Saturday, March 12, 2011
My condolences to the Japanese
Japan has suffered a terrible earthquake followed by a tsunami. Damage is fearsome and casualties are heavy. My best wishes to all in Japan in this time of natural disaster.
Windows is lousy at multitasking
So here I am burning a DVD. The DVD burn program is taking less than 5% of my CPU time, and yet my computer is so bogged down as to delay keyboard echo. (Keyboard echo is the printing on the monitor of each character struck on the keyboard). It is so bad as to make the my computer into a single task machine. Which is something of a waste.
Windows got this way from a design decision made way back at the beginning of Windows. Microsoft decided not to use the timer to give control to the operating system every tenth of a second. At the time they feared that interrupting the application programs 10 times a second would confuse them and cause crashes. They also feared that the operating system could fail if control passed from one program to another too rapidly.
These are fears of novice programmers. It is quite possible to write programs and operating systems that work reliably with a 10 per second timer interrupt. This was known at the time, various minicomputer operating systems (RSX-11 and VMS for two examples) used a timer interrupt and could give excellent performance to dozens of timesharing users simultaneously.
Microsoft decided to use "co-operative" multitasking instead. Each program is expected to return control to the operating system at frequent intervals. The reason it doesn't work is simple, there is always an application program that fails to play by the rules and hogs CPU time. There is nothing Windows can do about such a program, short of Ctl-Alt-Delete to kill it dead.
And it's too late to change it now. Doing so would undoubtedly break a bunch of programs and nobody wants to do that. This poor design decision was set in concrete and the concrete has hardened.
Windows got this way from a design decision made way back at the beginning of Windows. Microsoft decided not to use the timer to give control to the operating system every tenth of a second. At the time they feared that interrupting the application programs 10 times a second would confuse them and cause crashes. They also feared that the operating system could fail if control passed from one program to another too rapidly.
These are fears of novice programmers. It is quite possible to write programs and operating systems that work reliably with a 10 per second timer interrupt. This was known at the time, various minicomputer operating systems (RSX-11 and VMS for two examples) used a timer interrupt and could give excellent performance to dozens of timesharing users simultaneously.
Microsoft decided to use "co-operative" multitasking instead. Each program is expected to return control to the operating system at frequent intervals. The reason it doesn't work is simple, there is always an application program that fails to play by the rules and hogs CPU time. There is nothing Windows can do about such a program, short of Ctl-Alt-Delete to kill it dead.
And it's too late to change it now. Doing so would undoubtedly break a bunch of programs and nobody wants to do that. This poor design decision was set in concrete and the concrete has hardened.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Obama talking about energy today
He is on TV right now saying "domestic oil production is the highest it's been since 2003. So let's not have any Republican carping about lack of oil exploration." Might be that existing wells are pumping hard, but Obama didn't say a word about the shut down of drilling permits since the Deepwater Horizon disaster, despite a court order to resume permitting.
He also said that new wells won't come on line for many years. What he didn't say is that oil prices will drop as soon as the market hears that the Americans are bringing new fields to market.
Question: How can you tell when a politician is lying?
Answer: When his lips are moving.
He also said that new wells won't come on line for many years. What he didn't say is that oil prices will drop as soon as the market hears that the Americans are bringing new fields to market.
Question: How can you tell when a politician is lying?
Answer: When his lips are moving.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Where's Charlie Wilson when you need him?
Stinger missiles for the Libyan rebels. Cheaper and more deniable than a no-fly zone. Worked in Afghanistan 20 years ago. Couple of hundred Stingers oughta keep Quadaffi's air force at a safe distance.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Freedom of Speech for Jerks (title of WSJ op-ed)
The Supremes came thru with another outrageous ruling last week. They held that freedom of speech gave a few insensitive jerks the right to run disgusting political demonstrations at a funeral. The Supremes (except Alito) wrote about the sacredness of freedom of speech and how they just couldn't set any limits to it.
Not so. There are times and places for everything. A funeral not the place for political demonstrations of any kind. Funerals are for mourners, period. Anyone at a funeral is a mourner. Anyone who is not mourning the dead shouldn't be there. A Supreme Court justice once said that freedom of speech does not convey the right to cry 'Fire" in a crowded theater.
This Supreme court could have held that freedom of speech does not convey the right to conduct political demonstrations at funerals. But they didn't. They are all lawyers.
Not so. There are times and places for everything. A funeral not the place for political demonstrations of any kind. Funerals are for mourners, period. Anyone at a funeral is a mourner. Anyone who is not mourning the dead shouldn't be there. A Supreme Court justice once said that freedom of speech does not convey the right to cry 'Fire" in a crowded theater.
