[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.programming

Universal Scalability Law for Delphi and FreePascal was updated,to version 2.0

Ramine

4/2/2016 12:51:00 AM


Hello,


Universal Scalability Law for Delphi and FreePascal was updated
to version 2.0

Now you have two options:

You can type at the command prompt: usl data.csv -p 20

the -p option will give you the scalability for the data point 20

and you can type at the command prompt: usl data.csv -d 0.2 10

the -d option will give you the derivative of the USL equation at
delta(y)/delta(x)=0.2 (it must be between 0 and 1) with a step
delta(x)=10 that will output a good approximation of a number and a
derivative to better optimize the criterion of the cost for a better QoS.


You can download the new version 2.0 from:

https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/universal-scalability-law-for-delphi-and-...


Author: Amine Moulay Ramdane.

Email: aminer@videotron.ca


Description:

This program analyzes system performance data with the Universal
Scalability Law, and it compiles with Delphi XE versions and FreePascal.

You have to supply the performance data as a csv file format,
please take a look at the supplied csv file called "data.csv",
the first line of the names of the colomuns of the csv file must
be commented by "#" character.

Just compile the usl.pas program and run it by executing it
on the command prompt like this: usl data.csv

The Universal Scalability Law (USL) was developed by Dr. Neil J.
Gunther. It can be used to analyze system performance data in order to
learn more about the scalability limitations of the system.

Details are presented in the book *Guerrilla Capacity Planning*.

Authors of Universal Scalability Law website: http://www.perfdyn...

Please take a look at the source code in the zip file:

When you compile the usl.pas , please type this in the
command prompt:

usl data.csv

You can pass a second parameter that is a number to predict
its scalability.

Here is the output of my program:

Peak number is: 449.188
Predicted scalability peak is: 18.434
Coefficient of determination R-squared is: 0.995

The peak number is the peak number of cores (look inside the csv file)
that will give the Predicted scalability peak that is: 18.434X

I have used a polynomial regression and i have done other approximations
to find the predicted scalability peak when the derivative must equal an
approximation of 0 and this when the USL coefficient beta equal 0. This
is all about mathematics.

You have two options:

You can type at the command prompt: usl data.csv -p 20

the -p option will give you the scalability for the data point 20

and you can type at the command prompt: usl data.csv -d 0.2 10

the -d option will give you the derivative of the USL equation at
delta(y)/delta(x)=0.2 (it must be between 0 and 1) with a step
delta(x)=10 that will output a good approximation of a number and a
derivative to better optimize the criterion of the cost for a better QoS.
I have tested more my USL for Delphi and FreePascal and it is working
perfectly. But to make it work best with multicores, you have to choose
the first column of the number of cores of the csv to: 1,2,4,8,16
without going up to 32 and it will work ok, don't choose 1,2,3,4,5
because this will not be a good approximation and this will cause problems.

I have used a polynomial regression and i have done other approximations
to find the predicted scalability peak when the derivative must equal an
approximation of 0 and this when the USL coefficient beta equal 0. This
is all about mathematics.

