Corrado John "Junior" Soprano Jr., played by Dominic Chianese, is a fictional character from the HBO TV series The Sopranos. Usually referred to as "Junior" or "Uncle Jun'", he is the official boss of the DiMeo crime family for most of the series. A younger Corrado sometimes appears in flashbacks and is played by Rocco Sisto. Junior is smart, old-fashioned, stubborn and insecure about his power. Although Junior is portrayed as bitter and deceitful in season one, he shows a more considerate and humorous side of him in the later seasons and reveals a more sensitive side during his illness and house arrest. According to series creator David Chase the name Junior was taken from one of his own older cousins.
In season one it is stated that Junior is 70 years old, placing his birth date in 1928 or 1929. Corrado Soprano, Jr. is the son of Corrado and Mariangela D'Agostino Soprano, Italian immigrants who came over from the town of Ariano in 1911. Junior is Tony Soprano's uncle: Junior's younger brother is Tony's father Johnny Soprano. He tells the court-ordered psychologist when feigning mental incompetence that he was getting a haircut when he heard about the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. He likes eating Santa Barbara Co. olives from Santa Barbara, California and is seen eating them in several scenes. He tells Tony that he admired John F. Kennedy but did not like his brother Robert Kennedy because of Kennedy's prosecution of Jimmy Hoffa and investigation into the International BrotHECRAZY HGC MERCURIAHHHHADAMHELP
What does the “-im” suffix mean at the end of a biblical name?
It indicates the plural form. Cherubim and seraphim are plurals of cherub and seraph, respectively.
I guess you are thinking about the most used im (ים) word in the Bible, and that would be elohim (אֱלֹהִים), which means gods (again, plural). The interesting thing about this word is that it is used as if it were a singular noun. This means the Hebrew Bible is grammatically incorrect. Deliberately so!
I am not an expert in ancient languages, and I would not mind being corrected. But, like many other ancient Hebrew words, elohim is based in the Canaanite language discovered at Ugarit. The supreme god of Ugarit was El. (This god is in the Bible too.) And eloh (god) and elohim (gods) seem to be derivatives of this Canaanite god.
Another consideration is that, when they wrote their Bible, the Jews made a conscious decision to make Judaism a monotheistic faith. The Jews had been worshiping several gods and goddesses since their inception a few hundred years earlier, so this was a major shift. Long-held stories involving several gods had to be adapted into the monotheistic framework. The gods of creation and the the great flood and the tower of Babel now became one god. It is my contention that the reason for the singular elohim and the occasional plural rendition of the god of the Bible is a result of such adaptations.
Elohim is something like “Allah” where you might see “all” and think plural. I think of it like a superposition of a “collective consciousness” which is a fairly popular “New Age” idea of what God actually is.
Not so new.
Of course, being “Him” I think “singular … and why aren’t you thanking me yet?”
SERENADE - http://suez.fromthemachine.org/SERENADE.html for an introduction to my amalgamation of Allah and Elohim, “Allol.” There’s more here, on the connection between Isaac, Ishmael and “Ha” here at Adam Mar - THOR - shall Dobrin
In computer science, a semaphore is a variable or abstract data type used to control access to a common resource by multiple processes in a concurrent system such as a multitasking operating system. A semaphore is simply a variable. This variable is used to solve critical section problems and to achieve process synchronization in the multi processing environment. A trivial semaphore is a plain variable that is changed (for example, incremented or decremented, or toggled) depending on programmer-defined conditions.
A useful way to think of a semaphore as used in the real-world system is as a record of how many units of a particular resource are available, coupled with operations to adjust that record safely (i.e. to avoid race conditions) as units are required or become free, and, if necessary, wait until a unit of the resource becomes available.
Semaphores are a useful tool in the prevention of race conditions; however, their use is by no means a guarantee that a program is free from these problems. Semaphores which allow an arbitrary resource count are called counting semaphores, while semaphores which are restricted to the values 0 and 1 (or locked/unlocked, unavailable/available) are called binary semaphores and are used to implement locks.
The semaphore concept was invented by Dutch computer scientist Edsger Dijkstra in 1962 or 1963, when Dijkstra and his team were developing an operating system for the Electrologica X8. That system eventually became known as THE multiprogramming system.
