If you have agreed to pay for the overhead... I doubt there is much you can do.
I'm not sure that's correct. "Truth in advertising" and "misleading contract" are two terms that come to mind.
Off by ones are much easier to fix than to prove safe. The amounts of bugs called "unexploitable" until an exploit was provided is staggering. No mildly security aware person will avoid fixing a buffer overflow because it is unexploitable.
Please provide source to that claim.
As far as I know, a great majority of acquaintance rapes are by either family member or neighbor. Then again, I haven't been keeping track, so I might be confusing things (for example, this might be the statistics for minor's rape, and thus irrelevant for the date rape discussion).
Still, if you can back your claim, please do.
I have a firend who came to me, eyes all glowing, about this new feature his shining new CPU has. I listened in and was skeptical.
He then tried, for over a month, to get this feature to produce better results than traditional synchronization methods. This included a lot of dead ends due to simple misunderstandings (try to debug your transation by adding prints: no good - a system call is guaranteed to cancel the transaction).
We had, for example, a lot of hard times getting proper benchmarks for the feature. Most actual use cases include a relatively low contention rate. Producing a benchmark that will have low contention on the one hand, but allow you to actually test how efficient a synchronized algorhtm is on the other is not an easy task.
After a lot of going back and forth, as well as some nagging to people at Intel (who, suprisingly, answered him), he came across the following conclusion (shared with others):
Many times a traditional mutex will, actually, be faster. Other times, it might be possible to gain a few extra nanoseconds using transactions, but the speed difference is, by no means, mind blowing. Either way, the amount you pay in code complexity (i.e. bugs) and reduced abstraction hardly seems worth it.
At least as it is implemented right now (but I, personally, fail to see how this changes in the future. Then again, I have been known to miss things in the past), the speed difference isn't going to be mind blowing.
Finally managed to send an email. Got it. Thanks.
You might find it worth noting that Hamas would also slaughter me and my family.
Since you live in France, it may yet happen
I have no reason at all to have bias against Israel or for Hamas.
I think I have written this elsewhere already. I don't think you are biased against Israel. I think you are being fed by news sources that are biased. Most of them are biased simply because this is a very complicated conflict and news outlets favor simple "good vs. bad" stories. The precise reasons aren't important, however. The media coverage of the conflict in Europe in general, and in France in particular, gives a highly filtered image of things. It is quite natural for moral people to reach far-reaching conclusions that are, simply put, wrong.
Snipped out a bunch of stuff because you asked to wind the discussion down....
I don't hear any world leaders saying that Israel is doing the right thing, whereas I do hear otherwise.
Partly this is because world leaders are not above the bias of their own media. More to the point, world leaders listen to what their citizens have to say. That's why it is important to me to try and convince those critics/bashers that are not working from inherent bias.
Then again, there is the other reason. Israel's leadership of late is not confidence inspiring. Neither Netanyahu nor Liberman understand diplomacy, and do not carry out any well defined long term plan. They are both a little too fond of using arm wrestling to solve personal conflicts. I understand why the world leaders don't like Netanyahu. Nobody likes Netanyahu. He's only still prime minister because of a sore deficiency in worthy alternatives.
But merely because Netanyahu is a jerk (and he is), doesn't mean everything said about him or the country he's leading is correct. Add to that the complete lack of understanding of the conflict by most of the intermediaries self-appointed to solve it and you've got yourself a royal mess. Add to that a UN body that seemed to have zero interest in impartiality (it appointed a committee to investigate "Israel's violations of Human Rights". In essence, the committee's charter precludes it from investigating Israel's main defense. Then, as if the chances of getting a fair investigation were not slim enough, one of the three members was born and raised in Lebanon. Of course the UN secretery is going to condemn Israel when this committee is over).
The last article I sent you was the US condemning the Israeli attack. Of course you dismissed this just like you dismiss anything else that you don't like but whatever.
No, the article you sent bears the title "Palestinians to abandon Gaza truce talks unless Israeli team returns", and has no mention of any US stance of any kind. I am willing to believe you sent me the wrong article by mistake, but will non the less refuse to take responsibility for it.
