But it's important that our mechanisms for distributing software also be in the spirit of freedom. Steam, for instance, sells subscriptions to their licenses, so you never actually own a license nor a copy to a game. The 'free' we talk about is in terms of rights. We don't have any rights with something like Steam. So it should be flatly rejected by the Linux community, regardless of whether or not it lets us play or download games on Linux easily. Distribution mechanisms that deprive us of rights should not be permitted to succeed at any cost, even at the cost of our own comfort. We should simply resort to purchasing games directly from manufacturers, even if that means we have to walk to a store and pick up a box, or wait for UPS/FedEx/* to deliver it to us. It's also important to note that this does NOT contradict the pirate stance on media delivery (if it's easier and cheaper, we won't pirate): forfeiture of rights makes Steam cost significantly more than any other form of distribution that has ever existed on Earth.
When it comes to you and me buying a game digitally directly from a game vendor, we typically get a license to that game. It's OUR license. Sometimes we even own a copy (rare, and becoming even more rare every year, until we make licenses == legal copy in terms of copyright law, like the EU is doing right now). We usually don't have the right to resell our license, but if we own a copy, then we do.
Now steam doesn't let you RESELL your digital copies to other players. But they don't sell licenses, nor copies. They sell a subscription to their license of the game, which means they're selling a refurbished digital game to you, except not at the same time, because they bind ALL of your rights, leaving you completely and utterly fucked.
IMHO, licenses should be seen as equivalent to copies, legally. And Steam's model of selling a "subscription" should be seen as a sub-license, and also be legally upheld as a copy. This combination would permit us to re-sell purchased digital games, and either force Steam to enable us to remove games and give them to others, or be hit with massive lawsuits. And then Steam would become Gamestop's digital counterpart, as it would be in their best interest to implement an Amazon-style used market. Though that might be horribly scary for Steam, because the only reason they can offer massive sales is because you don't have any rights at all over the content you "buy" from them. Such a legal ruling would probably invalidate most of their licensing rights to games and turn them into yet another MSRP vendor, lining them up to be defeated by Amazon at their own game.
You do that with REST over HTTP at least using media types and json schema, which are starting to gain more popularity with API developers. I'd argue there's nothing those systems have over what REST+JSON can provide if used properly. The problem is that most things that claim to be RESTful aren't really. The community is starting to move away from using the term "REST" to describe things, especially application APIs, because it has those connotations attached to it (see: facebook, twitter, etc APIs, they're just HTTP based RPC with loads of coupling and out-of-band information). Instead, they're now referring to things that are much more RESTful as "hypermedia" because their solutions conform to the hypermedia constraint (the most important one, so says Fielding) in Fielding's paper. These use hypermedia and media types to define an interchange format without the need for coupling, and often support schemas for type validation.
When I was doing re-imaging, it was SOP to make a ghost copy of the current drive for backup purposes (this step was only done when we were moving a person to a new computer, so as to keep their data intact, for leaving employees, there was no backup), DBAN the machine, then re-image it with a golden image.
When we said "re-image" that's what we meant. We had stations set up with like 10 drives attached for DBAN purposes. I always meant to make a little device that could run DBAN that would plug directly into an IDE device (or use an IDE/SATA converter) and DBAN the entire disk by simply plugging in the cable, the power, and hitting the big red button. I could probably sell those. Hold on, brb, getting a patent.
Would you mind starting a blog on it and posting the URL here? Those of us writing code and unit tests need to know how to fuzz our code really well, too.
Yes, you, Comcast, Rogers, AT&T, Verizon, and every other shitty ISP on the planet. For years now, you've slowly increased the cost of internet access while the speeds have remained largely unchanged for consumers (over 5 years ago, I had a 20Mbps connection for $40/month, now the same connection is almost $70/month). You haven't taken that money and improved the infrastructure, you've just been cashing in big time. I have a gig router with N wireless and cat 5e cables with gigabit nics, and have for nearing a decade. My hardware has been screaming for you to saturate it with bits, yet all you've done is force us to pay more money because you own monopolies (municipality cable, the "last mile" if you will, the telco lines, etc).