- Platform: Win32 ,Win64,Linux,OSX


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
33 Answers

David Johnston

2/10/2013 9:51:00 PM

0

On 2/10/2013 1:00 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in news:kf74f4$rfr$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>> On 2/9/2013 2:29 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>> news:kf6dm4$78u$1@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 2/9/2013 1:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:kf67qt$2e3$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/9/2013 11:37 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:kf3tvf$f54$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2013 12:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:kf1ov6$2t9$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/2013 8:42 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The President Decides He Can Kill US Citizens Without
>>>>>>>>>>> Making a Case to a Judge
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> He always could. In wartime. If Americans want to declare
>>>>>>>>>> peace, well that's up to them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Interesting that this item is rather quiet in the media, yet
>>>>>>>>> those same outlets went ballistic on some dudes being
>>>>>>>>> waterboarded. Are we saying that rather then torture a few of
>>>>>>>>> our enemies it is better and more ethical to kill some of our
>>>>>>>>> citizens?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You appear to be confused. "citizen" and "enemy" are not
> mutually
>>>>>>>> exclusive categories. And yes, they are saying that it more
>>>>>>>> ethical to kill your enemies than it is to capture and torture
>>>>>>>> them. The Geneva Convention agrees.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then you agree that Obama and his administration can be judge,
> jury
>>>>>>> and executioner of American citizens without a trial?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would (alleged) terrorists with American passports have
>>>>>> different rules of engagement than any other (alleged) terrorist?
>>>>>
>>>>> Slight change of subject there, eh? I did not say terrorists with
>>>>> Americans passports......I distinctly said.....let me check....yep,
>>>>> there it is right up above....."American citizens".
>>>>
>>>> Terrorists with American passports are American citizens.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily and in many cases that distinction is necessary.
>>>
>>>>> Why would
>>>>>> Obama's administration be treated differently than any other
>>>>>> administration?
>>>>>
>>>>> What other administration has declared that power?
>>>>
>>>> Any wartime administration has the power to kill enemy personnel who
>>>> have not yet surrendered regardless of their citizenship. If
>>>> Americans have a problem with that, maybe they should consider ending
>>>> the AUMF.
>>>
>>> I have a problem with American citizens being killed by their
> government
>>> without due process.Don't you?
>>
>> The "due process" for dealing with enemies in a war is to shoot and
>> bomb them until they die or surrender. If you want a different set of
>> rules, if you want to start treating alleged terrorists as criminals
>> rather than military enemies, then I suggest you write to your
>> legislator and ask him to end the Authorization to Use Military Force.
>>
>> If not, then I should not expect to
>>> hear any whining from you over waterboarding or torture.
>>
>> Torture is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Killing the enemy is
>> only a violation if they have already surrendered.
>>
>>
>
> IOW, you have no problem with the president being able to kill US
> citizens without due process. Good to know.

As I said "due process" in a war is to shoot and bomb the enemy until
they surrender.

>

Harold Burton

2/10/2013 9:54:00 PM

0

In article <kf94n7$p24$1@dont-email.me>,
David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote:

> On 2/10/2013 1:00 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> > David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in news:kf74f4$rfr$1@dont-
> > email.me:
> >
> >> On 2/9/2013 2:29 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> >>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
> >>> news:kf6dm4$78u$1@dont-email.me:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2/9/2013 1:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> >>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
> >>>>> news:kf67qt$2e3$1@dont-email.me:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2/9/2013 11:37 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> >>>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
> >>>>>>> news:kf3tvf$f54$1@dont-email.me:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 2/8/2013 12:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>> news:kf1ov6$2t9$1@dont-email.me:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/2013 8:42 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> The President Decides He Can Kill US Citizens Without
> >>>>>>>>>>> Making a Case to a Judge
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> He always could. In wartime. If Americans want to declare
> >>>>>>>>>> peace, well that's up to them.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Interesting that this item is rather quiet in the media, yet
> >>>>>>>>> those same outlets went ballistic on some dudes being
> >>>>>>>>> waterboarded. Are we saying that rather then torture a few of
> >>>>>>>>> our enemies it is better and more ethical to kill some of our
> >>>>>>>>> citizens?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You appear to be confused. "citizen" and "enemy" are not
> > mutually
> >>>>>>>> exclusive categories. And yes, they are saying that it more
> >>>>>>>> ethical to kill your enemies than it is to capture and torture
> >>>>>>>> them. The Geneva Convention agrees.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Then you agree that Obama and his administration can be judge,
> > jury
> >>>>>>> and executioner of American citizens without a trial?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why would (alleged) terrorists with American passports have
> >>>>>> different rules of engagement than any other (alleged) terrorist?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Slight change of subject there, eh? I did not say terrorists with
> >>>>> Americans passports......I distinctly said.....let me check....yep,
> >>>>> there it is right up above....."American citizens".
> >>>>
> >>>> Terrorists with American passports are American citizens.
> >>>
> >>> Not necessarily and in many cases that distinction is necessary.
> >>>
> >>>>> Why would
> >>>>>> Obama's administration be treated differently than any other
> >>>>>> administration?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What other administration has declared that power?
> >>>>
> >>>> Any wartime administration has the power to kill enemy personnel who
> >>>> have not yet surrendered regardless of their citizenship. If
> >>>> Americans have a problem with that, maybe they should consider ending
> >>>> the AUMF.
> >>>
> >>> I have a problem with American citizens being killed by their
> > government
> >>> without due process.Don't you?
> >>
> >> The "due process" for dealing with enemies in a war is to shoot and
> >> bomb them until they die or surrender. If you want a different set of
> >> rules, if you want to start treating alleged terrorists as criminals
> >> rather than military enemies, then I suggest you write to your
> >> legislator and ask him to end the Authorization to Use Military Force.
> >>
> >> If not, then I should not expect to
> >>> hear any whining from you over waterboarding or torture.
> >>
> >> Torture is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Killing the enemy is
> >> only a violation if they have already surrendered.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > IOW, you have no problem with the president being able to kill US
> > citizens without due process. Good to know.
>
> As I said "due process" in a war is to shoot and bomb the enemy until
> they surrender.



