press charges doesn't translate to "she says she wasn't raped"; the testimony is quite clear to just the opposite, she had been telling close friends and confidants that she had been raped, right after the incident. Also frequently distorted is the end of her interview, which Assange fans often misstate as her "refusing to go on". It actually very clearly states that the interviewer thought she looked shaken and decided to terminate the interview (it was nearing the end of the shift anyway). SW is then asked if she wants a legal representative (not exactly an attorney, it's a state employee who pushes the case forward for you), and she said yes (her representative, Clæs Borgstrom, was very aggressive about pushing the case forward, although AA, who he initially also represented, felt that he was more in it for attention for himself later fired him and chose another). SW was also asked if she would do a rape kit and she also said yes.

There've been subsequent interviews since then, but they haven't leaked, so we don't know what they say.

Every level of the UK court system up to and including the Supreme Court has affirmed the Swedish legal system's actions concerning Assange. So try again.

By the way, you apparently don't even know that what's being discussed here is surrender, not extradition. And if you think there's no difference, you're quite wrong, the two terms are absolutely not interchangeable.

From the sworn statement of the Swedish prosecutor to the British courts: "Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."

The questioning is indeed a legal requirement to move the case forward, don't get me wrong. But it's not the point. The point is to åtala him.

Neither Assange nor anyone else will ever be "charged" with rape in Sweden because, it should go without saying, "charge" is an English term and the Swedish judicial system uses Swedish. This may sound like pedantics but it's a key point. The two terms in question here in Swedish law are "anklagad" and "åtalad". Look them up in a Swedish dictionary - there's about a dozen different ones online. Each word can mean "accused", "charged", or "indicted" - but there is a difference in a legal sense.

Being formally anklagad is the first stage. The prosecutor brings said charge to a court of law, where a judge issues warrants for the accused's arrest. The accused can appeal being anklagad to have the warrant overturned and have a court hear their case. They can even appeal that ruling, all the way up to the Swedish Supreme Court. What it doesn't lead directly to is a trial. That is what being åtalad is for. In fact, once åtalad, the accused *must* be tried within a matter of weeks, by Swedish law. Being anklagad is to attempt to get the person in custody so that they can be åtalad. Being åtalad is to attempt to convict the person.

Assange *has* been formally anklagad. The prosecutor took the case and evidence to a judge, who reviewed it and issued warrants for his arrest. A EAW was issued because being anklagad is legally considered equivalent to being charged for the purposes of a warrant. Assange appealed to the Svea Court of Appeals, where a full court hearing was held, including testimony from his lawyers and a full review of all of the evidence. [i]He lost[/i]. The court found probable cause that he commited 1 count of unlawful sexual coersion, 2 counts of molestation, and 1 count of rape. He appealed to the Supreme Court. They refused his appeal, having found nothing wrong with the lower court trial.

Assange, is of course, pretending that only being åtalad means being charged. But he *can't* be åtalad until he hands himself over to Swedish custody. In short, he's using his very run from the law to justify his run from the law.

If allegedly lying about wearing a condom counts as rape

It doesn't, and that's not why he's anklagad for rape. The charges section in the EAW is filled out thusly:

1. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2. On 13th – 14th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.

3. On 18th August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.

#4 has the checkbox for raped ticked, and #4 alone. #1 is unlawful sexual coersion and concerns AA. #2 is molestation and concerns AA. #3 is molestation and concerns AA. #4 is rape and concerns SW.

Given that you're so ignorant of the case that you don't even know the basic facts of what he's actually charged with (really, how much less about the case could you possibly know than that?), mistaking a minor molestation accusation (#2) for the rape accusation (#4), perhaps you should think before spouting off publicly about how the guy's clearly innocent and the accusers are just lying sluts?

Why thank you, Amazing Kreskin, for your profound legal insights.

After reviewing the evidence, of the three investigating officers, two (Wassgren and Gehlin) wanted him investigated for what would eventually be five charges (2x rape, 1x unlawful sexual coersion, 2x molestation), and one (Krans) wanted him for four (1x, 1x, 2x). The first prosecutor (Finne) first wanted him investigated for five (1x, 1x, 2x), then reduced it to what would become three (0x, 1x, 2x). An appeal from one of the victims was reviewed and found with merit (not unusual in Sweden, there's a strong victims' rights process), and a new prosecutor (Ny) was brought in, and the investigation resumed for all five (2x, 1x, 2x). A judge charged / anklagad him on all five counts (2x, 1x, 2x). Assange appeled the warrant and the Svea Court of Appeals held a full court hearing, with a jury, a review of all the evidence, and testimony from Assange's lawyers; they upheld four (1x,1x, 2x). He appealed to the Swedish Supreme court; they refused his appeal. The British lower court heard Assange's appeal (arguing malicious prosecution, flaws in the Swedish process, and an invalid EAW). The British lower court ruled against him on all counts. The case was heard by the British high court, which also ruled against him on all counts. And again, the British Supreme Court heard the case, and ruled against him on all counts.

