For someone like me who likes garbage collection, multiple dispatch, and extreme abstraction capabilities in high level languages like Common Lisp, and safety, compile-time error detection, readability, and speed in low level languages like Ada or Haskell, what are the benefits of using Go in comparison to these two different types of languages? What new useful features does Go bring?
No, Putin is probably really kind of 'crazy', at least that's what the public evidence indicates. He's a psychopath who almost entirely lacks empathy and only thinks in the strategic terms of an aged intelligence operative, and that's a problem, not that he also acts in the interest of his country like any other leader does. He's also kind of a loner.
Crazy and rational are not mutually exclusive terms, they easily go hand in hand.
In a sense these speed tests do not really measure the important factors. I don't have a direct comparison, but I'm convinced that the network access is generally way faster for Americans than for most Europeans, even when we (=the Europeans) have nominally faster download speed. The reason is simply that most interesting servers are located in the US.
As an example, I have a 100 Mbps download / 10 Mbps upload fiber link for 40 Euro/mo., but in reality my download speeds tend to max out at 8-45 Mbps. In speed tests to nearby servers I do get near 100 Mbps, but I rarely need anything local anyway. (We also got an option of 200 Mbps in our country and I wonder what one would need this speed for, especially if the upload speed is not as high as well so it can't be used for bidirectional links.)
That's just another run-off-the-mill anarchist position. You sound like anarchism had never been proposed as a political view before and as if there had never been any serious debate about this. This has already been discussed and rejected by most thinkers more than a hundred years ago.
Despite the fact that probably everyone wants a lean government and it is surprisingly hard to get one, you position has the fatal flaw that you need a government apparatus to control corporations via anti-cartel laws and regulations for worker protection, social security, and basic customer protection. An unrestricted market invariably leads to cartels and extreme unequal wealth distributions. Your abolishing of the government would lead to extreme corporate fascism and totalitarian oligarchy, possibly even dictatorship, and you'd end up as a slave worker in no time.
That's fine. The competition between ISPs is enough to have some cater to the edge cases.
Not where I live. We have a choice between 2 ISPs, and I'm pretty damn sure they make illegal price fixing arrangements. Both offer the same packages, pester you with advertisement calls for mobile services and streaming TV bullshit, and have the same incompetent and impotent tech service with a 1/2 to 1 hour call queue.
It goes without saying that apps that deal with sensitive data must encrypt it before writing it to disk. The authors of such apps should even be legally required to do so. But that has nothing to do with full disk encryption, which in most use cases is simply not needed and counter-productive (higher resource usage, lower data integrity).
Apart from the fact that the author of an app can choose to encrypt data as he wishes, anyone who uses his phone for banking is just plain stupid and no amount of encryption will help that person.
I know this is an unpopular opinion but most people don't need to encrypt their phone because they have no sensitive data on it. There is always a trade-off between encryption and data integrity, and the latter is way more important for most ordinary use cases. Good voluntary encryption is nice and important for business, but mandatory encryption... why?
Encryption at the OS level is very insecure, because common operating systems are very insecure.
But I agree that in the end the difference doesn't matter, since the only secure hardware encryption would be an external drive with independent key entry, i.e. an external drive with its own keypad. Why use a hardware device if a simple keystroke logger is enough to "break the encryption"?
Encryption at the hard drive level would be vastly superior to any encryption by the OS, if it was done correctly and with tamper-resistant chips. However, history has shown that dedicated hardware encryption devices for the consumer market practically always contain backdoors or ridiculous weaknesses. Practically always, if not always. Even expensive professional devices are only moderately trustworthy (see e.g. the "Crypto AG" story), most "professional" encryption based on closed source software or hardware is snake oil anyway. Still, it could be done in a way that is much more secure than what operating systems can offer.
If companies had a real interest in security, they would first and foremost include reliable wiping functions into their hardware. But I know of no storage device with such functionality.
My version of capitalism is Skandinavian socialism with strong anti-cartel regulations and customer protection laws, but otherwise minimal interference of politics with economy. And no, I won't stop pushing my version of capitalism on the rest of us.