Has war been declared?


Leftards, batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

David Johnston

2/10/2013 10:07:00 PM

0

On 2/10/2013 2:53 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
> In article <kf94n7$p24$1@dont-email.me>, David Johnston
> <David@block.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/10/2013 1:00 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>> news:kf74f4$rfr$1@dont- email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 2/9/2013 2:29 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>>> news:kf6dm4$78u$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/9/2013 1:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:kf67qt$2e3$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2013 11:37 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:kf3tvf$f54$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2013 12:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:kf1ov6$2t9$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/2013 8:42 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The President Decides He Can Kill US Citizens
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without Making a Case to a Judge
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> He always could. In wartime. If Americans
>>>>>>>>>>>> want to declare peace, well that's up to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that this item is rather quiet in the
>>>>>>>>>>> media, yet those same outlets went ballistic on
>>>>>>>>>>> some dudes being waterboarded. Are we saying
>>>>>>>>>>> that rather then torture a few of our enemies it
>>>>>>>>>>> is better and more ethical to kill some of our
>>>>>>>>>>> citizens?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You appear to be confused. "citizen" and "enemy"
>>>>>>>>>> are not
>>> mutually
>>>>>>>>>> exclusive categories. And yes, they are saying
>>>>>>>>>> that it more ethical to kill your enemies than it
>>>>>>>>>> is to capture and torture them. The Geneva
>>>>>>>>>> Convention agrees.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then you agree that Obama and his administration can
>>>>>>>>> be judge,
>>> jury
>>>>>>>>> and executioner of American citizens without a
>>>>>>>>> trial?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would (alleged) terrorists with American passports
>>>>>>>> have different rules of engagement than any other
>>>>>>>> (alleged) terrorist?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Slight change of subject there, eh? I did not say
>>>>>>> terrorists with Americans passports......I distinctly
>>>>>>> said.....let me check....yep, there it is right up
>>>>>>> above....."American citizens".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Terrorists with American passports are American citizens.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not necessarily and in many cases that distinction is
>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would
>>>>>>>> Obama's administration be treated differently than any
>>>>>>>> other administration?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What other administration has declared that power?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any wartime administration has the power to kill enemy
>>>>>> personnel who have not yet surrendered regardless of their
>>>>>> citizenship. If Americans have a problem with that, maybe
>>>>>> they should consider ending the AUMF.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a problem with American citizens being killed by
>>>>> their
>>> government
>>>>> without due process.Don't you?
>>>>
>>>> The "due process" for dealing with enemies in a war is to
>>>> shoot and bomb them until they die or surrender. If you want a
>>>> different set of rules, if you want to start treating alleged
>>>> terrorists as criminals rather than military enemies, then I
>>>> suggest you write to your legislator and ask him to end the
>>>> Authorization to Use Military Force.
>>>>
>>>> If not, then I should not expect to
>>>>> hear any whining from you over waterboarding or torture.
>>>>
>>>> Torture is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Killing the
>>>> enemy is only a violation if they have already surrendered.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> IOW, you have no problem with the president being able to kill
>>> US citizens without due process. Good to know.
>>
>> As I said "due process" in a war is to shoot and bomb the enemy
>> until they surrender.
>
>
>
> Has war been declared?

It has. War was declared on September 14, 2001 with the passage of the
Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.

