Slashdot Mirror

See this article from Flightblogger at the time detailing some of the issues - Flightblogger went on to be a journalist at Flight Global.

http://flightblogger.blogspot....

http://stuffblackpeopledontlik...

That black-hating blog puts the number at 21% But I guess that rounds to 50%, right?

The original google post about this, which makes it clear that mobile friendly sites get a higher ranking when you search on mobile devices . This change will affect mobile searches. Mobile. Not desktop. So if you're searching from a mobile device then results that are more mobile friendly will be ranked higher, on the assumption that people searching from mobile devices would prefer mobile content.

It does only affect mobile searches. TFA was only suggestive of that but the Google blog they linked to states it clearly: http://googlewebmastercentral....

It could also be exploited remotely if the function parsing code has any bugs in it. Several have already been discovered, including one that is probably remotely exploitable.

http://lcamtuf.blogspot.co.nz/...

The more interesting thing is the number of people who think "alot" is a word, perhaps being the opposite of "alittle."

I like this alot.

We need an insurance based licensing scheme:
http://missingbytes.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/self-drive-engage.html

We need better licensing:
http://missingbytes.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/self-drive-engage.html

GCHQ is a British organization. How would Snowden get copies of their plans, if there are in fact legitimate? He seems to be making some mighty big claims for having been employed as an employee of an NSA contractor for three months.

You're really asking this?

It's been well known in public for many years -- certainly since 1996 when it was revealed in Nicky Hager's Secret Power ( the book which made ECHELON a household word, and is available here as a free ebook) that the NSA and its partner agencies in the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ work together as UKUSA or the 'Five Eyes' network, even to the point of agreeing to spy on each others' citizens to get around their respective domestic policy limitations.

Furthermore, it's also well known that a major GCHQ installation, Menwith Hill, is actually staffed by NSA officers. Similar American involvement is true for Australia's Pine Gap. To an unknown but probably lesser extent, New Zealand's GCSB listening stations at Tangimoana and Waihopai are also either staffed by, or run in close consultation with, the GCHQ and NSA.

National sovereignty? What's that? For those of us in non-USA English-speaking countries, the situation is strange. We're not American citizens, we have no vote for the US president or Joint Chief of Staffs, yet our leaders take their orders from your leaders. This means that we've all become very interested in American politics, even though we'd rather not. Because you guys in the State may think you're only electing your own local town mayor and dogcatchers, but you're actually choosing who will run the military and spy infrastructures of the whole Western world. And increasingly, the real power players in your system (the NSA, CIA and DoD) don't seem to even care much about the civilian 'oversight'. They just change the logos on the Powerpoints and keep on doing their thing.

For instance, there's a bill in the NZ Parliament at the moment to give our GCSB increased powers in order to synchronise them with the NSA. Did the New Zealand people really want this? No. But we're getting it anyway. Because the US military industrial complex calls the shots even in countries they have no official democratic authority over. But those who make and sell the guns, and control the wires, have a habit of getting what they want.

tldr: There is no independent 'GCHQ'. It's a subcontracted division of the NSA.

Obligatory:
Even XKCD haters didn't mind 695

Quite frankly, while some of his work is meh, Randall's done good things for the geek/nerd community.

Don't believe me (I'm a nobody), but listen to Vint Cerf
Look, with regard to the threat to Internet Freedom you don't have to take my word for it. You might take Vint Cerf's though (I'm sure you you know who he is, right?). http://googleblog.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/keep-internet-free-and-open.html
I'm afraid it appears that it is *you* who has an incomplete understanding of the issue. I hope the link I've provided prompts you to do more research :)

Anti-religious statements are Free Speech criticism and this is not necessarily intolerance
With regard to the anti-Islamic tone of my post. Yes, it is anti-Islamic - because "true" Islam is an evil death cult that is manipulated by the unscrupulous (which is bad enough) and has as a core principle the desire to impose itself on the entire world (that's where it affects me, and I'm have the right to oppose it). The imposition is by force if necessary. Again, I am not saying this on my own authority, but you could listen to what Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Pat Condell or Sam Harris have to say about this. It is very worthwhile to take the time to listen to Hitch on YouTube, he's hilarious yet far more insightful than nearly anyone else you'll come across on the matter (certainly not the poorly informed and woolly-headed apologists you see on mainstream media).

Understanding Salafi Islam
The fact that you don't understand what Islam actually commands shows you don't know diddly about the Qur'an or hadiths (I suggest taking a peruse, as I did), and you certainly are not listening to what the Salafis, Wahabbis, Jihadis are *actually saying* (in short, you have willful cognitive dissonance). Again, you have an incomplete understanding and you desperately need to do some research (which I urge you to do, while the free media still exists :) ). Please do your research. On YouTube find out what the jihadis and salafis are actually saying in arabic (the latter part is very important, the principle of taqiyya means they can and will lie to you in English if it promotes the goals of Islam - again, plenty of examples of this on YouTube if you care to look).

How good human beings are 'bad' in a religious sense
Now I like my friends who are Muslim, they are good people. That doesn't mean I can't dislike Islam and call it out for what it *actually* is (not what its apologists and propagandists would like you to believe it is). Now the fact that you consider an anti-Islamic post to be bad shows you are missing several vital points (no surprise, you are still in 'The Matrix', so to speak).

