• 31Oct
    Categories: Tech, Work Comments: 0

    As some of you may know, I have recently switched from a shared hosting package to a dedicated server. This means that I have direct control of the whole computer that is hosting hansmast.com and the other websites that I am running. With shared hosting, you share the computer with a bunch of other people. With the dedicated server, I have been learning a lot of Linux. One thing that I have wanted to do is to check the server’s performance. I wanted to check the CPU usage and memory allocation. I didn’t know how. Until now.

    There’s a simple command vmstat that produces a very useful, very cryptic output:

    [root@u15183998 root]# vmstat 5 10
    procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- ----cpu----
     r  b   swpd   free   buff  cache   si   so    bi    bo   in    cs us sy id wa
     0  0      0  76576  13080 100752    0    0    16    33 1032    50 21  5 72  2
     0  0      0  76584  13092 100740    0    0     0    19 1007    30  5  0 95  0
     0  0      0  76440  13096 100736    0    0     0    15 1005    26  8  1 91  0
     0  0      0  76432  13108 100724    0    0     2    14 1030    74 32  2 65  0
     0  0      0  76448  13116 100716    0    0     0     8 1005    12  0  0 100  0
     0  0      0  76448  13116 100716    0    0     0    18 1008    31  5  0 94  0
     2  0      0  76296  13124 100776    0    0     0    54 1018    53 63 27 10  0
     0  0      0  76400  13136 100764    0    0     0    47 1008    24  3  0 97  0
     0  0      0  76400  13136 100764    0    0     0     0 1003    10  1  0 99  0
     0  0      0  76464  13136 100764    0    0     0     8 1005    13  0  0 100  0
    

    First, let me tell you how this command works. The first argument, 5 in this case, is the amount of seconds that the command collects data for each iteration. The second argument, 10 in this case, is the number of times the command is run. Running it multiple times (i.e. second argument) gives you a textual graph to look at.

    Unless you are really deep into solving a really knotty problem, there are only a couple of columns that you need to pay attention to. The first and foremost is the “id” column under CPU. This displays the idle CPU percentage. The other columns under CPU break down the CPU usage into categories: us = userspace, sy = kernel, wa = I/O wait. The second column you will be most interested in is the “free” column under memory. This display the kBs of free memory. Don’t worry if this is low; to improve performance, Linux automatically caches frequently accessed hard disk files in the memory, so the memory will often be nearly full. The third column that will be of interest is the r column. This shows how many processes are waiting to be run.

    If you want more information on what the rest of the columns mean, you can find that here.

    Update: I found a much better way. Just type in “top”. It should be installed on most linux distros. It displays all sorts of much easier to read stats and they auto-update.

  • 30Oct
    Categories: General, Sports Comments: 4

    Wow! This is one of the coolest things I have seen in a long time!

    Hat tip: Google Blogoscoped

  • 30Oct

    ** To Revive a Presidency is an excellent editorial by the Washington Post that examines Bush’s mistakes and suggests fixes:

    Mr. Bush does not have the appetite to cross-examine subordinates in detail and judge them on the quality of their advice, so he tends to appoint those with whom he feels comfortable. This has led to bad appointments — and not only Ms. Miers and that hapless horseman who presided over federal disasters and also became one. There’s Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general who is unable to state U.S. policy on cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners; one Treasury secretary who committed gaffe after gaffe and a second who is lackluster; unqualified contributors in many of the most important diplomatic posts; and more. A president who grappled seriously with the issues would surely demand better.

    ** The Realist Who Got It Wrong is a great column by Charles Krauthammer that appeared in the Washington Post that talks very intelligently about the Iraq war:

    Now that Cindy Sheehan turns out to be a disaster for the antiwar movement — most Americans are not about to follow a left-wing radical who insists that we are in Iraq for reasons of theft, oppression and empire — a new spokesman is needed. If I were in the opposition camp, I would want a deeply patriotic, highly intelligent, distinguished establishment figure. I would want Brent Scowcroft.

    ** Amy Smucker wrote a very interesting blog post about her trip to the United Arab Emirates (map):

    Once I finally got to Dubai things went fairly well. I had to stand in line for a while waiting to go through passport control, but once I got there they asked me if I was a tourist, stamped my passport, and that was it. I went on to the baggage carousel to get my luggage, and waited and waited for it. Finally it was obvious that my luggage wasn’t there. There was some luggage nearby that someone had taken off the carousel earlier, so I went over to see if any of it was mine. Sure enough, my smaller suitcase was there, but the larger one wasn’t. I turned to look for an airport employee to help me, and then noticed a large navy suitcase, with various familiar items sticking out of it, wrapped in a thick plastic bag. Over half of the seam around my almost-brand-new suitcase had come apart sometime during its journey.