> a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary
> and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or
> persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the
> terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored
> such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of
> international terrorism against the United States by such nations,
> organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1)
> SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of
> the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is
> intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the
> meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

That is a declaration of war. Unfortunately it's a declaration of war
with no defined opponent and no real goal. Thus it is a war that can
never be won, or even lost.

Lennie Godwin-Broderick

2/10/2013 11:22:00 PM

0

Another Canadian Asshat. Canadian Socialists ignore how shitty their
country is [flushing 200,000,000,000 liters of raw sewage directly
into natural waterways and the Pacific Ocean every year -
http://environment.about.com/od/waterpollution/a/canada... ]
and try to spread their Euro-socialist failed ideas by constantly
commenting on America and American politics. Please note that when you
reply to a Canadian Asshat you encourage them to continue criticizing
America while ignoring their own failed country.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallof... asks
"Why do you always LIE?"


On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:18:48 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:07:11 -0500, Patriot Games
><Patriot@America.Com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:37:31 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
>>wrote:
>>>On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 13:21:36 -0500, Patriot Games
>>><Patriot@America.Com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:04:09 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:10:17 -0500, Patriot Games
>>>>><Patriot@America.Com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:44:15 GMT, David Johnston <david@block.net>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>On Sun, 16 Nov 2008 08:19:29 -0500, Patriot Games
>>>>>>><Patriot@America.Com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/15/afghanistan.violence/index.html?eref=rss_...
>>>>>>>>November 15, 2008
>>>>>>>>U.S.: Afghan insurgent leader captured
>>>>>>>So it's over then. The insurgency has been defeated and there will be
>>>>>>>no more fighting in Afghanistan. Happy days.
>>>>>>Thanks for proving why Canadian faggots should mind their own
>>>>>>business...
>>>>>Afghanistan is our business, wuss.
>>>>When America is done with the real work
>>>What's that? A joke? Most of the fighting in Afghanistan has been
>>>done by the Aghanis themselves
>>No cite. Rejected.
>I see you've found a new hypocritical way to avoid discussion but here
>you go:
>http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/northern_al...

Your cite does NOT address the claim that "most of the fighting in
Afghanistan has been done by the Aghanis themselves."

This is why Canadians should stick to topics they know something about
including taking Muslim cock up their ass daily.

YOU said: "most of the fighting in Afghanistan has been done by the
Aghanis themselves."

YOU lied.

>>>but of the foreign forces there,
>>>Britain and Canada have been doing the "real work" with the Americans
>>>distracted by Iraq.
>>No cite. Rejected.
>http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2008/11/13/74052...

Canada did not have a significant role in the first few months of the
invasion of Afghanistan that began on October 7, 2001...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_role_in_the_invasion_of_A...

This is why Canadians should stick to topics they know something about
including sucking Muslim cock daily.

YOU said Canadians "have been doing the "real work...""

YOU lied.

-----------------------------

Australia - 500
Canada - 2,500
UK - 6,700
US - 17,000
http://web.archive.org/web/20070628124507/http://www.nato.int/isaf/media/pdf/placema...

YOU said Brits and Canadians "have been doing the "real work...""

YOU lied.

This is why Canadians should stick to topics they know something about
including washing French cock and balls for tips.

-----------------------------

Afghanistan Casualities:
Country Total
Australia 6
Canada 97
Czech 3
Denmark 16
Estonia 3
Finland 1
France 22
Germany 28
Hungary 2
Italy 13
Latvia 1
Lithuania 1
Netherlands 17
Norway 3
Poland 8
Portugal 2
Romania 8
South Korea 1
Spain 25
Sweden 2
UK 125
US 627
Total 1011
http://icasualtie...

YOU said Brits and Canadians "have been doing the "real work...""

YOU lied.

This is why Canadians should stick to topics they know something about
including washing Muslim cock and balls daily for tips.

Game over, LIAR.

=========================

How do people respond to your LYING?

2008 Posting
Nov: 1002
Dec: 875 -13%

2009
Jan: 281 -72% Beatdown from Nov.
Feb: 264 -74% Beatdown from Nov.
Mar: 368
Apr: 675
May: 633
Jun: 401 -37% Beatdown!
Jul: 507
Aug: 364 -28% Beatdown!

Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallof...

BR549

2/11/2013 2:40:00 AM

0

On Feb 10, 2:00 pm, RD Sandman <rdsandman[remove]@comcast.net> wrote:
> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote innews:kf74f4$rfr$1@dont-
> email.me:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/9/2013 2:29 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> >> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in
> >>news:kf6dm4$78u$1@dont-email.me:
>
> >>> On 2/9/2013 1:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> >>>> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in
> >>>>news:kf67qt$2e3$1@dont-email.me:
>
> >>>>> On 2/9/2013 11:37 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> >>>>>> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in
> >>>>>>news:kf3tvf$f54$1@dont-email.me:
>
> >>>>>>> On 2/8/2013 12:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> >>>>>>>> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in
> >>>>>>>>news:kf1ov6$2t9$1@dont-email.me:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On 2/5/2013 8:42 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> The President Decides He Can Kill US Citizens Without
> >>>>>>>>>> Making a Case to a Judge
>
> >>>>>>>>> He always could.  In wartime.  If Americans want to declare
> >>>>>>>>> peace, well that's up to them.
>
> >>>>>>>> Interesting that this item is rather quiet in the media, yet
> >>>>>>>> those same outlets went ballistic on some dudes being
> >>>>>>>> waterboarded.  Are we saying that rather then torture a few of
> >>>>>>>> our enemies it is better and more ethical to kill some of our
> >>>>>>>> citizens?
>
> >>>>>>> You appear to be confused.  "citizen" and "enemy" are not
> mutually
> >>>>>>> exclusive categories.  And yes, they are saying that it more
> >>>>>>> ethical to kill your enemies than it is to capture and torture
> >>>>>>> them.  The Geneva Convention agrees.
>
> >>>>>> Then you agree that Obama and his administration can be judge,
> jury
> >>>>>> and executioner of American citizens without a trial?
>
> >>>>> Why would (alleged) terrorists with American passports have
> >>>>> different rules of engagement than any other (alleged) terrorist?
>
> >>>> Slight change of subject there, eh?  I did not say terrorists with
> >>>> Americans passports......I distinctly said.....let me check....yep,
> >>>> there it is right up above....."American citizens".
>
> >>> Terrorists with American passports are American citizens.
>
> >> Not necessarily and in many cases that distinction is necessary.
>
> >>>>    Why would
> >>>>> Obama's administration be treated differently than any other
> >>>>> administration?
>
> >>>> What other administration has declared that power?
>
> >>> Any wartime administration has the power to kill enemy personnel who
> >>> have not yet surrendered regardless of their citizenship.  If
> >>> Americans have a problem with that, maybe they should consider ending
> >>> the AUMF.
>
> >> I have a problem with American citizens being killed by their
> government
> >> without due process.Don't you?
>
> > The  "due process" for dealing with enemies in a war is to shoot and
> > bomb them until they die or surrender.  If you want a different set of
> > rules, if you want to start treating alleged terrorists as criminals
> > rather than military enemies, then I suggest you write to your
> > legislator and ask him to end the Authorization to Use Military Force.
>
> > If not, then I should not expect to
> >> hear any whining from you over waterboarding or torture.
>
> > Torture is a violation of the Geneva Convention.  Killing the enemy is
> > only a violation if they have already surrendered.
>
> IOW, you have no problem with the president being able to kill US
> citizens without due process.  Good to know.
>
> --
> Sleep well, tonight.....
>
> RD (The Sandman
>
> You can be young without money, but you
> can't be old without it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hey, lean forward types have no problem with ANYTHING a President does
as long as he has a (D) in front of his name.

Yoorghis

2/11/2013 4:39:00 AM

0

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:39:38 -0800 (PST), "Robert Westergrom,1900
Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E" <burtonurny@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hey, lean forward types have no problem with ANYTHING a President does
>as long as he has a (D) in front of his name.