This is refreshing. Even though it's hard to identify "privacy, anonymity, and trust" with Google, they're still over 9000x better than any of these other guys. It's nice seeing what a company that isn't a big ISP with hundreds of millions in PURE NET REVENUE pouring in for ZERO WORK AT ALL can do. This really demonstrates what the outcome of spending money on infrastructure is. We have a point of reference now. Look at Google, now look at your ISP. Two orders of magnitude improvement. Two. WTF. This is putting KS on the map with the likes of EU countries and Japan in terms of internet capabilities. And what's more, the cable service is over IP, on top of a Gbps connection. The last time I checked cable prices here, Comcast wanted $89.99 for basic + a few decent channels for digital. For all the good stuff, it's like $139.99, and that's NOT including the internet connection. They'll let you bundle that with a basic 5Mbps for only $39.99 more per month! You're looking at > $200 for a connection > 20Mbps and a decent cable setup.
I really hope Google puts these jokers out of business. All of them. It's time for a revolution from the status quo.
The "find" command in *nix was created in the 80s. It could simultaneously search a floppy drive and a hard drive, and even a drive on another machine. Prior art; that shit's deep, yo.
Hey now, my Galaxy Nexus is loving its new Jelly Bean colors. I'm on 4.1.1, I was surprised when I got it today, and my Nexus 7 already had an update when I unboxed it today. Rawr.
In Windows 98, explorer.exe was capable of doing both a local file search (while file browsing) and literally replacing the body of the current window with an iexplore widget that performed a web search. This was a single interface that could search both locally and the internet. There's your prior art. From Microsoft of all people. Similarly, it allowed you to search shared folders, which were internet-connected stores (intranet, but that's technically all the internet is), and IIRC, even Windows 95 supported that.
Oh, and there's probably no fewer than 10 prior art examples in *nix. Attaching a networked storage device and searching your local machine AND the remote machine (ie: internet) for information surely happened when transitioning from workstations to PCs (I certainly did this while setting up a modern computer cluster, shared outputs were written to an ISCSI device shared by nodes, and intermediary files for processing were stored locally on each node, so sometimes you'd need to search both).
Let's go even further: floppy drives. Yes, a search on most machines with a mnt lower than root or a multi-drive search capability (Windows and *nixes) have been able to perform a search of your harddrive and a floppy drive simultaneously from a single interface for.. well.. since floppy drives existed.
How about memory virtualization? I'm searching through memory which is actually paged to disk, so I'm searching two different storage systems transparently, although it's unlikely that I'll get any means of ordering information distinctly based on whether it was on disk or in memory (thus the purpose of the abstraction), it's still a search on two different medium simultaneously.
The more I think about this, the more cases of prior art I find, and the more I find things that would very easily be seen as a violation of this patent. It should be thrown out. It's horribly vague, is terribly obvious, and had been done repeatedly long before the patent was filed.
Almost forgot the most important exception: *unless it's for educational purposes. Sometimes educational research leads to a better implementation which leads to competing technologies, which is a perfectly reasonable outcome, but more often than not result in a potentially better approach at one thing than the original, which is better used to improve the original.