I live in Europe and am well accustomed to state media (and I'm also not a capitalist, at least not by US and UK standards).
My point was very simple, but I will try to make it even simpler for you. BBC now gets X money from UK residents via the usual fees for state media. If they sell their program to viewers outside the UK as they already do now (BBC worldwide), only more liberally and with full access to their program, they would get X+Y funding and would not have to change their program direction even a bit (assuming they're a bunch of reasonable adults). They could even spend Y money on charity without jeopardizing their independence even a tiny little bit.
If you're so worried that BBC could become biased by the additional Y money, then why would you defend the current bizarre construction with BBC worldwide instead of the obvious solution to make their program available to viewers outside the UK for free?
The only browser I would ever use is cross platform. Like any other software I use, including programming languages. Anything else would be impractical and is too 90s.
IMDB used to be good except for the fact that you couldn't use the scores to compare different subgenres, of course. However, during the past two or three years their reviews became worthless to me. My guess is some viral marketing agencies have installed hundreds of sock puppet accounts. Or, perhaps just a lot of people who have no clue about cinema have opened accounts there.
What hasn't changed is that a movie below 5 generally sucks, though, so for that it's still useful.
You know what's funny? I have this little Asus Transformer laptop with Win 8.1 on it and wouldn't mind updating it to Windows 10, but no option to upgrade has shown up in the past few months. Instead I'm being pestered to upgrade my old Windows 7 desktop system which runs a lot of software that is known not to work properly on Windows 10 at this time.
Slashdot Mirror
For someone like me who likes garbage collection, multiple dispatch, and extreme abstraction capabilities in high level languages like Common Lisp, and safety, compile-time error detection, readability, and speed in low level languages like Ada or Haskell, what are the benefits of using Go in comparison to these two different types of languages? What new useful features does Go bring?
That's an excellent example of how absurd modern copyright law is.
No, Putin is probably really kind of 'crazy', at least that's what the public evidence indicates. He's a psychopath who almost entirely lacks empathy and only thinks in the strategic terms of an aged intelligence operative, and that's a problem, not that he also acts in the interest of his country like any other leader does. He's also kind of a loner.
Crazy and rational are not mutually exclusive terms, they easily go hand in hand.
Interest is relative, I was speaking about the servers that are interesting to me.
In a sense these speed tests do not really measure the important factors. I don't have a direct comparison, but I'm convinced that the network access is generally way faster for Americans than for most Europeans, even when we (=the Europeans) have nominally faster download speed. The reason is simply that most interesting servers are located in the US.
As an example, I have a 100 Mbps download / 10 Mbps upload fiber link for 40 Euro/mo., but in reality my download speeds tend to max out at 8-45 Mbps. In speed tests to nearby servers I do get near 100 Mbps, but I rarely need anything local anyway. (We also got an option of 200 Mbps in our country and I wonder what one would need this speed for, especially if the upload speed is not as high as well so it can't be used for bidirectional links.)
That's just another run-off-the-mill anarchist position. You sound like anarchism had never been proposed as a political view before and as if there had never been any serious debate about this. This has already been discussed and rejected by most thinkers more than a hundred years ago.
Despite the fact that probably everyone wants a lean government and it is surprisingly hard to get one, you position has the fatal flaw that you need a government apparatus to control corporations via anti-cartel laws and regulations for worker protection, social security, and basic customer protection. An unrestricted market invariably leads to cartels and extreme unequal wealth distributions. Your abolishing of the government would lead to extreme corporate fascism and totalitarian oligarchy, possibly even dictatorship, and you'd end up as a slave worker in no time.
I think an even easier approach would be to maintain hashes of the passwords and forbid anything that matches an existing or previous hash.
You can use a good bloom filter implementation for that.
That's fine. The competition between ISPs is enough to have some cater to the edge cases.
Not where I live. We have a choice between 2 ISPs, and I'm pretty damn sure they make illegal price fixing arrangements. Both offer the same packages, pester you with advertisement calls for mobile services and streaming TV bullshit, and have the same incompetent and impotent tech service with a 1/2 to 1 hour call queue.