• The first is that you confuse legitimate anti-religious criticism with intolerance. These are not the same! It is a gross and somewhat amateur mistake to think they are.
• The second thing is that even if I was intolerant then I still have Free Speech to make my (possibly mistaken) points made. Under Free Speech not only do I have the right to make statements and even offend, but more importantly, everyone else has the right to listen to that speech. By taking away someone's right to speak you take away the right of millions to hear what they have to say - which may be uncomfortable to the authorities, but nevertheless, the truth.
• There are plenty of Muslims out there that are good human beings (eg. Italy's head Iman, please do your homework, look him up on YouTube :) ). However, what makes them good human beings makes them 'bad' Muslims - because they disobey the commandments in the Qur'an. All religions (except Jainism) have the same problem, "true believers" are bad while "bad believers" are good humans. That makes the religions flawed, not the humans.
• The transfer of Internet regulation to the UN *is a Free Speech* issue. Just because you don't personally foresee the potential pitfalls doesn't mean we cannot.

It's pe

Seems difficult to get up to date meanigful performance comparisons, probably because Microsoft's licence forbids it unless they approve!

As to which is better... it depends!

I strongly suspect that given a fixed budget and starting from scratch buying new hardware: one wouild get more transactions per second using PostgreSQL & Linux over SQL Server & Microsoft O/S. Howver, I suspect that on the same hardware, PostgreSQL would be faster as then you can use Linux whereas SQL Server is limited to a Microsoft O/S.

Ten Reasons PostgreSQL is Better Than SQL Server:
http://facility9.com/2011/12/ten-reasons-postgresql-is-better-than-sql-server/
[...]
        Jeremiah Peschka,
        Wed Dec 14, 2011 at 7:19 am

        Two other quick bits of info around PostgreSQL and scalability. You can see some of the current benchmarks here: Scalability, in Graphical Form, Analyzed. As far as other scalable companies using PostgreSQL – Instagram have recently published how they scale with PostgreSQL.

        TL;DR version: Benchmarks show PostgreSQL 9.1 scaling up to around 45,000 transactions per second with 9.2s code base edging past the 200,000 TPS mark. ...

David,
Wed Apr 11, 2012 at 10:07 pm

completely changed my perspective on postgre, I always thought it was junk. Any leads on a VM to fool around with ?
[...]

http://rhaas.blogspot.co.nz/2010/12/postgresql-performance-vs-microsoft-sql.html
[...]
Grant JohnsonDecember 21, 2010 11:43 AM

Over many years of using both, here is what I have found:

For applications with plenty of hardware and few users, the two are very comparable for performance. As concurrency grows, PostgreSQL seems to handle it better, likely due to its MVCC model using disk in the existing data files. However, if the data file run out of room, it can be slower expanding used storage than SQL server. Keep your free space maps big enough, and your vacuums frequent enough to deal with it, and it is great.

The other time when it really seems to shine is when starved for hardware. PostgreSQL seems to deal much better with all of the CPU's being at 100% and swap going like mad trying to keep up. Remember also that I have always used PostgreSQL on Linux or BSD, so some of this may be how the operating systems handle different loads.
[...]

Gah, forgot the unlock link:

This probably won't last long, but once your phone+SIM is unlocked it'll stay that way.
http://laforeta.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/how-to-spoof.html

If you don't already know

http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.co.nz/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html

You should!!!!

There's all sorts of reasons someone might not spell well. So who cares?

Noone cares about this alot.

Nuclear rocket engines have been built and tested successfully, but for political reasons were not pursued.

For a very slim definition of "Successful". That article really needs to be updated - right now it reads like a 1960s propaganda sheet for the atomic spaceflight program.

For an example of some of the actual real-world difficulties that nuclear rockets faced, try reading this article on the ever amazing "Beyond Apollo" blog: Nuclear Flight System Definition studies (1971)

Osias postulated a maximum allowable radiation dose for an astronaut from sources other than cosmic rays of between 10 and 25 Roentgen Equivalent Man (REM) per year. Astronauts riding an RNS would, however, receive 10 REM each time its NERVA I engine operated. An astronaut 10 miles behind or to the side of an RNS operating at full power would receive a radiation dose of between 25 and 30 REM per hour. Osias noted that the NFSD contractors had recommended that no piloted spacecraft approach to within 100 miles of an operating NERVA I engine.

Radiation created other operational problems, Osias wrote. Spacecraft could dock with an RNS by approaching through the cone-shaped radiation shadow that protected its crew (bottom image below). Docking an RNS to a large vehicle that protruded beyond the shadow - for example, a space station or propellant depot - would, however, create obvious problems (top image below). The large vehicle's crew might be exposed to radiation from the NERVA I; more insidiously, the large vehicle's structure would reflect radiation back at the RNS, endangering its crew.

The NERVA I engine would not only emit radiation while it was in operation; it would also generate long-lived spent nuclear fuel that would emit radiation. Osias noted that NAR had "repeatedly emphasized [that] maintainability is essential to economic operation of the RNS." He noted, however, that a spacewalking repairman who approached to within 400 feet of the side of an RNS 10 days after its tenth (and, going by MSFC's traffic model, final) Earth-moon roundtrip would receive one REM per hour from the spent fuel it contained. Maintenance robots might replace the repair capabilities of astronauts, Osias noted, but such systems would need expensive development.

Yeah. Not exactly a "successful" design if you want it to not kill all your astronauts.

Better explanation of why CO2 levels don't have an impact on glaciation cycles, http://motls.blogspot.co.nz/2012/01/will-co2-save-us-from-next-ice-age.html