If you're in Paris and have time let me know and we can meet for coffee or a drink. I work across the street from the Israeli embassy.
Hard as it is to believe, I did not plan to visit the Israeli embassy. Despite my current cell phone number being a temporary one until the end of the trip, I still don't feel comfortable publishing it here. Drop me an email if you're serious, and we'll see if it pans out.
Your reply describes, almost word for word, my feelings about you.
You make certain assertions (say, Israel is casual about casualties). I bring evidence to the contrary (say, the procedures put in place to prevent harm). You either discard them as irrelevant, without explaining why, or assert new allegations.
The problem is that people like you are so certain they are right, and feel good about themselves to boot, while hurting me. As you have pointed out quite correctly earlier, Hamas would slaughter me and my family without a second of hesitation, had they only had the chance. As you also pointed out (or maybe it was someone else, I lose track), Israel cannot withstand on its own.
Thankfully, while the mindless crowd is quite happy to follow careless media coverage to jump to whatever feel-good conclusions they want, the world leaders are not as quick to act recklessly (I think the anti-Israel mob is calling this "the Jewish loby controlling foreign governments", but I'm sure you're above lowering yourself to suggesting that Israel is controlling other countries). So far, we're sort of doing okay. I, for one, do not take it for granted. That's why I take your opinion seriously. Because you can make a difference, and because I believe you are misguided, rather than racist. If I believed you to be racist, I wouldn't have bothered with this thread.
That's why, in the midst of a vacation in France taken for the purpose of attending my sister's wedding, I am taking the time to research answers to your assertions. I'm doing it almost like my life depends on it, because in an infinitisimal way, I believe it does.
So, if you don't want to have this discussion any more, that's fine. I won't (nor can I) force you to. It is my hope that I have seeded just a smidgen of doubt in your mind, so that the next time someone asserts some fact, that you will remember to ask yourself whether that is really the only way to interpret it, or how reliable the source have proven in the past.
Have a great life,
There was nothing stored at this school.
The only thing that link shows is that the UN chief is ignoring the facts to gain cheap headlines. Nothing there denies the facts alleged by either Israel nor the UNRWA press release I linked to.
Even if there had been, Israel could have sent in foot soldiers who could use those super weapons called eyeballs to decide who to kill and who not.
Your assertion that under battle you have better control over not killing bystanders need better basing on facts. Foot soldiers on the ground means less control over the fight, as you have to take care of defense as well as attack. This results in more, not less, civilian casualties.
The biggest number of Palestinian casualties this time around, by far, were in Shuja'iyya, where the Israeli forces were taken by surprise and had to bring in artilery support. This simply does not happen in air raids.
Instead, as Israel does not want to incur military casualties of their own which would cause political backlash in Israel itself, they shell at a distance - easy for them but incurring, overall, seven times as many dead Palestinian children as there have been Israeli military and civilian casualties combined. Dead Palestinian children being more acceptable in Israel, obviously, than dead Israeli soldiers.
The objectives of any army in conflict inside urban area has, is, and seems to always continue to be, in descending order of precendence:
1. Get the mission done
2. Minimize own casualties
3. Minimize civilian enemy casualties
The only thing in which the IDF is different is that it sometimes places "3" above "2", and even above "1" above. That anomality is only happening in the IDF. Most other moral armies use the above list as is. Israel used to abort missions if there was a high chance of civilian casualties. Hamas manuvered that into making it impossible for Israel to act at all. Such a thing, while I'm sure would be lauded by some, would be even more immoral. The result is the high number of casualties in this round of fighting.
Israel has a clear interest in minimizing the number of casualties. There is both internal and external pressure to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. Hotheads like you blame Israel for every Palestinian dead, regardless of circumstances and actions, calling for boycotts and pressuring their own governments. Israel has no interest in killing Palestinians. Your asserted indifference is simply without grounding in reality.