Hey, lean forward and kiss ass, BurtonLoon

You seem BiPolar when it comes to using different labels to rant your
screeds

Either you talk about what IDEOLOGY does----or use Party label
consistently

PROGRESSIVE/LIBERALS founded this nation, Not Conservatives

PROGRESSIVE/LIBERALS Whipped conservatives in the Civil war

PROGRESSIVE/LIBERALS Opposed JimCrow and Segregation

PROGRESSIVE/LIBERALS fought child labor, slavery, worker exploitation,
women second class status, against old age poverty

PROGRESSIVE/LIBERALS introduced and passed the 1965 Civil RIghts Act

PROGRESSIVE/LIBERALS expanded civil liberties (warren court), Civil
Rights, voting rights, childrens rights, integrated schools,

ALL of which were opposed by CONSERVATIVES

Which of the two Political parties (D) or (R)---got all the DixeCrats
after 1965 and put the racist "states rights" plank in their platform
every year?

RD Sandman

2/11/2013 6:44:00 AM

0

David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in news:kf94n7$p24$1@dont-
email.me:

> On 2/10/2013 1:00 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in news:kf74f4$rfr$1@dont-
>> email.me:
>>
>>> On 2/9/2013 2:29 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>> news:kf6dm4$78u$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/9/2013 1:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>>>> news:kf67qt$2e3$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/9/2013 11:37 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:kf3tvf$f54$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2013 12:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:kf1ov6$2t9$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/2013 8:42 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The President Decides He Can Kill US Citizens Without
>>>>>>>>>>>> Making a Case to a Judge
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He always could. In wartime. If Americans want to declare
>>>>>>>>>>> peace, well that's up to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that this item is rather quiet in the media, yet
>>>>>>>>>> those same outlets went ballistic on some dudes being
>>>>>>>>>> waterboarded. Are we saying that rather then torture a few of
>>>>>>>>>> our enemies it is better and more ethical to kill some of our
>>>>>>>>>> citizens?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You appear to be confused. "citizen" and "enemy" are not
>> mutually
>>>>>>>>> exclusive categories. And yes, they are saying that it more
>>>>>>>>> ethical to kill your enemies than it is to capture and torture
>>>>>>>>> them. The Geneva Convention agrees.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you agree that Obama and his administration can be judge,
>> jury
>>>>>>>> and executioner of American citizens without a trial?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would (alleged) terrorists with American passports have
>>>>>>> different rules of engagement than any other (alleged) terrorist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Slight change of subject there, eh? I did not say terrorists with
>>>>>> Americans passports......I distinctly said.....let me
check....yep,
>>>>>> there it is right up above....."American citizens".
>>>>>
>>>>> Terrorists with American passports are American citizens.
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily and in many cases that distinction is necessary.
>>>>
>>>>>> Why would
>>>>>>> Obama's administration be treated differently than any other
>>>>>>> administration?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What other administration has declared that power?
>>>>>
>>>>> Any wartime administration has the power to kill enemy personnel
who
>>>>> have not yet surrendered regardless of their citizenship. If
>>>>> Americans have a problem with that, maybe they should consider
ending
>>>>> the AUMF.
>>>>
>>>> I have a problem with American citizens being killed by their
>> government
>>>> without due process.Don't you?
>>>
>>> The "due process" for dealing with enemies in a war is to shoot and
>>> bomb them until they die or surrender. If you want a different set
of
>>> rules, if you want to start treating alleged terrorists as criminals
>>> rather than military enemies, then I suggest you write to your
>>> legislator and ask him to end the Authorization to Use Military
Force.
>>>
>>> If not, then I should not expect to
>>>> hear any whining from you over waterboarding or torture.
>>>
>>> Torture is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Killing the enemy
is
>>> only a violation if they have already surrendered.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> IOW, you have no problem with the president being able to kill US
>> citizens without due process. Good to know.
>
> As I said "due process" in a war is to shoot and bomb the enemy until
> they surrender.

And the Geneva Convention covers soldiers as distinct from civilians.

--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.