But no no, who needs a pesky legal system when we have Amazing Kreskin here to tell us about how it's all a setup! Screw those lying b****s, right?

Heck, Assange's attorneys have all but admitted that he did it. Check out Emmerson's court statements, where he bloody admits that Assange started F*ing SW unprotected while she was asleep. Let it not be forgotten that the courts have SW's SMS records from that night where she's bitterly complaining about about how Assange keeps trying t F* her unprotected despite her telling him again and again and how annoyed she's getting about that), testimony from a friend and a family member she chatted with right before the event while she was out buying breakfast, and on and on, making it pretty unambiguous that she'd been refusing unprotected sex - something that neither Assange nor his attorneys have contested. Emmerson tries to argue that consent is implied because she didn't immediately push Assange out when she woke up to him F*ing her. But that's of course a nonsense legal claim. One, you can't get "retroactive consent", it has to be present from the beginning. Two, F*ing a sleeping person is explicitly illegal in both Swedish and British law; the fact that it was done in a manner she had been explicitly refusing is merely listed as an aggravating factor. Three, the reason she'd been refusing unprotected sex was paranoia about STDs, and it was already too late, she'd have to go to the hospital either way (just ignoring the "shock" aspect, which I can tell you is *very* real; it was already too late. As her ex boyfriend of 2 1/2 years testified, she was so paranoid about unprotected sex that she not once allowed it in their entire relationship, and *still* made him get an STD test.

His freaking *defense* attorneys are admitting that he did it, so why should anyone be surprised that court after court keeps condemning him? And it's not like this is anything new for Assange. He had allegations of stalking against a 17-year-old before he got famous. Even whistleblowers he's worked with for Wikileaks have accused him of sexual aggression. This is a guy who wrote on his own blog about how womens' brains can't do math and how he's a god to women, and how his ghostwriter who spent months with him documented (with recorded transcripts) an unending litany of creepy sexual behavior, such as (to pick an example among many):

The three of us went to a very pink café in the town and ordered sandwiches and cakes. We sat outside, and Julian got distracted by some young girls walking past. ‘Hold on,’ he said, and turned his gaze. ‘No,’ he said. ‘It was fine until I saw the teeth.’ One of the girls was wearing a brace. When Sarah came back and asked what we were talking about, Julian said he’d been admiring some 14-year-old girls, ‘until they came close’

I could go on and on and on. But oh no. We don't have to worry our minds with that because, thankfully, the Amazing Kreskin is here to inform us that it's all just a setup, so back to your regular scheduled program of heaping praise of the guy and sending death and rape threats to those lying slut accusers!

There is precisely one case you're referring to. A decade and a half ago. And they weren't surrendered to the US, they were surrendered to Egypt via the US. After receiving bogus information from Egypt that the two illegal immigrants weren't legitimate asylum seekers but were rather convicted terrorist fugitives and a signed pledge that they wouldn't be tortured (Egypt promptly broke the pledge after they arrived). Here's the aftermath of that:

1) It turned into one of the biggest judicial scandals in Swedish history, receiving widespread protest and condemnation.
2) It led to a reform of not just Swedish but EU-wide extradition law, making it so that a mere promise of not torturing isn't enough, the country has to have a track record of not torturing.
3) The victims were offered by Sweden a large financial compensation package and Swedish residence.
4) Swedish attitudes against the US rendition program (which had worked in conjunction with Egypt on that case) that in 2006 outright had their special forces disguise themselves as airport workers to break into a CIA plane to get the proof they needed to shut down the extradition program through Swedish airspace, creating a major diplomatic incident between the two countries. And how do we know about this incident? Why, Wikileaks of course!

