If the system is only available to your LAN, and you can only get access to your LAN via a secure tunnel, then none of that crap is even remotely necessary.
Google need have ANY part in it. Once the device is in my hand, I should be able to set it up on my LAN without ANY access to third parties. And to tunnel into my LAN remotely, if I want, based on my own tunneling setup. Again, no need for third parties.
Most people today would consider that a nightmare, not an "advantage".
People are sick and tired of having Google up their asses all day. They don't need even more intrusion into their homes.
Further, no, "smart" does not imply "online". What it implies is that it communicates with your own LOCAL devices.
In most cases, there is absolutely no reason for them to "call home".
I want devices I can set up in my LAN, which DO NOT try to access sites outside my LAN (i.e., do not require "signup" on some kind of website for setup or monitoring).
Then if I want to tunnel into my LAN from outside, that's a different matter.
But I don't want OR need external websites to view my security cams, or to receive notifications, etc.
It is perfectly possible to do all those things without third party access, and even to make it simple.
Melatonin cycle disruption is actually very strongly linked to cancer in some animals, by repeated and responsible peer-reviewed experimentation, on good numbers of subjects, over a period of decades.
The fact that this apparently seems "crazy" to you is irrelevant.
It isn't JUST correlation. There is very good evidence of cause and effect.
Recent studies have criticized earlier studies, and concluded that neonicotinoids were NOT significantly harming honeybees, except when in conjunction with other environmental stressors and varroa mites mites in particular (and no, global warming was not one of them).
Further, annual censuses have shown an overall growth in bee population worldwide, including in the US and UK.
They keep trying to solve non-problems, by enacting harmful measures. My concern is not for bees, but the UK and its government. It seems to be led lately by a ship of fools.
It's only "great" if you use that company's EFI support for that particular operating system.
Otherwise, it's a major pain in the ass, and can even block you form installing the OS you may want to use.
Microsoft has been the biggest pusher of this scheme, because it did not want people to be able to dual-boot. They called it a "security" measure, but in fact my system is a hell of a lot more secure if I install MacOS and run Windows in a "bootcamp" or VM.
It's ALL ABOUT corporate lock-in, and not about security at all. Just as HDMI was/is.
Because non-relational databases do not have data relations, yet most data you want to use is INHERENTLY relational, then that "screaming fast" database is offset by the custom programming (and programming time, and cost) required to create those relationships yourself.
It might be fast, but it only does what you tell it to do, and you want to know that customer ID 3894567025 made purchases 36021, 42573, 56819, etc.
In non-relational databases, you have to create these relations yourself.
GREAT if you have a huge company and unlimited budget.
People are looking at this from the wrong perspective. No offense meant, but I think that includes you too.
I rather suspect that you are a long-time Windows-based programmer.
Of course C is more performant. It's not a high-level language. It is intermediate-level at best. That's why C++, for one example, is higherl-level and therefore easier to use but slower. And interpreted languages will always be to some degree slower, because of their very nature. But they are also capable of doing more with less programming effort, and that is THEIR forte.
Further, there are fully-compilable versions of Ruby, such as MacRuby and jRuby. They don't give up very much to become compiled; only a few convenience features.
As for C libraries, that's partly what scripting languages are FOR: tying together low-level efficient libraries into higher-level finished products.
You say "for the real work, people will always turn to native code" but that's plain BS. People and companies do not have time or budget to low-level-code everything they do. A smart programmer will use the language appropriate to the task, and that often means tying that "native code" together using higher-level languages.
Your opinion of Python, for example, is just wrong. Python, despite its language inconsistencies and weird significant-white-space formatting, has been adopted by the scientific community as probably the go-to language of choice. It may not be used commercially as much as some others, but it is going to be around a long time.
The long and short of it is: each language has its particular strengths and weaknesses. Industry watchdogs predicted the imminent demise of Ruby over 10 years ago. That hasn't happened. In fact only 2 years ago, experienced Ruby programmers in the US commanded the highest salary of any language. I haven't checked more recently. But the market is a good place to look when one is making such "predictions".
While Ruby is 25 years old, it did not gain wide attention in the United States until nearly 10 years later. So as a practical matter, in the US, it is 15 years old.
It is approximately as performant as Python, and has a more consistent structure and syntax, so I suspect the scientific community will eventually shift over to Ruby over Python, unless it skips that step altogether and goes into functional programming.