PowerShell is to administrative shells like the car some 15 year old kid builds in his garage with spare parts from a junkyard is to top-of-the-line race car or luxury car engineering from world leading engineers. It's just not even remotely close to what we get in *nix shells. And all it does is provide you with a CMD + script environment. Everything you can do in it could be done trivially via VBScript or JScript with COM. Microsoft once again instead of embracing technologies just re-invents them and poorly. They could have ported bash and the entire GNU environment with lots of other goodies over to Windows legally and we'd have the best of both worlds, but they instead decided to create some convoluted and terribly designed "competitor." This is similar in many respects to what they do for web browsers. Instead of embracing what we've already created (WebKit is open source, so is V8, WebKit + V8 is almost Chrome, and Microsoft could easily leverage both of these and even contribute back to the community by improving both), they create their own stuff which is years and years behind every other modern browser and which holds the entire industry back because they don't have an insignificant market share. This is the Microsoft way. It needs to stop, now. This is a golden rule, and one of the only rules we adamantly enforce in software engineering: if it isn't broke, don't fix it. More specifically, if something already exists that does what you're doing, use it or improve it. Unless you have a revolutionary approach that is significantly better (demonstrably), such that it is your business value to provide a better implementation, don't ever re-create something that already exists. Microsoft routinely violates this rule. I'm not sure why, maybe because they want to demonstrate to the world that they're still relevant somehow, but instead they end up looking like fucking idiots and pissing everyone off in the process.
When you need to heat your food, do you grab some iron and create an alloy of it to achieve a higher electrical resistance then wire it into your home's grid? No, you buy a stove, because someone already fucking did that. When you need to keep something cool, do you find a gas with a very low boiling point and create a phase-exchange system for moving heat from a small confined and insulated space to a larger heat dump? No, you buy a refrigerator, because someone already fucking did that. When you live 40 miles from work and need to get there today, do you invent an internal combustion engine, refine crude oil to obtain gasoline, invent strong rubber-based inflatable tires, create a mechanism for distributing power from your engine to the wheel assemblies, etc? No, you buy a fucking car or use public transportation, because someone already solved that problem. In all of these cases, you need TO DO SOMETHING, not make something better than what already exists. You don't decide "well I need to use a linux shell in Windows, let me go ahead and completely invent my own shitty version." No, you port the existing open-source implementation to your platform, at the very most. Because someone already fucking did that.
To propose a CMS is like proposing classes to a person writing pure C. Sure, it adds "structure," something an "architect" can maintain later, but every form of organizational abstraction can be just as bad if not worse than writing something without that structure. I've seen Java and C++ applications that have classes so intertwined that they may as well be one class. I've similarly seen widgets built in CMSes and web application frameworks that despite the outward appearance that they are "independent" and can be used anywhere, actually require a very specific environment (and often each other) which is the opposite of the overall intent of using such systems. In short: advocating someone use a CMS does not imply that the thing they produce will be any more maintainable.
A CMS is just another tool in the toolbox. If you're building a website that can easily be fit by a CMS and its pre-built components, it's a good fit because the tool does a lot of work for you. Similarly, if you're building a client-heavy single-page web application, you're probably better off using frameworks built to make those tasks simpler.
is regulation that makes these ISP monopolies and rate-fixing illegal. Internet access is effectively a utility these days, and it should be regulated as such. It's quite clear that rates have been fixed at inane margins for over a decade now. $80/month for a speed that competes with what I can get on a fucking cell-phone is bullshit. And that's the rate Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and everyone else wants for using their "last-mile infrastructure" which they haven't improved in years and which was built with tax money. Fuck this.
It doesn't matter. Perhaps this tool doesn't go far enough. DTrace provides you direct insight into what's going on, and you have access to enough syscalls to actually figure out what's being done with information, too. I'd love a full DTrace on my iPhone and an app that's set up to periodically watch apps to see if they're doing anything weird. I audit software like this on my Linux and Windows systems ALL the time. I've even made basic binary instrumentation tools to automatically instrument binary libraries (imports/exports) to get more application-specific information. It's amazing to see what some applications do with your information. Unless we require software vendors to disclose every I/O action that a piece of software can possibly make (and what the purpose of such an action is) truthfully, which will never be a requirement, we need tools like this. The certainty is a non-factor. It simply shows you that an application accesses something.
For instance, if my instant messaging program is accessing my recent internet history from Internet Explorer or Chrome, I'm going to get really, REALLY skeptical that it has any business whatsoever looking at that. It doesn't matter if there's a legitimate reason for it.