  • 30Oct

    The liberals in our country are known for at least nominally seeking a consensus when making a descision. The conservatives are known to be more dogmatic and uncompromising. When I thought of myself in the leadership position that I employ, I saw that I strove to be a consensus builder. I asked myself, “How can this be? I am a conservative, yet when I get down to the task of leadership, I follow what seems to be more a liberal ideology. Why is this?”

    I realized that there are different sets of circumstances in which a consensus-based leadership is the best and times when a dogmatic, uncompromising leadership is best. It hinges on one very simple criteria: Is it a matter of right and wrong (absolute moral values) or is it a matter of opinion?

    In my case of leadership, I am the youth leader of our church’s youth group. The matters that we deal in are not matters of right and wrong. It’s not morally wrong to chose one type of fundraiser over another. All our descisions are morally neutral. I try to work with the five people on the youth committee to reach a consensus that everyone is happy with.

    Many of the descisions which most conservatives make have moral absolutes involved. It involves right and wrong. Thus they rightly tend to be dogmatic and uncompromising. That is the way we should be as Christians. It shouldn’t matter what the world around us thinks, we should dogmatically and uncompromisingly do what is right. There is no need, indeed we shouldn’t, insist upon reaching a consensus before taking action.

    The liberals in this country are known to seek French, German, Russian, and Chinese consesus before moving forward with any foreign policy. This is consistent with their worldview of relative morality: It’s all right to murder babies if that’s what one believes is right. As long as there is a consensus that murdering babies is all right, it’s not a problem.

    So in conclusion, consensus based leadership is entirely appropriate in cases where matters of preference are the issues and there is no right or wrong way to do things. However, when there is a right and wrong way to do things, when there are moral absolutes, our leadership should be dogmatic and uncompromising.

  • 27Oct
    Categories: Political Comments: 2

    Miers withdrew her nomination last night!

    Bush said he reluctantly accepted her decision to withdraw, after weeks of insisting that he did not want her to step down. He blamed her withdrawal on calls in the Senate for the release of internal White House documents that the administration has insisted were protected by executive privilege.

    “It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House — disclosures that would undermine a president’s ability to receive candid counsel,” Bush said. “Harriet Miers’ decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers — and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her.”

    Bush tries to save face and blame the withdrawal on a desire to protect executive privilege, but, frankly, that is hogwash. The Senators (especially Dems) have tried to breach executive privilege in every (in which the nominee was a current or former member of an Administration) nomination/confirmation (Gonzales is perhaps the most vivid example) Bush has brought. They didn’t withdraw their nominations.

    Quite simply, Bush thought he could ignore his Conservative base. He thought we’d let it slide and trust his judgement. He thought he could appoint a personal friend. He thought wrong. He (or maybe Miers) learned otherwise.

    I’d like to take this opportunity to call on Bush to keep his campaign promise to nominate someone in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Nominate a solid conservative who takes a strict contructionist view of the constitution. Nominate someone who will overturn Roe. (This last sentence is not a partisan call. Even Liberals admit that Roe was very wrongly decided.) Finally, Bush, don’t make the same mistake twice in a row.

  • 27Oct
    Categories: Humor, Political Comments: 3

    Iran’s president just said today that Isreal should be “wiped off the map”. I have to laugh at the silly Arabs Muslims. To think that they think they can wipe Israel off the map… Our family was talking this evening about the many times the Arabs have tried to do just that. We simply had to laugh at how short-lived those wars were.

    As many of y’all know, Iran is developing nuclear weapons. At times this scares me, expecially with the U.N.’s chronic inaction and with the U.S.’s hands full in Iraq. But comments like this one from the President of Iran reassure me. Israel won’t let Iran become a nuclear power. When Iraq tried to become a nuclear power (with FRENCH help), they simply bombed their nuclear facility. We can sleep safely at night knowing that even if the U.N.’s stark terror of actually doing anything substansive remains a constant and even if the Democrats hamstring the President and corral him into not doing anything, God’s chosen people will make sure that Iran doesn’t develop the ability to make a suitcase nuke to give to a terrorist who would in turn give it to Washington D.C. (or Tel Aviv).

    Laurence Simon has a great idea how to stop Iran’s nuclear program: outsource their nuclear technical support to India! When Iran calls the outsourced Indian tech support, they will wait on hold long enough for the nuclear reactor to blow up and make Teheran and their nuclear program go kablooey!