It goes without saying that apps that deal with sensitive data must encrypt it before writing it to disk. The authors of such apps should even be legally required to do so. But that has nothing to do with full disk encryption, which in most use cases is simply not needed and counter-productive (higher resource usage, lower data integrity).
Apart from the fact that the author of an app can choose to encrypt data as he wishes, anyone who uses his phone for banking is just plain stupid and no amount of encryption will help that person.
Why was she there only so briefly?
I know this is an unpopular opinion but most people don't need to encrypt their phone because they have no sensitive data on it. There is always a trade-off between encryption and data integrity, and the latter is way more important for most ordinary use cases. Good voluntary encryption is nice and important for business, but mandatory encryption ... why?
Okay, so now could somebody explain to me why Americium is used in smoke detectors? I'm too lazy today to use Google to look it up.
Encryption at the OS level is very insecure, because common operating systems are very insecure.
But I agree that in the end the difference doesn't matter, since the only secure hardware encryption would be an external drive with independent key entry, i.e. an external drive with its own keypad. Why use a hardware device if a simple keystroke logger is enough to "break the encryption"?
Encryption at the hard drive level would be vastly superior to any encryption by the OS, if it was done correctly and with tamper-resistant chips. However, history has shown that dedicated hardware encryption devices for the consumer market practically always contain backdoors or ridiculous weaknesses. Practically always, if not always. Even expensive professional devices are only moderately trustworthy (see e.g. the "Crypto AG" story), most "professional" encryption based on closed source software or hardware is snake oil anyway. Still, it could be done in a way that is much more secure than what operating systems can offer.
If companies had a real interest in security, they would first and foremost include reliable wiping functions into their hardware. But I know of no storage device with such functionality.
But if he has one good publication - just one real classic that everybody reads - then he deserves uttermost respect.
Nobody forced you to marry or make a child, though.
My version of capitalism is Skandinavian socialism with strong anti-cartel regulations and customer protection laws, but otherwise minimal interference of politics with economy. And no, I won't stop pushing my version of capitalism on the rest of us.
I live in Europe and am well accustomed to state media (and I'm also not a capitalist, at least not by US and UK standards).
My point was very simple, but I will try to make it even simpler for you. BBC now gets X money from UK residents via the usual fees for state media. If they sell their program to viewers outside the UK as they already do now (BBC worldwide), only more liberally and with full access to their program, they would get X+Y funding and would not have to change their program direction even a bit (assuming they're a bunch of reasonable adults). They could even spend Y money on charity without jeopardizing their independence even a tiny little bit.
If you're so worried that BBC could become biased by the additional Y money, then why would you defend the current bizarre construction with BBC worldwide instead of the obvious solution to make their program available to viewers outside the UK for free?
But I said "and still not give a fuck about their non-UK viewers". Even if they do not care, they would get more money than they do now.
The only browser I would ever use is cross platform. Like any other software I use, including programming languages. Anything else would be impractical and is too 90s.
But couldn't they make their program available outside the UK for a small fee and still not give a fuck about their non-UK viewers?
That way, it would be a win-win.
IMDB used to be good except for the fact that you couldn't use the scores to compare different subgenres, of course. However, during the past two or three years their reviews became worthless to me. My guess is some viral marketing agencies have installed hundreds of sock puppet accounts. Or, perhaps just a lot of people who have no clue about cinema have opened accounts there.
What hasn't changed is that a movie below 5 generally sucks, though, so for that it's still useful.
You know what's funny? I have this little Asus Transformer laptop with Win 8.1 on it and wouldn't mind updating it to Windows 10, but no option to upgrade has shown up in the past few months. Instead I'm being pestered to upgrade my old Windows 7 desktop system which runs a lot of software that is known not to work properly on Windows 10 at this time.
Very annoying.
I flagged it as malware in my anti-virus program. It's still being downloaded but quarantined immediately after it starts, so no harm done.