Let's call it hacker-care. We'll need about $10B/yr to sustain it, and what we'll do is pay a competitive salary to these ladies for dating hackers, as well as covering all medical expenses (they have to stay healthy!), college, and even annual vacation bonuses. When are we going to hold a vote?
The benefit of spending your time exercising your brain and solving real problems and creating things that people find useful: an enjoyable career and a feeling of accomplishment, and possibly lots of money.
The benefit of spending most of your time in a gym even if you have an IQ below 70, trying to be in perfect shape, but solving no problems and providing nothing of value to the world: sex with hot women, all of them, all the time.
The takeaway: intelligence and stability aren't as important as physical perfection when we're talking about relationships, which is why the movie Idiocracy is probably closer to our future reality than Star Trek. This cuts both ways, too. Who is to blame? Media, for constantly bombarding us with iconically beautiful actors and actresses that are atypical or presented atypically (make-up, lighting, editing, etc) and forcing this unreasonable "standard" of beauty on everyone, fueling this nonsensical and pathologically shallow nature that pervades most people. These sure are exciting times!
Why are extremely unhealthy fast food, sugary soft drinks, alcohol and cigarettes legal but prostitution and marijuana aren't? What is this, I don't even.
A free-of-charge SDK is not "open." Sorry. And please stop designing systems with DRM. Why are you morons so willing to design defects into your software? Hell, you're targeting indy developers, not billion dollar game studios. Please, feel free to go fuck yourself with your DRM. If I can't buy something without DRM attached to it, I always pirate it instead since then I actually have control. If I ever purchased an Ouya, I would absolutely pirate every single game so that I can play them on my PC and on my other Android devices, too.
In doing some quick research, I couldn't find an energy input vs output ratio for a CAES system, given an assumption that a large amount of energy in the form of heat will be lost to the surrounding earth. I would assume that theoretically it is 100% in perfect thermal isolation, and that in this situation, the energy lost is equal to the amount of energy required to heat the resulting volume of air at the resulting pressure by the difference of the heat of the gas after compression and its original temperature. I can't be bothered doing the math to get a theoretical percentage, and I didn't see the expected volume of this project nor the expected pressure.
I would, however, be interested to know if there's research out there that compares the actual efficiency of a CAES system (like the one originally built in Germany) against modern methods of obtaining hydrogen from water and compressing that into an easily stored liquid. Last I heard, there were new advances in that field and likely more promising results to be had in the future, so to me it would appear that hydrogen would've been a better bet. Or maybe these liquid metal batteries?
Vary doesn't support grouping of values, so the likely outcome is that you get N caches for each of N unique user-agents. Without nonstandard "smart" behavior, proxies wont be much help, and with it, they become a barrier to change. The first problem that needs to be addressed is that PHP never 302s by default for conditional GETs, the second is transparent proxies. It seems overall to be much simpler to just use conditional comments, as most web servers and proxies do a good job of caching for static files.
To prevent caching, but there's no reason any dynamic page shouldn't be cached unless it's critical that it not be stale. For instance, your front page, even with a listing of your most recent blog postings, is unlikely to change even once per day, so why re-query the database on every GET? One step is to use a backend cache like memcached to prevent repeated SELECTs, another is to set the proper headers to allow browser and proxy caches to cache the output. It can be required that conditional GETs go back to the server so you can determine if a new post has been made since the time of cache, too, allowing you to reply with a 302 to save yourself the need to re-send the entire content again. Out of the box, PHP on Apache might never respect caching, but any site with any amount of hits without an absurd budget for bandwidth and load balancing should be taking advantage of it.
User Agent hacks are incompatible with caching. Bad idea. Use conditional comments so IE gets its familiar old diaper and every other browser gets a shiny new car. Either that or propose an If-User-Agent header so proxies and caches can figure out whether your request is the same as a previous one.