  • 27Oct

    There are three options as to what Intelligent Design is at its core. I’m still trying to figure out which one, or which combination, it is.

    1. Moving away from Creationism toward Evolution
    2. Moving away from Evolution toward Creationism
    3. Merely the set of Scientific proofs/theories needed to prove Creationism in a purely scientific, non-religious way

    So which is it?

    Update: My three scenarios are my no means complete, authoritative, mutually exclusive, or universally applicable across various ID proponents.

  • 26Oct

    The Washington Post reported today that Tim Kaine made the mistake of following Waldo’s advice. He was, however, a bit more prudent than Waldo, and he floated a discreet trial balloon first. I guess the trial balloon wasn’t discreet enough, because it ended up in the WaPo:

    Tim KaineRepublican gubernatorial candidate Jerry W. Kilgore accused his Democratic opponent of violating a legal agreement by testing a campaign ad including unflattering footage from last month’s Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce debate.

    Kilgore and Democrat Timothy M. Kaine signed a no-use agreement before the September debate, promising that no audio or video footage of the exchange would be used on television, on Web sites or in radio advertisements for the Nov. 8 election.

    Two Republican women said Tuesday that they participated in an online survey in which they viewed a Kaine ad with video from the debate. They said the survey sought to determine whether voters would be angry with Kaine for breaking his word and using the footage.

    “Here we have a candidate for governor taking a poll to see if he should keep his word,” Kilgore said. “It’s a matter of trust. He’s breaking his word, and that’s what it comes down to. Apparently his word doesn’t mean anything anymore.”

    “Before the clip, they said, do you think if you have taken a pledge, if there was information that would help people statewide, do you think you should still abide by that pledge,” she said. “And then they showed the clip. And then they asked the same question again.”

    Both women said the ad ended with Kaine saying his campaign sponsored the ad. “He definitely had a smirking smile on his face,” Light said.

    So Tim Kaine is checking with some focus groups to see if he could get away with breaking his written, legal, binding contract. In the process of checking out whether he could get away with it on a large scale, he broke the agreement on a small scale.

    If we can’t trust Tim Kaine to keep his binding, legal, written contracts how can we trust him to keep his unwritten non-legally-binding promises to the people of Virginia?

    Chad, as usual, does an excellent job with this story.

  • 25Oct
    Categories: Political Comments: 1

    I have a couple of pointed questions regarding the whole Rove/Plame/Libby/Wilson/Iraq thing. What reason do we have to believe Joe Wilson (a diplomat, a liberal, and an opponent of the Iraq war), that Iraq didn’t try to buy uranium from Niger, over the strenuous objections of the British intelligence services? How exactly would “outing” Valerie Plame (Wilson’s wife) as a CIA agent weaken Joe Wilson’s claims? It would strengthen it, not weaken it. How exactly would “outing” Valerie Plame as a CIA agent be revenge on Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame? Neither had anything to lose vis a vis physical safety. It certainly didn’t hurt their reputation or profile. Isn’t Karl Rove supposed to be an evil genius? Doesn’t it seem strange that he would be blamed for doing something with the ascribed motive being the exact opposite of what any reasonable person would expect to result from that action? Why is the media predicting Rove’s resignation and a massive collapse of administration credibility when Patrick Fitzgerald (special prsecutor investigating) has said that Rove is not a target of the investigation? Why is Al Franken predicting that Rove will be executed for treason? Why is everyone (especially the left) whipping themselves into a frenzy when nothing has been released and the only information is leaks from people with agendas? I, for one, am waiting until Friday.

  • 24Oct
    Categories: Political Comments: 2

    N.Z. Bear is asking bloggers to take an official stand on the Miers nomination so that he can take a poll of the blogging ecosystem on the matter. I oppose the Miers nomination.

  • 20Oct
    Categories: General, Humor Comments: 6

    AtDhVaAnNkCsE

    I just saw this clever rendering of a familiar phrase. Be the first to figure out what it means and let us know in the comments.

  • 20Oct
    Categories: Humor, Political Comments: 3

    I think that we should be touchy-feely about the trauma that the thought of pumpkin pie (etc, etc) brings upon pumpkins. We know that animals are stunned before being killed, but do we render pumpkins unconscious before we rip them from their umbilical-like vines? These are all things that I have been very worried about and it has caused me many sleepless nights, but now, I need worry no more. P.E.T.Pu. (pronounced pet-poo) has come to the rescue. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Pumpkins are working hard to ensure that regulation is put into place that protects our friendly, peace-loving pumpkin friends.