Suppose a library has 10 identical study rooms, to be used by one student at a time. Students must request a room from the front desk if they wish to use a study room. If no rooms are free, students wait at the desk until someone relinquishes a room. When a student has finished using a room, the student must return to the desk and indicate that one room has become free.
In the simplest implementation, the clerk at the front desk knows only the number of free rooms available, which they only know correctly if all of the students actually use their room while they've signed up for them and return them when they're done. When a student requests a room, the clerk decreases this number. When a student releases a room, the clerk increases this number. The room can be used for as long as desired, and so it is not possible to book rooms ahead of time.
In this scenario the front desk count-holder represents a counting semaphore, the rooms are the resource, and the students represent processes/threads. The value of the semaphore in this scenario is initially 10, with all rooms empty. When a student requests a room, they are granted access, and the value of the semaphore is changed to 9. After the next student comes, it drops to 8, then 7 and so on. If someone requests a room and the current value of the semaphore is 0, they are forced to wait until a room is freed (when the count is increased from 0). If one of the rooms was released, but there are several students waiting, then any method can be used to select the one who will occupy the room (like FIFO or flipping a coin). And of course, a student needs to inform the clerk about releasing their room only after really leaving it, otherwise, there can be an awkward situation when such student is in the process of leaving the room (they are packing their textbooks, etc.) and another student enters the room before they leave it.
When used to control access to a pool of resources, a semaphore tracks only how many resources are free; it does not keep track of which of the resources are free. Some other mechanism (possibly involving more semaphores) may be required to select a particular free resource.
The paradigm is especially powerful because the semaphore count may serve as a useful trigger for a number of different actions. The librarian above may turn the lights off in the study hall when there are no students remaining, or may place a sign that says the rooms are very busy when most of the rooms are occupied.
The success of the protocol requires applications to follow it correctly. Fairness and safety are likely to be compromised (which practically means a program may behave slowly, act erratically, hang or crash) if even a single process acts incorrectly. This includes:
Even if all processes follow these rules, multi-resource deadlock may still occur when there are different resources managed by different semaphores and when processes need to use more than one resource at a time, as illustrated by the dining philosophers problem.
Counting semaphores are equipped with two operations, historically denoted as P and V (see § Operation names for alternative names). Operation V increments the semaphore S, and operation P decrements it.
The value of the semaphore S is the number of units of the resource that are currently available. The P operation wastes time or sleeps until a resource protected by the semaphore becomes available, at which time the resource is immediately claimed. The V operation is the inverse: it makes a resource available again after the process has finished using it. One important property of semaphore S is that its value cannot be changed except by using the V and P operations.
A simple way to understand wait (P) and signal (V) operations is:
Many operating systems provide efficient semaphore primitives that unblock a waiting process when the semaphore is incremented. This means that processes do not waste time checking the semaphore value unnecessarily.
The counting semaphore concept can be extended with the ability to claim or return more than one "unit" from the semaphore, a technique implemented in Unix. The modified V and P operations are as follows, using square brackets to indicate atomic operations, i.e., operations which appear indivisible from the perspective of other processes:function V(semaphore S, integer I): [S ← S + I] function P(semaphore S, integer I): repeat: [if S ≥ I: S ← S − I break]
However, the remainder of this section refers to semaphores with unary V and P operations, unless otherwise specified.
To avoid starvation, a semaphore has an associated queue of processes (usually with FIFO semantics). If a process performs a P operation on a semaphore that has the value zero, the process is added to the semaphore's queue and its execution is suspended. When another process increments the semaphore by performing a V operation, and there are processes on the queue, one of them is removed from the queue and resumes execution. When processes have different priorities the queue may be ordered by priority, so that the highest priority process is taken from the queue first.
If the implementation does not ensure atomicity of the increment, decrement and comparison operations, then there is a risk of increments or decrements being forgotten, or of the semaphore value becoming negative. Atomicity may be achieved by using a machine instruction that is able to read, modify and write the semaphore in a single operation. In the absence of such a hardware instruction, an atomic operation may be synthesized through the use of a software mutual exclusion algorithm. On uniprocessor systems, atomic operations can be ensured by temporarily suspending preemption or disabling hardware interrupts. This approach does not work on multiprocessor systems where it is possible for two programs sharing a semaphore to run on different processors at the same time. To solve this problem in a multiprocessor system a locking variable can be used to control access to the semaphore. The locking variable is manipulated using a test-and-set-lock command.