Slashdot Mirror
But it's important that our mechanisms for distributing software also be in the spirit of freedom. Steam, for instance, sells subscriptions to their licenses, so you never actually own a license nor a copy to a game. The 'free' we talk about is in terms of rights. We don't have any rights with something like Steam. So it should be flatly rejected by the Linux community, regardless of whether or not it lets us play or download games on Linux easily. Distribution mechanisms that deprive us of rights should not be permitted to succeed at any cost, even at the cost of our own comfort. We should simply resort to purchasing games directly from manufacturers, even if that means we have to walk to a store and pick up a box, or wait for UPS/FedEx/* to deliver it to us. It's also important to note that this does NOT contradict the pirate stance on media delivery (if it's easier and cheaper, we won't pirate): forfeiture of rights makes Steam cost significantly more than any other form of distribution that has ever existed on Earth.
When it comes to you and me buying a game digitally directly from a game vendor, we typically get a license to that game. It's OUR license. Sometimes we even own a copy (rare, and becoming even more rare every year, until we make licenses == legal copy in terms of copyright law, like the EU is doing right now). We usually don't have the right to resell our license, but if we own a copy, then we do.
Now steam doesn't let you RESELL your digital copies to other players. But they don't sell licenses, nor copies. They sell a subscription to their license of the game, which means they're selling a refurbished digital game to you, except not at the same time, because they bind ALL of your rights, leaving you completely and utterly fucked.
IMHO, licenses should be seen as equivalent to copies, legally. And Steam's model of selling a "subscription" should be seen as a sub-license, and also be legally upheld as a copy. This combination would permit us to re-sell purchased digital games, and either force Steam to enable us to remove games and give them to others, or be hit with massive lawsuits. And then Steam would become Gamestop's digital counterpart, as it would be in their best interest to implement an Amazon-style used market. Though that might be horribly scary for Steam, because the only reason they can offer massive sales is because you don't have any rights at all over the content you "buy" from them. Such a legal ruling would probably invalidate most of their licensing rights to games and turn them into yet another MSRP vendor, lining them up to be defeated by Amazon at their own game.
You do that with REST over HTTP at least using media types and json schema, which are starting to gain more popularity with API developers. I'd argue there's nothing those systems have over what REST+JSON can provide if used properly. The problem is that most things that claim to be RESTful aren't really. The community is starting to move away from using the term "REST" to describe things, especially application APIs, because it has those connotations attached to it (see: facebook, twitter, etc APIs, they're just HTTP based RPC with loads of coupling and out-of-band information). Instead, they're now referring to things that are much more RESTful as "hypermedia" because their solutions conform to the hypermedia constraint (the most important one, so says Fielding) in Fielding's paper. These use hypermedia and media types to define an interchange format without the need for coupling, and often support schemas for type validation.
When I was doing re-imaging, it was SOP to make a ghost copy of the current drive for backup purposes (this step was only done when we were moving a person to a new computer, so as to keep their data intact, for leaving employees, there was no backup), DBAN the machine, then re-image it with a golden image.
When we said "re-image" that's what we meant. We had stations set up with like 10 drives attached for DBAN purposes. I always meant to make a little device that could run DBAN that would plug directly into an IDE device (or use an IDE/SATA converter) and DBAN the entire disk by simply plugging in the cable, the power, and hitting the big red button. I could probably sell those. Hold on, brb, getting a patent.
Would you mind starting a blog on it and posting the URL here? Those of us writing code and unit tests need to know how to fuzz our code really well, too.
Yes, you, Comcast, Rogers, AT&T, Verizon, and every other shitty ISP on the planet. For years now, you've slowly increased the cost of internet access while the speeds have remained largely unchanged for consumers (over 5 years ago, I had a 20Mbps connection for $40/month, now the same connection is almost $70/month). You haven't taken that money and improved the infrastructure, you've just been cashing in big time. I have a gig router with N wireless and cat 5e cables with gigabit nics, and have for nearing a decade. My hardware has been screaming for you to saturate it with bits, yet all you've done is force us to pay more money because you own monopolies (municipality cable, the "last mile" if you will, the telco lines, etc).