RD Sandman

2/11/2013 6:45:00 AM

0

David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in news:kf95k7$hp$1@dont-email.me:

> On 2/10/2013 2:53 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
>> In article <kf94n7$p24$1@dont-email.me>, David Johnston
>> <David@block.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/10/2013 1:00 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>> news:kf74f4$rfr$1@dont- email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/9/2013 2:29 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>>>> news:kf6dm4$78u$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/9/2013 1:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:kf67qt$2e3$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2013 11:37 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:kf3tvf$f54$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2013 12:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:kf1ov6$2t9$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/2013 8:42 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The President Decides He Can Kill US Citizens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Without Making a Case to a Judge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> He always could. In wartime. If Americans
>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to declare peace, well that's up to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that this item is rather quiet in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> media, yet those same outlets went ballistic on
>>>>>>>>>>>> some dudes being waterboarded. Are we saying
>>>>>>>>>>>> that rather then torture a few of our enemies it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is better and more ethical to kill some of our
>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You appear to be confused. "citizen" and "enemy"
>>>>>>>>>>> are not
>>>> mutually
>>>>>>>>>>> exclusive categories. And yes, they are saying
>>>>>>>>>>> that it more ethical to kill your enemies than it
>>>>>>>>>>> is to capture and torture them. The Geneva
>>>>>>>>>>> Convention agrees.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then you agree that Obama and his administration can
>>>>>>>>>> be judge,
>>>> jury
>>>>>>>>>> and executioner of American citizens without a
>>>>>>>>>> trial?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why would (alleged) terrorists with American passports
>>>>>>>>> have different rules of engagement than any other
>>>>>>>>> (alleged) terrorist?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Slight change of subject there, eh? I did not say
>>>>>>>> terrorists with Americans passports......I distinctly
>>>>>>>> said.....let me check....yep, there it is right up
>>>>>>>> above....."American citizens".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Terrorists with American passports are American citizens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not necessarily and in many cases that distinction is
>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would
>>>>>>>>> Obama's administration be treated differently than any
>>>>>>>>> other administration?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What other administration has declared that power?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any wartime administration has the power to kill enemy
>>>>>>> personnel who have not yet surrendered regardless of their
>>>>>>> citizenship. If Americans have a problem with that, maybe
>>>>>>> they should consider ending the AUMF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a problem with American citizens being killed by
>>>>>> their
>>>> government
>>>>>> without due process.Don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>> The "due process" for dealing with enemies in a war is to
>>>>> shoot and bomb them until they die or surrender. If you want a
>>>>> different set of rules, if you want to start treating alleged
>>>>> terrorists as criminals rather than military enemies, then I
>>>>> suggest you write to your legislator and ask him to end the
>>>>> Authorization to Use Military Force.
>>>>>
>>>>> If not, then I should not expect to
>>>>>> hear any whining from you over waterboarding or torture.
>>>>>
>>>>> Torture is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Killing the
>>>>> enemy is only a violation if they have already surrendered.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> IOW, you have no problem with the president being able to kill
>>>> US citizens without due process. Good to know.
>>>
>>> As I said "due process" in a war is to shoot and bomb the enemy
>>> until they surrender.
>>
>>
>>
>> Has war been declared?
>
> It has. War was declared on September 14, 2001 with the passage of the
> Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.
>
>> a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary
>> and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or
>> persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the
>> terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored
>> such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of
>> international terrorism against the United States by such nations,
>> organizations or persons.
>
> (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements- (1)
>> SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of
>> the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is
>> intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the
>> meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
>
> That is a declaration of war.

Actually, no, it isn't. Only Congress can declare war. The president
can operate for about six months without that declaration but what is
sited above is a resolution, not a declaration of war.


Unfortunately it's a declaration of war
> with no defined opponent and no real goal. Thus it is a war that can
> never be won, or even lost.
>
>



--
Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman

You can be young without money, but you
can't be old without it.