As for Ruby "scalability issues", that is a myth that has weirdly persisted for at least a decade, in the face of abundant contrary evidence. Here are companies that have had no trouble at all scaling Ruby: AirBnB, Fiverr, Github, Goodreads, Groupon, Hulu, Indiegogo, Kickstarter, MyFitnessPal, Pixlr, Scribd, Shopify, Square, Strava, Twitch, UrbanDictionary, WhitePages, and ZenDesk.
There are many more, of course, but those are just some names that people might recognize.
But too many in the US seem to be blind to this corporate oligopoly which is what the U.S. internet has become.
And it must be said: it has become so with the aid of the US government. Not just lack of regulation, but mis-regulation. And Trump's administration has not helped in this area. In fact it has made things worse.
When you don't have competition, you MUST have regulation. One or the other. Today, we effectively have neither.
We have often disagreed, but Bill has this right. (Except, perhaps, for the CIA importing heroin... that's so 1970s. But they still could be, for similar perverse reasons.)
Basic economics has shown, and by real-world experience: end the drug war, and you also solve the other problems.
Drug use does not go up, compared to other countries.
Addiction rates go way DOWN. Without criminal penalty, more people seek treatment.
Disease rates go way DOWN. No incentive to share needles (or other means of transmission) and spread disease.
ALL LOGIC AND EXPERIENCE OVER MANY DECADES says that just like alcohol prohibition, the War On Drugs is not just a failure, but the cause of most of the problems.
The majority of the non-suicide firearm deaths in the US are "criminal-enterprise-related". That means, almost always, something drug-related.
Remove the underground profit motive, and you remove most of the related crimes and deaths.
It's not just logic, we have 100 years of practice saying that is so.
The status quo benefits BOTH sides: law enforcement, and drug dealers. Both have bigger budgets, and better weapons compared to before.
And that won't stop. Until we eliminate the need for a black market.
And what if the leak -- as has so often happened -- involves some kind of malpractice or malfeasance or blatant discrimination or other prohibited practice?
This discussion seems to be omitting those cases, but as we have learned, they are all too common.
In fact, there is a lot of information coming out now suggesting that corruption in silicon valley and social media has become what one might call "rampant".
No longer adding NEW COAL plants will not lead to any issues. In fact, it would likely increase the lifespan of more citizens.
Utter horseshit. Their population is not decreasing.
Just over the last year, when they made a promise to reduce coal use to reduce CO2, they had to back off on their promise because people were freezing to death.
Going by your own link, the rate of change is increasing. This is called acceleration.#youdenyyouself
No. It shows a more rapid rise in the last couple of decades, but it does not show an acceleration overall.
If you can cherry-pick a 20-25 year period, so can I. You can see for yourself sea level was rising just as fast from 1930-1950, when CO2 was around 305-310 ppm. I just rough-fit the dashed lines but you can do your own and no matter how you do it, if you're honest, SLR rate was greater 1930-1950.
It also showed a comparable rate between about 1880-1905.
Slashdot Mirror
(Should have read: "Google need NOT have ANY part in it... ")
And no, no keys "mediated" by Google.
If the system is only available to your LAN, and you can only get access to your LAN via a secure tunnel, then none of that crap is even remotely necessary.
Google need have ANY part in it. Once the device is in my hand, I should be able to set it up on my LAN without ANY access to third parties. And to tunnel into my LAN remotely, if I want, based on my own tunneling setup. Again, no need for third parties.
Local access, no need to "sign up" on a remote website to configure or monitor the system.
NO need for devices to "call home" to the manufacturer or other third party.
Local access ONLY.
And then ability to tunnel in to your LAN from outside, via a secure connection, to access them from wherever you are.
All these things are not only possible, but have been done. It is the product manufacturers who don't want to supply these things.
Most people today would consider that a nightmare, not an "advantage".
People are sick and tired of having Google up their asses all day. They don't need even more intrusion into their homes.
Further, no, "smart" does not imply "online". What it implies is that it communicates with your own LOCAL devices.
In most cases, there is absolutely no reason for them to "call home".
I want devices I can set up in my LAN, which DO NOT try to access sites outside my LAN (i.e., do not require "signup" on some kind of website for setup or monitoring).