This is refreshing. Even though it's hard to identify "privacy, anonymity, and trust" with Google, they're still over 9000x better than any of these other guys. It's nice seeing what a company that isn't a big ISP with hundreds of millions in PURE NET REVENUE pouring in for ZERO WORK AT ALL can do. This really demonstrates what the outcome of spending money on infrastructure is. We have a point of reference now. Look at Google, now look at your ISP. Two orders of magnitude improvement. Two. WTF. This is putting KS on the map with the likes of EU countries and Japan in terms of internet capabilities. And what's more, the cable service is over IP, on top of a Gbps connection. The last time I checked cable prices here, Comcast wanted $89.99 for basic + a few decent channels for digital. For all the good stuff, it's like $139.99, and that's NOT including the internet connection. They'll let you bundle that with a basic 5Mbps for only $39.99 more per month! You're looking at > $200 for a connection > 20Mbps and a decent cable setup.
I really hope Google puts these jokers out of business. All of them. It's time for a revolution from the status quo.
And here I was planning on using my fiber connection to start my own HFT system. I care about those 15 microseconds!
The "find" command in *nix was created in the 80s. It could simultaneously search a floppy drive and a hard drive, and even a drive on another machine. Prior art; that shit's deep, yo.
Hey now, my Galaxy Nexus is loving its new Jelly Bean colors. I'm on 4.1.1, I was surprised when I got it today, and my Nexus 7 already had an update when I unboxed it today. Rawr.
In Windows 98, explorer.exe was capable of doing both a local file search (while file browsing) and literally replacing the body of the current window with an iexplore widget that performed a web search. This was a single interface that could search both locally and the internet. There's your prior art. From Microsoft of all people. Similarly, it allowed you to search shared folders, which were internet-connected stores (intranet, but that's technically all the internet is), and IIRC, even Windows 95 supported that.
.. well.. since floppy drives existed.
Oh, and there's probably no fewer than 10 prior art examples in *nix. Attaching a networked storage device and searching your local machine AND the remote machine (ie: internet) for information surely happened when transitioning from workstations to PCs (I certainly did this while setting up a modern computer cluster, shared outputs were written to an ISCSI device shared by nodes, and intermediary files for processing were stored locally on each node, so sometimes you'd need to search both).
Let's go even further: floppy drives. Yes, a search on most machines with a mnt lower than root or a multi-drive search capability (Windows and *nixes) have been able to perform a search of your harddrive and a floppy drive simultaneously from a single interface for
How about memory virtualization? I'm searching through memory which is actually paged to disk, so I'm searching two different storage systems transparently, although it's unlikely that I'll get any means of ordering information distinctly based on whether it was on disk or in memory (thus the purpose of the abstraction), it's still a search on two different medium simultaneously.
The more I think about this, the more cases of prior art I find, and the more I find things that would very easily be seen as a violation of this patent. It should be thrown out. It's horribly vague, is terribly obvious, and had been done repeatedly long before the patent was filed.
Almost forgot the most important exception: *unless it's for educational purposes. Sometimes educational research leads to a better implementation which leads to competing technologies, which is a perfectly reasonable outcome, but more often than not result in a potentially better approach at one thing than the original, which is better used to improve the original.