There's a reason why Assange was applying for a Swedish residence permit and moving Wikileaks' base of operations to Sweden when the incidents he's anklagad for occurred. No country has a spotless record, but Sweden has among the highest ranked judicial systems on Earth. Sweden has the world's best whistleblower protections and one of the most restrictive extradition treaties in Europe, flatly forbidding extradition for intelligence or military crimes (which is why, for example, the US couldn't get Edward Lee Howard, the most damaging CIA defector of the Cold War). Assange repeatedly referred to Sweden as his "shield". Funny how Sweden suddenly turned from "shield" to "evil US lackey" when he faced accusations of rape, isn't it? Just ignoring the fact that, if surrendered to Sweden, both the UK *and* Sweden would be able to block an extradition to the US (under EU law on surrender of fugitives), while he had no problem being in the UK with only the UK between him and the US.

Again, funny how that all works.

One aspect of optimizing systems is that you don't get any performance boost by adding a resource you already have a surplus of.

Most database servers built from low end technologies have CPU cycles to spare. That's beause boatloads of CPU power is cheap, but I/O bandwidth is expensive.

And why had we been developing the engines in the first place?

The "We Choose to Go to the Moon" speech was given, if I recall correctly, in September of 1962. This almost a year and a half after Alan Shepherd went into space on Mercury-Redstone 3, and some four years after the Mercury program had been conceived under President Eisenhower. The purpose was to rally people around a goal that had already consumed almost 2 billion dollars and would consume well over a hundred billion dollars (in today's terms). But why was this important, and important to do fast?

Because putting a man on the moon would be the biggest, most decisive victory in a propaganda war that had been raging for nearly a hundred years.

If you read what people were saying from a hundred years ago, it's clear that many people thought capitalism was doomed. It's hard for people under 50 to believe, but "socialism" was a word associated with futuristic stuff, and progress. These attitudes toward the future of capitalism persisted into the Cold War and were a major thorn in the side of US foreign policy. When India adopted its constitution in 1950 that constituion declared India to be a socialist nation. Socialism played a major part in the foundation of the State of Israel, an Israel's first president David Ben-Gurion was a "Labor Zionist". And across the middle-east, the force radicalizing young Arabs wasn't fundamentalist Islam, it was Baathism -- "Arab Socialism". Across the world, capitalism was seen as an antiquated system imposed by colonial powers to keep people backward and subjugated.

Then on July 21, 1969, the leading capitalist (albeit welfare state) nation in the world put a man on the Moon. It put a stake through the heart of notion that capitalism is an antiquated, reactionary system. That's probably a hundred billion dollars well spent, considering what was at stake.

Looked at one way the goal itself did nothing practical for us, it was all the things we had to learn to be able to achieve it. But it is still amazing to me that nearly fifty years later people around the world see Neil Armstrong taking that last step as a kind of milestone in human progress.

You know men can raise children too. And some of us chose to put our careers on hold to spend more time with our kids. I did. When my oldest got to high school I decided to put my career on hiatus to spend the remaining years I could with them. Before that I workng 50-60 hour weeks and spending about 1/3 of my time traveling, and though my flexible schedule allowed me to stay involved with my kids when they were younger, my window of opportunity to spend a *lot* of time with them was closing. Quantity time *is* quality time. It communicates your priorities like nothing else.

Waay back in the day when my wife was a grad student at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution by an odd fluke the sysadmins and programmers of the Vax/VMS systems they used for scientific data processing were women. Possibly their inability to grow beards disqualified them from Unix jobs. Anyhow, the nickname for them was "data dollies".

Of course there was a long, long history of women in scientific computing. The mom of one of my high school friends graduated from Wellsley during WW2 and worked programming the Harvard Mark 1 -- which meant (although I didn't realize it at the time) she must have worked with Grace Hopper. And of course there were the female code breakers of Bletchley Park. There were a lot of opportunities for smart women to do innovative things in WW2 while many of their equally brainy male counterparts were being fed into the war effort like scraps into a meatgrinder.

Anyhow, I don't think "data dolly" was meant to be as patronizing it sounds to us today. It was a cultural anachronism, like the drinking and smoking on the TV show Mad Men, which appears to us gauche but strangely fascinating. The common assumption back then was that even an intelligent, highly trained woman would quit her job when she got married to raise some man's children. My generation was the first to view automatically assuming that as patronizing. This new attitude was in its day called "radical feminism" -- which was a not too subtle way of associating us with Communists. But of course insensitivity is a two way street. A lot of older women felt insulted by the implication that they'd thrown their lives away.