Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Windsock who wrote (138553)	4/15/2001 2:34:13 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

WOW, what an argument. The price that PENCON went looking fro last November 2001? is more than the price was in 1997 There has been no growth in the economy and thus no increased demand in 4 years. There has been no increase in the cost of fuels used to create the electricity. WHY OR WHY does it cost more and gee no metric on what the cost increase is. If the bid after 4 years was 10.1% higher then this statement is true. But now it's time to negotiate a new deal. And when PENCON went looking last November, only one supplier made an offer; it would cost group members more than they paid under the old monopoly system. So it also seems we will see how cheap wind is as this is also in what you posted. Hopefully in that time frame, we will find some cheaper energy," says Jeffrey Kimball, PENCON's president and cofounder. New power supplies are expected to come online, including those generated by highly touted windmill farms. Kimball is convinced high prices are temporary, "although there may be this dry spell in the middle." But did you read "Hopefully " ?????? Dear Win, if you wish to counter my understanding of common sense then you have present detailed facts in a structured argument. All else is hand waving from someone with impeccable technology credentials who understand little linux. btw, from my linus linus folder Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 12:03:37 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> > > Now I am forcing the kernel to run as in the case it wasn't racing. > Basically now when a master pty hangup it will put its do_tty_hangup > request in the new tq_tty_hangup task queue. Then when the _last_ slave > will hangup too the do_tty_hangup() of the master will run a bit before > releasing the tty struct memory. > > I left the run_task_queue(&tq_scheduler) because I seen many tty lowlevel > drivers that are using it (just to be safe before removing the struct > under their eyes). This has the problem that it can delay the actual hangup indefinitely, ie until after somebody releases the tty anyway. So you won't race, but you also won't actually ever handle hangup events correctly (the particular crashme test-case that has been discussed in this context doesn't care, but a lot of other cases _do_ care that hangup events happen "quickly" (they don't have to happen immediately, they just have to happen in a reasonably timely fashion). Anyway, for the pty case this is a non-issue, because it really should be done synchronously anyway, but for other events it should be enough to just move the run_task_queue() in the scheduler to the top of the function. Linus tom watson tosiwmee