PowerShell is to administrative shells like the car some 15 year old kid builds in his garage with spare parts from a junkyard is to top-of-the-line race car or luxury car engineering from world leading engineers. It's just not even remotely close to what we get in *nix shells. And all it does is provide you with a CMD + script environment. Everything you can do in it could be done trivially via VBScript or JScript with COM. Microsoft once again instead of embracing technologies just re-invents them and poorly. They could have ported bash and the entire GNU environment with lots of other goodies over to Windows legally and we'd have the best of both worlds, but they instead decided to create some convoluted and terribly designed "competitor." This is similar in many respects to what they do for web browsers. Instead of embracing what we've already created (WebKit is open source, so is V8, WebKit + V8 is almost Chrome, and Microsoft could easily leverage both of these and even contribute back to the community by improving both), they create their own stuff which is years and years behind every other modern browser and which holds the entire industry back because they don't have an insignificant market share. This is the Microsoft way. It needs to stop, now. This is a golden rule, and one of the only rules we adamantly enforce in software engineering: if it isn't broke, don't fix it. More specifically, if something already exists that does what you're doing, use it or improve it. Unless you have a revolutionary approach that is significantly better (demonstrably), such that it is your business value to provide a better implementation, don't ever re-create something that already exists. Microsoft routinely violates this rule. I'm not sure why, maybe because they want to demonstrate to the world that they're still relevant somehow, but instead they end up looking like fucking idiots and pissing everyone off in the process.
When you need to heat your food, do you grab some iron and create an alloy of it to achieve a higher electrical resistance then wire it into your home's grid? No, you buy a stove, because someone already fucking did that. When you need to keep something cool, do you find a gas with a very low boiling point and create a phase-exchange system for moving heat from a small confined and insulated space to a larger heat dump? No, you buy a refrigerator, because someone already fucking did that. When you live 40 miles from work and need to get there today, do you invent an internal combustion engine, refine crude oil to obtain gasoline, invent strong rubber-based inflatable tires, create a mechanism for distributing power from your engine to the wheel assemblies, etc? No, you buy a fucking car or use public transportation, because someone already solved that problem. In all of these cases, you need TO DO SOMETHING, not make something better than what already exists. You don't decide "well I need to use a linux shell in Windows, let me go ahead and completely invent my own shitty version." No, you port the existing open-source implementation to your platform, at the very most. Because someone already fucking did that.
To propose a CMS is like proposing classes to a person writing pure C. Sure, it adds "structure," something an "architect" can maintain later, but every form of organizational abstraction can be just as bad if not worse than writing something without that structure. I've seen Java and C++ applications that have classes so intertwined that they may as well be one class. I've similarly seen widgets built in CMSes and web application frameworks that despite the outward appearance that they are "independent" and can be used anywhere, actually require a very specific environment (and often each other) which is the opposite of the overall intent of using such systems. In short: advocating someone use a CMS does not imply that the thing they produce will be any more maintainable.
A CMS is just another tool in the toolbox. If you're building a website that can easily be fit by a CMS and its pre-built components, it's a good fit because the tool does a lot of work for you. Similarly, if you're building a client-heavy single-page web application, you're probably better off using frameworks built to make those tasks simpler.
is regulation that makes these ISP monopolies and rate-fixing illegal. Internet access is effectively a utility these days, and it should be regulated as such. It's quite clear that rates have been fixed at inane margins for over a decade now. $80/month for a speed that competes with what I can get on a fucking cell-phone is bullshit. And that's the rate Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and everyone else wants for using their "last-mile infrastructure" which they haven't improved in years and which was built with tax money. Fuck this.
It doesn't matter. Perhaps this tool doesn't go far enough. DTrace provides you direct insight into what's going on, and you have access to enough syscalls to actually figure out what's being done with information, too. I'd love a full DTrace on my iPhone and an app that's set up to periodically watch apps to see if they're doing anything weird. I audit software like this on my Linux and Windows systems ALL the time. I've even made basic binary instrumentation tools to automatically instrument binary libraries (imports/exports) to get more application-specific information. It's amazing to see what some applications do with your information. Unless we require software vendors to disclose every I/O action that a piece of software can possibly make (and what the purpose of such an action is) truthfully, which will never be a requirement, we need tools like this. The certainty is a non-factor. It simply shows you that an application accesses something.
For instance, if my instant messaging program is accessing my recent internet history from Internet Explorer or Chrome, I'm going to get really, REALLY skeptical that it has any business whatsoever looking at that. It doesn't matter if there's a legitimate reason for it.