I used to really like wired, before all this happened. Not just the quality and content of their articles, but I also enjoyed the strangely touchable material their covers were often made of. It gave them an extra sort of allure, the “feeling” of a superior product. Today they pointed out that I probably need a computer to give my own writing that same kind of touch-feeling presence that everyone was hoping Jesus would bring; and while statistically that might make some sense… it makes me like the staff writers there just a pinch less; spill over, I'm sure from the barrage of emails that you might consider the E-mail Flood of Noah-ah, that has been not just ignored but shunned by the mass media even to this day… when it's beyond clear that these are the answers to the questions of the ages and religions and even more pertinent than that, the answers to our problems.
Now a days my pleasure reading has declined, along with my pleasure television watching–even in this time when you might consider these things a “job duty,” you know, if I was being paid at all for what I do still believe is some of the most important work that's ever been done. At the same time I've noticed a tangible decline in the number of people commenting on anything I post on Facebook and LinkedIn–two of the places that have stood the test of time and not really banned or blocked this content. Of course, under the hood both have “secret sauce” algorithms to tell you what you should be interested in and on top of that a number of times I've noticed that Facebook (and even “don't be evil” Google) have marked this content as evil-phishing malware and emblazoned them with warnings akin to “only the penitent man may enter“–making click-thru's that much less frequent. I thought in my head that this lack of conversation was “abnormal” behavior that I linked to the mind control conspiracy that I was very much enthralled with since the early days of my writing. I suppose it is that, it is the product of “Medusa” though as the years have flown by the rank of years; it is becoming more clear that there is a “reason” behind all of this more than subtle control, more than doublethink and sleight of mind.September 11, 2017 https://bemessiah.wordpress.com/2017/09/11/formica-quicken/
|Single by The Verve Pipe|
|from the album Villains|
|Released||January 27, 1997|
|Format||CD single and Cassette|
|Genre||Alternative rock, post-grunge|
|Songwriter(s)||Donny Brown, Doug Corella, Jeffrey Joseph Douglas, Brad Vander Ark, Brian Vander Ark|
|Producer(s)||Donnie Brown (original)|
Jerry Harrison (album)
Jack Joseph Puig (single)
|The Verve Pipe singles chronology|
"The Freshmen" is a song by the American alternative rock group The Verve Pipe. First recorded in 1992, the song was later re-recorded and became the band's breakthrough hit in early 1997. It is the group's highest charting single to date.
According to the FAQ on "Verve Pipings", the guitarist and lead singer Brian Vander Ark wrote the song in 1991 about the guilt he felt from his ex-girlfriend committing suicide. However, according to an external interview site, Vander Ark said that the suicide was a poetic license; the real incident which inspired the song was when his pregnant girlfriend had an abortion.
In a 2019 interview with Songfacts, Vander Ark said:
"...It's for the most part a made-up story, which most of my songs are. These are stories that I come up with, and I do characters. Part of the story was true in the fact that I had gone out with a girl and my buddy had gone out with her after I went out with her, and then I went out with her again and then she ended up getting pregnant and having an abortion. But from there, there's poetic license that happens and makes the story more dramatic. A neophyte writer that I was, I ended up having her commit suicide, and that never happened."
Vander Ark also stated that he never found out whether the baby was his or his friend's.
The song first appeared, in acoustic style, on their 1992 album I've Suffered a Head Injury. It was recorded a second time and released on the band's 1996 album, Villains. Later that year, the band recorded the song again, this time with the producer Jack Joseph Puig, for release as a single on January 27, 1997. Subsequent pressings of Villains replaced the original album version with the single version. "The Freshmen" peaked at number 5 in the United States.
In addition, a slightly modified single version was released to radio, with Vander Ark singing the final lyrics of the second verse ("thinks about her now and how he never really wept") in the same melodic sequence as he sings the homologous lyrics at the end of the first verse ("stop a baby's breath..."), as opposed to his higher-pitched, almost yelled rendering of these lyrics in the version that appeared on the album.
|Sender notified with GeoTrack|