Of course police ignored that; if they'd listened they'd have lost their chance to play 007 or soldier or whatever else they like to think of themselves as.
607 karma · joined April 30, 2013
Those who do not know history are doomed to reinvent it, poorly. Or something like that.
This is quickly becoming older than the stupid "First Amendment only applies to government so it's okay to censor opinions we don't like!" trope. Innocent until proven guilty isn't just some quaint legal principle, it's supposed to be a foundation of American society (and many like it). The legal system is ultimately just a mirror of society; if we disdain such principles for long enough they'll disappear from the courts as well. Many people would be happy to see that happen; perhaps you're one of them, perhaps not.
People always compare the US to Western Europe when this topic comes up, but that's simply an invalid comparison. For this topic, the US should be compared to Russia or possibly Canada. These countries have rural areas which are neither completely deserted (where drunk driving would be irrelevant even if it were likely to happen) nor support a large enough population to have reasonable transportation alternatives.
I wish the US would recognize this fact and have two sets of drunk driving laws - one for urban areas (matching Western European conventions) and one for rural (matching current conventions). Unfortunately, this is probably impossible since it could be seen as permitting drunk driving.
Are we really going with this argument? I thought we had grown past this stage now.
Unless you're a lawyer with more-than-public knowledge about this case, you're not qualified to determine whether or not Google has fully complied with the law, which they maintain they have.
/s. I'm just getting this comment in here before someone puts it in unsarcastically, which invariably happens on HN and reddit.
Fun fact: historically it could also be rendered &c., because, after all, the ampersand is itself just a ligature for "et".
The gist of it is that the author starts with a decent argument about why philosophers against scientism might want to attack a weaker (i.e., more easily believed/more likely true) version of scientism, since that would give more weight to their arguments. But then the author goes off the rails by choosing to defend that weak version of scientism with some rather silly arguments, essentially arguing that since the term has been redefined, none of the work which has gone before (which has shown that these silly arguments are silly) applies any more.
> Effective January 3, 2017, except for §§ 64.2003, 64.2004, 64.2006, and 64.2011(b) which contain information collection requirements that have not yet been approved by OMB.
The section in question in the article is 64.2004. It did not go into effect on January 3.
EDIT: I chose "lie" because to make such an obviously false statement accidentally would be a huge mistake for such a trusted organization as BBC; therefore I judged it far more likely to be a deliberate deception. Obviously there's room for interpretation. We'll see if it's ever "corrected".
This is a lie — "fake news", if you will. This congressional action cancels an upcoming change in policy: it maintains the status quo, and therefore "no longer" is not an accurate characterization of the situation.
This bill makes no change to currently implemented policy, it only cancels a change that was to take place in 2018.
Uh, how do you think the kernel does it? Of course there's a CPU instruction for it - at least in modern ISAs like AArch64, but I can only assume it must have been tacked onto x86 too somehow or another.
One reason that it's implemented in the kernel is to interact well with the scheduler: it's all well and good for a user space process to spinlock (with some kind of enter-low-power-state instruction), but it's going to be spinning until the timer comes around and kicks it back to the kernel anyways unless the other side of the lock just happens to be scheduled on a different core simultaneously. Even worse, if a thread is holding a spinlock and it gets unscheduled, now everyone else who wants to acquire that lock will waste their timeslices spinning away for nothing. The only way to avoid this would be for threads to be able to tell the OS "don't unschedule me" (much like the kernel masks interrupts during critical sections), but that would allow any such process to not only DOS the rest of the system, it could allow any such process to hang the system entirely. That's not to say it can't be done properly, but the easy and perhaps even correct way to do it is OS-managed semaphores.
> not 2 or 4 hyperthreads but maybe 1000. So every thread in the system could be 'hot-staged'
And of course this is what hyperthreads are, but where exactly do you plan on putting 1MB of architectural state while you're not using it? You're lucky if you have an L2 that big, but let's think... moving architectural state to the L2, that sounds a lot like... yes, correct! OS threads!
If we want to rescue your suggestion back into the realm of feasibility, what you're saying is we should implement the OS (with features like scheduler-aware semaphores and thousands of ready threads) in hardware to make things like moving 1MB of architectural state to and from an L2 cheaper (and that we should have larger L2s so it's not incredibly wasteful to use 1MB on architectural state of non-executing threads). There's a reason we implement OSes in software, though, even with all the associated costs.
Oh great. Now in addition to users who think they need to disconnect their laptop when it hits 100% charge, we'll have users who think they need to let it charge 10%, discharge a little, charge 10%, etc. It's almost like battery manufacturers want people to wear out their batteries faster with this FUD... oh wait.