  • 17Oct

    “You only know what happiness is once you’re married. But then it’s too late.”
    ~Peter Sellers

  • 16Oct
    Categories: Political, Tech Comments: 6

    J. Gingerich asked me to comment on this story.

    Currently the U.S. government has appointed an independent organization (ICANN) to administer the DNS portion (the part that deals with domain names like hansmast.com or yahoo.com) of the (U.S. invented) internet. There are some power-hungry countries that wish to seize control of this U.S. invention. They are threatening to cut off their own country’s internet from the rest of the world’s internet if the U.S. doesn’t turn control over to the U.N. There are a couple of really, really excellent reasons as to why this would be a very bad idea, not only from a “right of control to invention” point of view, but from a purely power agnostic, operational and freedom of speech and religion point of view.

    Think with me for a moment what happens when a large bureaucracy takes over an operation. You know, of course, that the productivity plummets. While ICANN is a bit of a bureaucracy already, the U.N. is the mother of all bureaucracies. ICANN has little political pressures on it right now. It has done a good job of giving each country their own TLD (Top Level Domain; i.e. England is .co.uk; for instance: http://www.guardian.co.uk). That would change with potentially tons of political pressure in the U.N. that may be totally unrelated to the internet, but which can be used as a lever.

    Think also of the inclusiveness of the U.N. which seats Libya as the chair of the U.N. Human Rights Commission and China and Russia as permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. This means that even rogue countries with absolutely no freedom of speech or freedom of religion, will have say in policy descisions that could create internet censorship by mandating the segmentation of the internet into topical TLDs which would allow countries to easily (without investing in expensive filtering software) block whatever areas of political or religious speech which they deemed dangerous to their continued dictatorship or repressive regime. It is telling that those countries (Iran, Pakistan) that are pushing hardest for international control are those that have the highest level of restrictions on political and religious speech. Even Europe doesn’t have the level of freedom of speech that the U.S. does. They have legislation against speech that is supportive of Nazis or saying that homosexuality is a sin. Thus, the U.S. is ideally positoned to be the regulator (indeed, the minimal regulation that has been done by the U.S., so far, is ideal) of the internet as they have the strongest free speech protection in the world.

    Think also of the danger in switching from the tried and true and extremely successful ICANN to a completely untested, pan-national (think: everyone’s hand in the pie trying to tell everyone else how it’s done) organization. Do we really want to subject this vast, vital engine of global e-commerce to the danger of a switch from something very successful to something totally untried?

    So in summary:

    1. U.N. = big bureaucracy; big bureaucracy = big drop in productivity & efficiency
    2. Politics of the U.N. = bad; lack of politics in current ICANN = good
    3. Internet = U.S. invention; invention = control
    4. inclusion of nations that have not shown themselves to be responsible in the area in which they are supposedly regulating = bad
    5. Giving nations that have atrocious records on freedom of speech and freedom of religion a voice in regulating the internet is a bad idea.
    6. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
    7. If it ain’t broke, don’t break it.

    vwnlinux pointed me to an insightful (if you stick with posts modded +5) discussion about the whole issue on Slashdot. (Remember, as always with Slashdot, anyone can say anything; there’s no censorship on Slashdot!) He also pointed me to an interesting article on the subject.

    Update: Another good reason to not turn over the Internet to the U.N. has just arisen. They invited Robert Mugabe (corrupt dictator of a starving African nation, who profits on the back of his starving populace) to address a hunger conference:

    THE United States has expressed “amazement” at a UN invitation to Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe to address a hunger conference in Rome on Monday to mark the 60th anniversary of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

    “I find it amazing they’ve invited Mr Mugabe to speak at the 60th anniversary, who in a way has done so much to hurt the hungry, and who has absolutely turned his back on the poor,” said Tony Hall, US ambassador to the UN food agencies in Rome.

    “I find it amazing. What can he possibly say to us at the conference, when he has done so much to hurt his own people. Food has been used as a weapon against his own people,” Mr Hall said overnight.

    Hat tip for the update: INDC Journal

  • 13Oct

    The personal responsibility deficit in these U.S. of A. is one of the worst characteristics of this otherwise great nation. I have been meaning to articulate it before, but basil did a great job. A sampling:

    The government isn’t your momma! Act like you’re grown, take responsibility for things, and do your part.

    If you spill hot coffee on yourself at the drive-thru, it’s your fault.

    If you drink and wreck your car and kill someone, it’s your fault. Not the bar’s fault. Not the bartender’s fault. Not the distiller’s fault. Your fault.

    Take responsibility, people!

    If a hurricane is coming your way, get out of the way.