Then if I want to tunnel into my LAN from outside, that's a different matter.
But I don't want OR need external websites to view my security cams, or to receive notifications, etc.
It is perfectly possible to do all those things without third party access, and even to make it simple.
Irrelevant.
OP's "point" is bullshit.
I had never heard of it either, until recently. As, it turns out, many of my friends had not either.
So what do they do? What did I do? Look it up on Google. As did many thousands of other people within a single week.
A peak in search activity does NOT translate into people actually going there, or playing the game.
That premise is just ridiculous.
400ppm means the loss of Arctic ice
Are you sure it wasn't the other way around?
Ice core data shows a several-hundred-year lag between rising temperatures and higher CO2.
ALMOST like one could not have caused the other.
Nobody is disputing that the climate is changing. But the preponderance of evidence says humans aren't doing it.
Just tell them hell no. You're bitching about all the details but forgetting the big picture. Which is: hell no.
Not according to opinions written in certain recent Supreme Court cases.
Affirmative Action is likely on its way out the window.
From the 30th floor.
Melatonin cycle disruption is actually very strongly linked to cancer in some animals, by repeated and responsible peer-reviewed experimentation, on good numbers of subjects, over a period of decades.
The fact that this apparently seems "crazy" to you is irrelevant.
It isn't JUST correlation. There is very good evidence of cause and effect.
Requiem for the UK dream, more like it.
Recent studies have criticized earlier studies, and concluded that neonicotinoids were NOT significantly harming honeybees, except when in conjunction with other environmental stressors and varroa mites mites in particular (and no, global warming was not one of them).
Further, annual censuses have shown an overall growth in bee population worldwide, including in the US and UK.
They keep trying to solve non-problems, by enacting harmful measures. My concern is not for bees, but the UK and its government. It seems to be led lately by a ship of fools.
It's only "great" if you use that company's EFI support for that particular operating system.
Otherwise, it's a major pain in the ass, and can even block you form installing the OS you may want to use.
Microsoft has been the biggest pusher of this scheme, because it did not want people to be able to dual-boot. They called it a "security" measure, but in fact my system is a hell of a lot more secure if I install MacOS and run Windows in a "bootcamp" or VM.
It's ALL ABOUT corporate lock-in, and not about security at all. Just as HDMI was/is.
It is, in fact, just that.
If you don't understand that, I have this really great bridge to sell you. It's a hell of a deal.
That's not really the point. Here's the point:
Because non-relational databases do not have data relations, yet most data you want to use is INHERENTLY relational, then that "screaming fast" database is offset by the custom programming (and programming time, and cost) required to create those relationships yourself.
It might be fast, but it only does what you tell it to do, and you want to know that customer ID 3894567025 made purchases 36021, 42573, 56819, etc.
In non-relational databases, you have to create these relations yourself.
GREAT if you have a huge company and unlimited budget.
People are looking at this from the wrong perspective. No offense meant, but I think that includes you too.
I rather suspect that you are a long-time Windows-based programmer.
Of course C is more performant. It's not a high-level language. It is intermediate-level at best. That's why C++, for one example, is higherl-level and therefore easier to use but slower. And interpreted languages will always be to some degree slower, because of their very nature. But they are also capable of doing more with less programming effort, and that is THEIR forte.
Further, there are fully-compilable versions of Ruby, such as MacRuby and jRuby. They don't give up very much to become compiled; only a few convenience features.
As for C libraries, that's partly what scripting languages are FOR: tying together low-level efficient libraries into higher-level finished products.
You say "for the real work, people will always turn to native code" but that's plain BS. People and companies do not have time or budget to low-level-code everything they do. A smart programmer will use the language appropriate to the task, and that often means tying that "native code" together using higher-level languages.
Your opinion of Python, for example, is just wrong. Python, despite its language inconsistencies and weird significant-white-space formatting, has been adopted by the scientific community as probably the go-to language of choice. It may not be used commercially as much as some others, but it is going to be around a long time.
The long and short of it is: each language has its particular strengths and weaknesses. Industry watchdogs predicted the imminent demise of Ruby over 10 years ago. That hasn't happened. In fact only 2 years ago, experienced Ruby programmers in the US commanded the highest salary of any language. I haven't checked more recently. But the market is a good place to look when one is making such "predictions".
