When you "calibrate" swap for specific uses, it becomes non-general.

Metric, not swap. I'm talking about compressing memory pages before swapping out, possibly to another memory region, and calibrating the metric to balance between CPU cycles used vs. disk traffick saved, possibly dynamically.

In that situation it is far better to let the application use on-disk storage, because _it_ knows the data profile.

And the OS knows the general state of the system. Also, virtual memory systems are far from trivial to create, and can't really be done via libraries or such since every memory access could potentially require swapping data in first so your algorithms get littered with calls to swap_in and swap_out. On the other hand, the OS can use hardware features to do this transparently.

Sorry, but fail to understand swap.

Yes, you do. And English too.

There is no right to a game designed the way you would want to design it. Your right is to vote with your wallets. If the second companies instituted DRM everyone stopped buying their products, then companies would not see DRM as a valid business model.

The question is, do you have an obligation to follow a corrupt law enacted solely to protect corporate interests?

Copyright law, along with the Prohibition and the War on Drugs, are interesting case studies about the limits of law.

A "combined score" for speed and ratio is useless, as that relation is not linear.

A combined score could be quite useful when implementing, for example, compressed swap. Obviously you'd need to calibrate it for the specifics of a case.

true, i took the ** to note hyperbole but perhaps i shouldnt have made that leap

Seem more like emphasis to me. And besides, there is a qualitative rather than just quantitative difference between "many things", "most things" and "all things", so hyperbole is just a fancy term for lying in this case.

It is not actually possible to look at someone's post history*, which is clearly what you are counting on.

Just google site:slashdot.org "Zero__Kelvin (151819)".

Oh, I'm sorry, let me translate... "Don't you know how to motherfucking google, pinhead?" Was that correct? Does it need more fucks? Should I use "moron" instead? My Tough Nerd is a bit rusty.

We all like to think leaders all command respect and everyone just follows them because they're the leader. Bullshit. One technique, employed by MANY leaders is being a total fucking asshole, at least part of the time.

Yes, and the result it gets is that those who can, leave, and you're left with those desperate enough to put up with you taking your personal problems out on them. And even they will do their best to hide anything that might set you off from you, so you'll get the winning combo of bottom of the barrel workers and bad situational awareness.

You don't get respect by acting like an asshole. You get treated like the crazy person you are.

If you're coding GCC, maybe you might at least sub-consciously think "boy, I better not release utter shit, or I'll catch some serious shit from that asshole Linus Torvalds... what a cock gobbling asshole that Torvalds is".

Or you'll just start deleting messages from him without bothering to read them. If there's a serious bug, a person who isn't an asshole will report it eventually. Even if you're getting paid and must open the message, there are other bugs not submitted by assholes, and guess which - or rather, who - gets priority?

Is that the ONLY way to run an organization? Probably not, but as another thread points out, it's a common pattern of effective leaders.

It's a common pattern for people who get power, even through pure luck. Lots of people only behave because of peer pressure, and when that pressure eases a little, they lose control and degenerate into schoolyard bullies. That doesn't mean their behaviour was the reason of their success - especially since they only start manifesting it after gaining power - rather than a personality flaw that makes them less effective.

Compare this article about the rampant use of cocaine in Silicon Valley. Is the cocaine abuse there the reason to Silicon Valley's success, or a symptom?

Well, if I elect them, it makes it kinda immoral to shoot them...

So, Divine Right of the Kings with you wielding it?

No, the assumption is that when the private operator screws up he will get fired and replaced.

Thus he has an incentive to hide the mistake for as long as possible. At the same time he has an incentive to cut as many corners as possible to minimize costs, so he can make the lowest offer. You can counter these by making him unfirable for anything short of intentional sabotage, and by providing the contract at profit + costs, but then you have lost all the supposed benefits of privatization and are actually paying more - those profits.

Apparently you are unaware of this basic economic principle which those who push privatization take as a basic assumption.

Economics has nothing to do with either proposing or opposing privatization, it's all about ideology.

Greenpeace is for a move away from nuclear, coal and gas towards renewable energy sources.

But those renewable energy sources can't take the load, so in reality they're causing a move from nuclear to coal and gas.

Like what Germany is doing. In 30 or 40 years they will be nuclear and probably coal free as well.

And running on what? Hot air from election promises?

Just because you like what a politician is saying doesn't mean they're able to actually deliver. And just because you don't like an option doesn't mean there are better alternatives. Renewables cannot produce energy at a guaranteed rate, which means using them exclusively will result in rolling blackouts. I doubt germans are willing to put up with those, so either they return to nuclear power or continue using coal.

John Stewart Mill made the point that you should consider every argument, even if only one person in the entire world is making it against the consensus of everyone else, on its merits. The person speaking does not matter, only the merits of the argument.

Which is fine if you have the resources to consider it right down to first principles and performing any relevant experiments yourself. If you don't, which is usually the case, then trust enters the picture. And that means an argument by Greenpeace has a high cost - they're untrustworthy, so you need to fact-check very thoroughly before accepting anything they say - and low expected return - they're untrustworthy, so an argument by them has a low chance of actually being correct - of consideration.

Effectively you harm yourself by dismissing things that could be beneficial for you, simply because you dislike the messenger.

Only until you take into account the opportunity cost. There are plenty of messengers so you have to decide how much of your limited resources to invest into considering each one's argument.

Greenpeace is crying wolf again, and maybe this time there really is one there, but is that likely enough to justify dropping what you're doing to go investigate?

And people ask me why I consider it immoral to vote...

Because you'd prefer a King who rules by Divine Right and doesn't need to try to hide his misdeeds, since there's nothing you can do about them anyway? Or are an anarchist who thinks any kind of governance is a bad thing?

The choices are unelected leaders, elected leaders or no leaders. If you find electing them immoral, then one of the others must, in your opinion, be a superior choice, since picking the best available option isn't immoral. So which one is it?

If I ever do it again, I think I'll try just putting out a few plants in pots, rather than lots of plants in beds.

Try bushes. Once they take root, they don't really need anything, can last for decades, and are fast and easy to harvest.

When installing software and are 'forced' to 'agree' to many paragraphs of legalese before the OK button will become clickable, do you tick "I agree" and think "I agree" or do you tick it whilst thinking "I'm only clicking 'I agree' because I've discovered that that's what's necessary to proceed to the next installation-step?"

When people cheer for a tinpot dictator, do they think "this guy is awesome" or "I'm only cheering because I've discovered that's what's necessary to avoid getting killed"?

Internalizes helplessness isn't about being deceived, that's called stupidity. Internalized helplessness is about saying "I agree" no matter what you think, because you don't think "I disagree" would go well for you. You're treating having to jump through hoops to use a software you've already purchased as a fact of life you can do nothing about. Your spirit has, in however small way, been broken; you've begun to accept the will of various institutions and forces of human creation as defining the very parameters of your life.

You're not rejecting the idea of helpless subjectdom, you're embodying it. And so do Americans as a whole, more and more every year, as the powers that be continue slipping out of their control and consequently carry their tasks out without any real oversight, to the point of insanity and beyond. That won't end well.

Our solar system has a foot in the grave anyway. Why should we care about anything?

Many situations require the encryption of SSL without necessarily requiring the authentication of SSL. This is the case when the risk is more from something like accidentally or casually disclosing sensitive information and there is little or no risk of intentional attack, but where there are liabilities for routine exposure. This scenario isn't really a job for SSL, but what else do we have to work with?