Here’s a question for the people here who are more of a computer whiz than I am: is fragmentation of objects in memory really a big deal? Both the MySQL query cache and the APC cache become fragmented over time, as various objects get cached and then purged.

Does this really make a big difference? You see a huge rise in access times when it happens on disk, but in RAM? Or will the applications require a contiguous allocation and thus just not use it at all? (And, for bonus points, why has no one written a ‘memory defragmenter’ if such a thing exists? Given that my needs are for managing small chunks of memory, there’s no reason, actually, that it couldn’t simply reconstitute the 16MB cache in a wholly separate, contiguous chunk of RAM?

As many are probably aware, 2008 will also see plenty of House and Senate seats up for grabs, along with NH’s governor position. Even though I’m currently a registered Democrat and tend to be pretty liberal, I like to think of myself as a bit of a centrist, and I can’t bring myself to vote party line without considering both sides. Voting is just too important to play party favorites: every now and then I think the Republicans field the better candidate. In particular, I was concerned because conservatives seem to be adamantly opposed to Jeanne Shaheen’s run for Senate. She’s gunning for Sununu’s seat. There are a few Democrats that frankly scare me: there are rumblings about some Democrats trying to implement a sales tax in NH, for example, and some Democrats who really buy the stereotype that Democrats go out of their way to run up taxes and spend out of control. So I looked carefully at both candidates, wondering who the better candidate was.

Suffice it to say, Shaheen’s got my vote. From his page at OnTheIssues, here are some of the reasons I can’t bring myself to give Sununu my vote. The text is copied-and-pasted from that page, but any links are my own doing, as are any bracketed comments. Emphasis is mine: bold to highlight things I think are exceptionally important, italics to highlight things that might be unclear (like ‘double negative’ bills: voting NO on disallowing something).

• Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
• Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
• Rated 13% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
• Rated 33% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights. (Dec 2006)
• Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
• Voted NO on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program. (Mar 2007)
• Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999) [While I don’t understand the opposition to medical marijuana, I’ll let that go. But needle exchanges have been extremely good at preventing the spread of disease.]
• Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
• Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001) [I actually don’t know much about this: “allowing school prayer” is a pet peeve of mine, because allowing kids to pray is Constitutionally required, but allowing public schools to hold prayer sessions is Constitutionally prohibited. I’m assuming it was the latter, since there’s no reason to pass a law  to “allow” kids to say a prayer on their own: it’d be like passing a law saying that freedom of speech is allowed.]
• Supports requiring schools to allow prayer. (Jan 2001) [Ibid]
• Rated 27% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes. (Dec 2003)
• Voted NO on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
• Voted NO on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska’s ANWR. (Nov 2005)
• Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
• Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
• Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
• Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Voted NO on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress. (Sep 2007)
• Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
• Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
• Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls. (Feb 2008)
• Voted NO on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
• Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
• Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
• Rated 0% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting record. (Dec 2003) [I’m not the biggest advocate of unions out there, but Sununu seems a little too anti-union.]
• Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)

There’s probably more, too, but I thought this was sufficient grounds to cast my vote for Shaheen.

Perhaps the Times of London puts it best, in saying that a “desperate McCain” has been stepping up personal attacks on Obama.

Sarah Palin has been lambasting Obama‘s ties to domestic terrorists. Obama and Bill Ayers “worked with a non-profit group trying to raise funds for a school improvement project and a charitable foundation” in the 90’s. Ayers was formerly involved in the Weatherman. (Actually, he was a cofounder.)

Referring to Ayers, Obama has called him, “somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.” And a decade ago they worked together on a school-improvement charity. Associating with terrorists? Just like his lobbying to teach sex-ed to kindergartners, which actually amounted to a plan to teach kindergartners about avoiding sexual predators.

Please, McCain, we’re not that dumb. Your repeated lies not only confirm the Democrats’ cries that McCain would just be a third Bush term, but they also make you look weak. Is there nothing truthful you can use to your advantage? Please, let’s stick with honesty this election.

I realized a while ago that my knowledge of nature was woefully inadequate. Maple tree? Oak tree? Pine tree? There’s a difference? So I’ve been working on looking up various things, and when I can’t find an answer, posting photos of plants on Flickr to be identified.