This Supreme court could have held that freedom of speech does not convey the right to conduct political demonstrations at funerals. But they didn't. They are all lawyers.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Shall we liberate Libya ?
Libya's dictator has his hands full with a popular revolt. Should the US intervene on the side of the rebels?
Unlike Egypt, Quadaffi, the Libyan dictator has been a real bastard going back 40 years. He was responsible for the Pan Am bombing, the bombing of a German nightclub which killed American soldiers, and ruthless oppression of his own people. He settled down somewhat after Reagan ordered an air strike on his palace, and even more after Bush did a regime change on Iraq, but even so, he remains a bastard who is better off dead in my opinion. Who ever replaces Quadaffi could hardly be worse, and, with any kind of luck, will be better.
Reasons not to intervene should be obvious. Our troops and airmen will take casualties, "collateral damage" to Libyan bystanders and their property will do nothing to improve Libyan-American relations, and what ever regime comes to power after an American intervention will be forever known as American stooges. And Quadaffi might win in the end, which will make us look foolish for backing a loser.
Reasons for intervention don't look all that good. To prevent Libyan civilian casualties is the strongest reason that has floated up in the public press. Up until now, US policy ( and everyone else's policy) has been to let countries kill as many people as they liked in the course of civil wars, international wars, or rebellions. Compared to the Iran-Iraq war, or the Ruandan genocide in the Congo, a little strafing of demonstrators in the streets doesn't really count. The other reason to intervene is a little payback on Quadaffi for his past sins. Which might be satisfying, isn't really a good reason to take sides in a civil war.
So, let's let the Libyan's sort out their governance problems on their own.
Unlike Egypt, Quadaffi, the Libyan dictator has been a real bastard going back 40 years. He was responsible for the Pan Am bombing, the bombing of a German nightclub which killed American soldiers, and ruthless oppression of his own people. He settled down somewhat after Reagan ordered an air strike on his palace, and even more after Bush did a regime change on Iraq, but even so, he remains a bastard who is better off dead in my opinion. Who ever replaces Quadaffi could hardly be worse, and, with any kind of luck, will be better.
Reasons not to intervene should be obvious. Our troops and airmen will take casualties, "collateral damage" to Libyan bystanders and their property will do nothing to improve Libyan-American relations, and what ever regime comes to power after an American intervention will be forever known as American stooges. And Quadaffi might win in the end, which will make us look foolish for backing a loser.
Reasons for intervention don't look all that good. To prevent Libyan civilian casualties is the strongest reason that has floated up in the public press. Up until now, US policy ( and everyone else's policy) has been to let countries kill as many people as they liked in the course of civil wars, international wars, or rebellions. Compared to the Iran-Iraq war, or the Ruandan genocide in the Congo, a little strafing of demonstrators in the streets doesn't really count. The other reason to intervene is a little payback on Quadaffi for his past sins. Which might be satisfying, isn't really a good reason to take sides in a civil war.
So, let's let the Libyan's sort out their governance problems on their own.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Bill O'Rielly vs Donald Rumsfeld
O'Reilly is interviewing Rumsfeld on TV just now (its a rerun of last night's show). O'Reilly is criticizing Rumsfeld for not speaking out about the risks involved in the regime change operation in Iraq. O'Reilly said he had no idea of how much trouble we were headed into, and it was all Rumsfeld's fault for concealing information from us. This is back 7-8 years ago when the Iraq operation was started.
Well I don't know about you, Bill O'Reilly, but I had a very clear idea of what the risks were back when we intervened in Iraq. It could have become as bad as Viet Nam. I knew that, and so did everyone else in the country with Viet Nam experience. I served in Viet Nam and so had a lot of other people. O'Reilly's accusation that the country didn't know what it was getting into is wrong. We knew darn well what we were getting into. And so did he.
Fortunately Iraq, although plenty bad, was not as bad as Viet Nam was. Be thankful for small favors.
Well I don't know about you, Bill O'Reilly, but I had a very clear idea of what the risks were back when we intervened in Iraq. It could have become as bad as Viet Nam. I knew that, and so did everyone else in the country with Viet Nam experience. I served in Viet Nam and so had a lot of other people. O'Reilly's accusation that the country didn't know what it was getting into is wrong. We knew darn well what we were getting into. And so did he.
Fortunately Iraq, although plenty bad, was not as bad as Viet Nam was. Be thankful for small favors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)