While Ruby is 25 years old, it did not gain wide attention in the United States until nearly 10 years later. So as a practical matter, in the US, it is 15 years old.
It is approximately as performant as Python, and has a more consistent structure and syntax, so I suspect the scientific community will eventually shift over to Ruby over Python, unless it skips that step altogether and goes into functional programming.
As for Ruby "scalability issues", that is a myth that has weirdly persisted for at least a decade, in the face of abundant contrary evidence. Here are companies that have had no trouble at all scaling Ruby: AirBnB, Fiverr, Github, Goodreads, Groupon, Hulu, Indiegogo, Kickstarter, MyFitnessPal, Pixlr, Scribd, Shopify, Square, Strava, Twitch, UrbanDictionary, WhitePages, and ZenDesk.
There are many more, of course, but those are just some names that people might recognize.
Because there is no competition.
And yes, monopolies are bad.
But too many in the US seem to be blind to this corporate oligopoly which is what the U.S. internet has become.
And it must be said: it has become so with the aid of the US government. Not just lack of regulation, but mis-regulation. And Trump's administration has not helped in this area. In fact it has made things worse.
When you don't have competition, you MUST have regulation. One or the other. Today, we effectively have neither.
And THAT is how this happened.
Wow. This is the most ignorant comment I've seen in a long time.
Back that up. Right now. Who got paid, for what?
I'm not defending Facebook. Quite the contrary. But if we want to get at the truth we must filter out the BS.
So: offer something that will get through the filter. Otherwise you are quite literally wasting everybody's time.
Why would you expect him to give you evidence, when that isn't even close to what he said?
I admit to being puzzled by your assertion that he said the CIA mixed anything with anything.
Maybe you need to read it again?
We have often disagreed, but Bill has this right. (Except, perhaps, for the CIA importing heroin... that's so 1970s. But they still could be, for similar perverse reasons.)
Basic economics has shown, and by real-world experience: end the drug war, and you also solve the other problems.
Drug use does not go up, compared to other countries.
Addiction rates go way DOWN. Without criminal penalty, more people seek treatment.
Disease rates go way DOWN. No incentive to share needles (or other means of transmission) and spread disease.
ALL LOGIC AND EXPERIENCE OVER MANY DECADES says that just like alcohol prohibition, the War On Drugs is not just a failure, but the cause of most of the problems.
The majority of the non-suicide firearm deaths in the US are "criminal-enterprise-related". That means, almost always, something drug-related.
Remove the underground profit motive, and you remove most of the related crimes and deaths.
It's not just logic, we have 100 years of practice saying that is so.
The status quo benefits BOTH sides: law enforcement, and drug dealers. Both have bigger budgets, and better weapons compared to before.
And that won't stop. Until we eliminate the need for a black market.
It's really pretty simple economics.
And what if the leak -- as has so often happened -- involves some kind of malpractice or malfeasance or blatant discrimination or other prohibited practice?
This discussion seems to be omitting those cases, but as we have learned, they are all too common.
In fact, there is a lot of information coming out now suggesting that corruption in silicon valley and social media has become what one might call "rampant".
You folks aren't very good at reading papers.
Try looking at more than just the abstracts and the conclusions.
Then toss in some simple logical deduction.
It works, bitches.
No, they don't.
Try actually reading what they say, not just the abstract and/or conclusion.
No longer adding NEW COAL plants will not lead to any issues. In fact, it would likely increase the lifespan of more citizens.
Utter horseshit. Their population is not decreasing.
Just over the last year, when they made a promise to reduce coal use to reduce CO2, they had to back off on their promise because people were freezing to death.
Read the newspapers.
Manhattan has significantly INCREASED in land area, pretty steadily, over the last 150 years.
But most if not all of that was due to human activity, so there is no way to make a valid comparison.
Actually significantly faster, 1930-1950. Not "just as fast".
Going by your own link, the rate of change is increasing. This is called acceleration.#youdenyyouself
No. It shows a more rapid rise in the last couple of decades, but it does not show an acceleration overall.
If you can cherry-pick a 20-25 year period, so can I. You can see for yourself sea level was rising just as fast from 1930-1950, when CO2 was around 305-310 ppm. I just rough-fit the dashed lines but you can do your own and no matter how you do it, if you're honest, SLR rate was greater 1930-1950.
It also showed a comparable rate between about 1880-1905.
Explain those.