Hamas, on the other hand. Well, that's a different story altogether. Every Palestinian dead is a Hamas win. Internally, they call them "Shahids" and claim that they are martyrs. I'm sure many Palestinians would love to call bulshit on this rehtorics, but the simply truth is that they do not. They are probably too afraid to fall out of line or to be accused of "cooporating with Israel", an accusation carrying the death penalty.
Externally, Hamas has equally little incentive to care for their own people. When you see horrible pictures of the dead (and they are horrible), you (i.e. sociocapitalist) don't stop to ask questions. You don't wonder why they did not clear out when warned. You don't seek media sources that will report to you Hamas explicit instructions (orders) to people to "defy" the Israeli warnings. People say that Israel is strong (which is true) and Hamas is weak (which is not as true as people believe, but definitely not false), and assign zero accountability to Hamas' actions. While I'm sure you congratulate yourself on being in the moral right, it is, in fact, your indifference to the truth that allows Hamas to continue to put citizens in harm's way.
Regarding your frace24 link, that story is misleadingly one sided. I would give more specific critique, but I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with it.
What is the normal number for this type of terrain and enemy? Who much were killed in other similar conflicts?
I just came across this, which I think you might find useful.
I don't think you'd think the civilian Palestinian casualties are inflicted casually had you been reading the Hebrew coverage or absorbing the atmosphere on the Israeli street. I think you are are erring in the opposite direction from before this time.
Before, you were implicitly accusing of Israel of impotency, of wishing to kill the Palestinains off, but failing. This time around, you are implicitly accusing Israel of super-potency. You are implying Israel has a choice in the matter. That it has some magical weapons able to distinguish a civilian from an active militant. How difficult that is depends on how much the other side honors international treaties requiring separation of the two.
With Hamas actions as they are, I doubt such a weapon exist that even conforms to the laws of physics. Whether that's an hyperbole or not, Israel does not seem to posses one. I can say with certainty that, had it had the ability, it would use it. I say so with such certainty because of the leaflets, "knock on roof", advance warning phone calls and aborted missions cannot nor should not be shrugged aside as inconsequencial, accidental or casual. They are unprecendented, and were, after all, invented by Israel for the sole purpose of reducing civilian casualties.
I would suggest to you that you ask yourself how you came around believing "genocide", despite it being completely ungrounded in reality. It should be fairly obvious that the word was introduced in order to create a shock value, without care for whether it has anything to do with actual facts. In other words, it is pure propoganda, in the worst meaning of the word.
Your latest response obviously shows you have not given up on applying your own critical thinking. Well done (no sarcasm). I would recommend you ask yourself what sources you were exposed to that led you, only two days ago, to believe "genocide". I would humbly suggest reconsidering your sources.
Designing algorithms that play well in a SMP environment under heavy loads is not easy. It isn't just a matter of locking within the protocol stack... contention between cpus can get completely out of control even from small 6-instruction locking windows. And it isn't just the TCP stack which needs be contention-free. The *entire* packet path from the hardware all the way through to the system calls made by userland have to be contention-free. Plus the scheduler has to be able to optimize the data flow to reduce unnecessary cache mastership changes.
It's fun, but so many kernel subsystems are involved that it takes a very long time to get it right. And there are only a handful of kernel programmers in the entire world capable of doing it.
That's because the Meriam Webster definition quote from above only quotes the abstract, not the full definition:
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group
It is not enough to merely kill (nor is killing a hard requirement). The main point behind genocide is an attempt at destruction of the race. This is also reflected in other sources
Genocide is the systematic destruction of all or part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group...
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
The amount of Palestinians killed by Israel is so small, it has not even stopped natural growth. You cannot destroy a race if you're not even significantly affecting natural growth.
This brings me back to my original claim: Either Israel is being completely incompetent about it, or this claim is pure bullshit.
It's not clear whether Hamas is attempting genocide or something else. I for one, haven't managed to deduce any meaningful aims from their actions.
One way or the other, genocide is very clearly listed in Hamas's charter. Then again, equally clearly, is that even if that's what they are attempting, they are very very very far from successful. In this case, however, you can blame incompetence. I think their incompetence renders the question of whether that's what they are attempting moot.