Let's call it hacker-care. We'll need about $10B/yr to sustain it, and what we'll do is pay a competitive salary to these ladies for dating hackers, as well as covering all medical expenses (they have to stay healthy!), college, and even annual vacation bonuses. When are we going to hold a vote?
The benefit of spending your time exercising your brain and solving real problems and creating things that people find useful: an enjoyable career and a feeling of accomplishment, and possibly lots of money.
The benefit of spending most of your time in a gym even if you have an IQ below 70, trying to be in perfect shape, but solving no problems and providing nothing of value to the world: sex with hot women, all of them, all the time.
The takeaway: intelligence and stability aren't as important as physical perfection when we're talking about relationships, which is why the movie Idiocracy is probably closer to our future reality than Star Trek. This cuts both ways, too. Who is to blame? Media, for constantly bombarding us with iconically beautiful actors and actresses that are atypical or presented atypically (make-up, lighting, editing, etc) and forcing this unreasonable "standard" of beauty on everyone, fueling this nonsensical and pathologically shallow nature that pervades most people. These sure are exciting times!
Why are extremely unhealthy fast food, sugary soft drinks, alcohol and cigarettes legal but prostitution and marijuana aren't? What is this, I don't even.
I agree. I find it very difficult to stop that which does not exist.
A free-of-charge SDK is not "open." Sorry. And please stop designing systems with DRM. Why are you morons so willing to design defects into your software? Hell, you're targeting indy developers, not billion dollar game studios. Please, feel free to go fuck yourself with your DRM. If I can't buy something without DRM attached to it, I always pirate it instead since then I actually have control. If I ever purchased an Ouya, I would absolutely pirate every single game so that I can play them on my PC and on my other Android devices, too.
In doing some quick research, I couldn't find an energy input vs output ratio for a CAES system, given an assumption that a large amount of energy in the form of heat will be lost to the surrounding earth. I would assume that theoretically it is 100% in perfect thermal isolation, and that in this situation, the energy lost is equal to the amount of energy required to heat the resulting volume of air at the resulting pressure by the difference of the heat of the gas after compression and its original temperature. I can't be bothered doing the math to get a theoretical percentage, and I didn't see the expected volume of this project nor the expected pressure.
I would, however, be interested to know if there's research out there that compares the actual efficiency of a CAES system (like the one originally built in Germany) against modern methods of obtaining hydrogen from water and compressing that into an easily stored liquid. Last I heard, there were new advances in that field and likely more promising results to be had in the future, so to me it would appear that hydrogen would've been a better bet. Or maybe these liquid metal batteries?
They forgot to Whitehouse-ify the numbers, clearly this is going to create over 10,000 jobs!
Vary doesn't support grouping of values, so the likely outcome is that you get N caches for each of N unique user-agents. Without nonstandard "smart" behavior, proxies wont be much help, and with it, they become a barrier to change. The first problem that needs to be addressed is that PHP never 302s by default for conditional GETs, the second is transparent proxies. It seems overall to be much simpler to just use conditional comments, as most web servers and proxies do a good job of caching for static files.
To prevent caching, but there's no reason any dynamic page shouldn't be cached unless it's critical that it not be stale. For instance, your front page, even with a listing of your most recent blog postings, is unlikely to change even once per day, so why re-query the database on every GET? One step is to use a backend cache like memcached to prevent repeated SELECTs, another is to set the proper headers to allow browser and proxy caches to cache the output. It can be required that conditional GETs go back to the server so you can determine if a new post has been made since the time of cache, too, allowing you to reply with a 302 to save yourself the need to re-send the entire content again. Out of the box, PHP on Apache might never respect caching, but any site with any amount of hits without an absurd budget for bandwidth and load balancing should be taking advantage of it.
User Agent hacks are incompatible with caching. Bad idea. Use conditional comments so IE gets its familiar old diaper and every other browser gets a shiny new car. Either that or propose an If-User-Agent header so proxies and caches can figure out whether your request is the same as a previous one.