The leaves pictured at left seem to be those of the American Chestnut. It turns out that the American Chestnut is fairly rare. It’s apparently common for them to grow to about ten feet, until the trunk is an inch or two in diameter. And then…

Chestnut Blight strikes. (See photo on right.) It seems that the fungus was accidentally introduced to America in 1904 on Asian Chestnut trees, which were mostly resistant to the blight. American Chestnuts were not, and are not. They were pretty much totally wiped out. The trees aren’t affected until they’re somewhat large, but pretty routinely die before they’re able to drop seeds. As I understand it, there are viruses that attack the blight’s fungus, which can slow the blight enough for the tree to recover. The virus is chyphonectria parasitica. As I understand it, it is also common to inject trees with weakened strains of the blight, allowing them to recover. (Somewhat like a flu shot?)

Over time the blight will cause multiple ‘cankers’ in the tree, and create reddish-orange spores. And inevitably, the American Chestnut dies. New growth from the base is common, sometimes growing five to ten feet tall, but almost never mature enough to reproduce.

So I’ve become somewhat obsessive about this, trying to figure out what can be done to stop the blight to allow these trees to grow. Given that it’s a problem confounding lots of arborists, I have a hunch that the first idea that popped into my mind (spraying bleach on the blighted areas) may be less than ideal.

But I thought I’d share today’s trivial pursuit and useless knowledge with you.

There’s an old saying, that if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes true.

Watching Governor Palin last night, after previously watching John McCain, I realized how true this is.

• Obama voted against funding the war in Iraq. So did John McCain! As I’ve seen it, there were multiple bills at one point. One had a timeline, which John McCain voted against. One didn’t, which Obama voted against. But John McCain and Sarah Palin keep harping on this, because it sounds awful. But John McCain did the same thing.
• Obama wants to raise taxes. On those making over $250,000 a year, sure. But a cornerstone of Obama’s plan is that he’s not going to raise taxes on anyone making less, coupled with tax cuts for the middle class. He describes it in great detail on his site. As part of a middle-class family making under $250,000 a year, we will do better under Obama’s plan than under John McCain’s. But it’s been said so often that Obama wants to raise taxes that it sounds true. It’s not.
• Obama voted to raise taxes on those making $40,000 or more. No, that wasn’t a vote on taxes. And John McCain voted the same way. It was a vote on budget appropriations, not taxes.
• Obama wants to surrender in Iraq. Obama has proposed the same thing that the Iraqi government and George Bush have proposed! A phased withdrawal so we can shift our focus to Afghanistan. (You know, the place with Osama bin Laden.)
• Obama voted 97 times to raise taxes. And care to guess how many times McCain voted to raise taxes? We’re in a war that’s already cost us more than half a trillion dollars, and there’s a proposed $700 billion bailout proposal on the table. When spending increases, you have to raise taxes. Biden put the number of times McCain has voted to raise taxes as many times higher than Obama’s…

It just drives me crazy to see all of these mistruths repeated over and over again. There really ought to be a rule that you have to tell the truth in debates, and that you have to actually answer the questions asked.

If you can’t pronounce “nuclear,” you shouldn’t be allowed to be in a position that controls nuclear weapons.

Apparently, my, err, college, is Bentley University.

“To help conserve energy, John McCain has encouraged Americans to turn their televisions off Thursday night, between 9pm and 10:30pm.”

So I’ll admit that I don’t know the whole deal with the economic bailout proposal. But I’d like to make a number of points about it:

• No one I’ve talked to really understands the whole deal. I’d really like to see a poll of ordinary Americans that asks them to explain (or choose, via multiple-choice) the issue.
• I think it’s a failing of Congress in general that no one has explained this clearly. Why didn’t President Bush’s speech explain it? Why haven’t Obama and McCain done so?
• The proposal was $700 billion. The CIA puts our population at 303,824,640 people. That’s $2,303.96 per person. While it wouldn’t directly solve the bank crises, this could be quite an “economic stimulus package.” Imagine a check for $9,215 being mailed to my family. (A family of four, times the $2303.96.) High gas prices? People in danger of losing their homes? Consumer spending down? Giving every American a few thousand dollars would help a lot.

Of course, this is a bit misleading, since the real issue is the banks failing. And you could make a good case that “giving” taxpayers money is somewhat ridiculous, since we’d essentially pay $2,303.96 more in taxes and then have it mailed back to us. But still, I think it’s interesting food for thought…