SaPeIsMa

2/11/2013 7:10:00 PM

0


"David Johnston" <David@block.net> wrote in message
news:kf94n7$p24$1@dont-email.me...
> On 2/10/2013 1:00 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in news:kf74f4$rfr$1@dont-
>> email.me:
>>
>>> On 2/9/2013 2:29 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>> news:kf6dm4$78u$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/9/2013 1:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>>>> news:kf67qt$2e3$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/9/2013 11:37 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:kf3tvf$f54$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2013 12:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> David Johnston <David@block.net> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:kf1ov6$2t9$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/2013 8:42 PM, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The President Decides He Can Kill US Citizens Without
>>>>>>>>>>>> Making a Case to a Judge
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> He always could. In wartime. If Americans want to declare
>>>>>>>>>>> peace, well that's up to them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Interesting that this item is rather quiet in the media, yet
>>>>>>>>>> those same outlets went ballistic on some dudes being
>>>>>>>>>> waterboarded. Are we saying that rather then torture a few of
>>>>>>>>>> our enemies it is better and more ethical to kill some of our
>>>>>>>>>> citizens?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You appear to be confused. "citizen" and "enemy" are not
>> mutually
>>>>>>>>> exclusive categories. And yes, they are saying that it more
>>>>>>>>> ethical to kill your enemies than it is to capture and torture
>>>>>>>>> them. The Geneva Convention agrees.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you agree that Obama and his administration can be judge,
>> jury
>>>>>>>> and executioner of American citizens without a trial?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would (alleged) terrorists with American passports have
>>>>>>> different rules of engagement than any other (alleged) terrorist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Slight change of subject there, eh? I did not say terrorists with
>>>>>> Americans passports......I distinctly said.....let me check....yep,
>>>>>> there it is right up above....."American citizens".
>>>>>
>>>>> Terrorists with American passports are American citizens.
>>>>
>>>> Not necessarily and in many cases that distinction is necessary.
>>>>
>>>>>> Why would
>>>>>>> Obama's administration be treated differently than any other
>>>>>>> administration?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What other administration has declared that power?
>>>>>
>>>>> Any wartime administration has the power to kill enemy personnel who
>>>>> have not yet surrendered regardless of their citizenship. If
>>>>> Americans have a problem with that, maybe they should consider ending
>>>>> the AUMF.
>>>>
>>>> I have a problem with American citizens being killed by their
>> government
>>>> without due process.Don't you?
>>>
>>> The "due process" for dealing with enemies in a war is to shoot and
>>> bomb them until they die or surrender. If you want a different set of
>>> rules, if you want to start treating alleged terrorists as criminals
>>> rather than military enemies, then I suggest you write to your
>>> legislator and ask him to end the Authorization to Use Military Force.
>>>
>>> If not, then I should not expect to
>>>> hear any whining from you over waterboarding or torture.
>>>
>>> Torture is a violation of the Geneva Convention. Killing the enemy is
>>> only a violation if they have already surrendered.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> IOW, you have no problem with the president being able to kill US
>> citizens without due process. Good to know.
>
> As I said "due process" in a war is to shoot and bomb the enemy until they
> surrender.

What if the president declares Usenet Posters are "enemies" and "terrorists"
?
What then ?

Ronnie U. Groves

2/12/2013 12:38:00 AM

0

Yoorghis: Real name Gary Richard Roselles. Before he was exposed he
changed his name every few days or weeks mainly because he's a
sociopathic coward, a pussy, and above all else a LIAR and a
time-waster. Gary is another example of a Complete Loser: He is
festering away in a one-bedroom apartment on Medicaid and Social
Security having wasted his entire life...

Gary uses "X-No-Archive: yes" in his message Header to force
server-side deletion of ALL of his posts and this is usually the only
way to detect his presence (unless you detect the strong odor of
shit).

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

Gary Richard Roselles (68+)
Diane M Roselles (52+)
4215 Cedar Ridge Pl, Apt 42
Rapid City, SD 57702-3190
(605) 341-2445

[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallof... asks
"Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 12:12:20 -0700, Yoorghis@Jurgis.net wrote:
>Gee---do ya suppose that's because when Bush cut those taxes for the
>wealthy, and the billions held hostage in the last couple of
>years---the VA got LESS money to help pay for them?
>The VA cut back............

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Historical Budget Authority for the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA)

Clinton 2001 48,665.2
Bush 2002 53,495.0 <-- 9.9% over Clintoon
Bush 2009 99,447.3 <-- 104% over Clintoon!!!!!!

Bush 86% Total increase.............

Obogus 2010 112,694.6
Obogus 2011 124,383.5
Obogus 2012 125,304.3

Obogus 11% Total increase.............
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R...

Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallof...