The really big thing that PHP gets right - and it's so big that people often don't even see it - is that deployment is really, truly, brain-dead simple. Write some code, drop it in a folder, and it just works. You *really* can't say that about Rails, where you can about, say, CakePHP. This is mainly because Rails isn't internally thread-safe, but that's only a problem because mod_ruby uses a single instance of the interpreter for all requests. That makes mod_ruby a distinctly unpopular deployment target for Rails.
For smaller, non-Rails projects, Ruby can be a good option if simplicity of deployment is paramount, but as far as I know it's rather uncommon.
The interesting thing about MPs' exemption is that it's not ostensibly there to protect the party in power, but to protect the opposition party. My memory is failing me somewhat, but I do recall that at some point in the 50's or 60's the party in power collected phone tap intelligence on opposition MPs and used it for political gain. The current law stems from the backlash against that.
Unfortunately, that's exactly the wrong reading of TFA. What they're saying is that absence of SMART failures is no indication of absence of failure, but certain types of SMART failure are very good indicators of impending doom.
The argument that DRM is "workable" breaks down because the encrypted message is delivered to a party who is expected to BOTH decrypt the message, and NOT know the keys. But the keys had to be used to effect the decryption!
I can almost imagine a quantum crypto scheme that would allow for exactly that... luckily I doubt the content industries are going to be in their current pig-headed state long enough for the tech to advance that far, though:-)
Because I'm too lazy to google the spec, does anyone know what the keyspace is? Is a DOS attack on the whole system (forcing them to revoke a large enough proportion of keys to cause problems) viable?
It's quite clever, actually. Any DRM-aware application that doesn't save state before shutting down will be vilified as being broken the first time anyone loses important data because of a false positive, and any DRM-aware application that does is in violation of this patent. This makes any DRM-aware application either a) broken, or b) illegal. Very neat. Simple, but neat.
If I'm remembering correctly, it's even better than it sounds from the article. Given strong enough sunlight, I believe it can use mud instead of cement. This is half-remembered from the last time this concept came around (a couple of years ago, I think), so it may have been ditched, but if it's true... well, yay all round, really.
It's worth pointing out why you can't virtualise that whole chain. It's because there's a super-secret key at the hardware level, in a tamper-resistant casing, which is used to verify everything. Of course, if you can get *that* key, everything falls apart.
In other words, it's not the cameras, it's the databases. Don't forget the bandwidth.
There are 400,000(ish) private CCTV cameras in London. Assuming a frame is generated every 2 seconds per camera, and say for the moment that they're 320x240 at 8bits per pixel, that gives a continuous data stream of 15 gigabytes per second.
Just storing that much data is a problem, let alone processing it - for now.
It will be soon. The police in the UK are already starting to make noises about ensuring that all private CCTV cameras are up to forensic spec. It's a relatively short series of steps (which I can't see a particular barrier to) between that and the private CCTV network growing, at the police's request, to join the "official" network.
If that policeman was watching me all the time, following me everywhere I went without any evidence that I might be up to anything naughty, then there wouldn't be any difference.
We've got at most couple of years' grace period while there simply isn't enough bandwidth and processing power for the deployed cameras to be actively monitored at all times. There's a presumptive freedom that comes with that, and we're going to lose it. With a lot of luck, we might eventually get it back.
Why does that make PageRank broken? That's not the problem it tries to solve. Google might be broken for slavishly adhering to PageRank, but that's a different matter entirely...
You're right to ask, but it shouldn't matter. Both the kernel IO/swap interaction and Amarok must be at fault. A user-level application should *never* make a machine unusable - if it happens, it's a kernel failure. Causing it in the first place is a design flaw in the application.
It could be argued that preventing this situation is analogous to solving the halting problem. I've never seen it couched in those terms, but I wouldn't argue with it if it was.
It's always worth getting in a flap about it. The more people get desensitised to that sort of behaviour, the less likely they are to react in the correct way when someone actually means it. Frogs boiling and all that.
'Cos nobody else has pointed it out yet, Craig Murray is more valid because he used (until relatively recently) to be the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, has held top secret clearance, and has seen first hand how the government PR machine works. He makes the point in the comments on his blog post that if he'd still been in the post when the arrests happened, he'd have seen the files on at least one of the detainees, because the detainee is an Uzbek. If memory serves, he stood down over the principle of Western intelligence agencies relying on evidence provided by the Uzbek secret police from torture victims. Or he might have been pushed. Can't quite recall the details right now.
No, you don't. They can actually arrest you and physically bring you to the courtroom if you refuse to show up voluntarily, and refusing to answer questions can get you held in contempt of court. Fair enough. I'm misinformed.
The fact *that* it happens is not reason to think that it *should*. And yes, as far as I'm aware, you do have the right to say "I'm not testifying against X". Apart from anything else, a forced testimony would be about as reliable as a forced confession.
Slashdot Mirror
If anything like this comes true, I think someone owes me a few pints of Guinness. ;-)
:-)
Sounds to me like you've already had a few pints of Guinness
Meh. I've added *sony* to my adblock rules. Didn't see it, don't miss it.
Honestly? No.
The really big thing that PHP gets right - and it's so big that people often don't even see it - is that deployment is really, truly, brain-dead simple. Write some code, drop it in a folder, and it just works. You *really* can't say that about Rails, where you can about, say, CakePHP. This is mainly because Rails isn't internally thread-safe, but that's only a problem because mod_ruby uses a single instance of the interpreter for all requests. That makes mod_ruby a distinctly unpopular deployment target for Rails.
For smaller, non-Rails projects, Ruby can be a good option if simplicity of deployment is paramount, but as far as I know it's rather uncommon.
How about real-time radiosity?
http://www.geomerics.com/
Oh, for mod points - +5, funny :-)
The interesting thing about MPs' exemption is that it's not ostensibly there to protect the party in power, but to protect the opposition party. My memory is failing me somewhat, but I do recall that at some point in the 50's or 60's the party in power collected phone tap intelligence on opposition MPs and used it for political gain. The current law stems from the backlash against that.
Unfortunately, that's exactly the wrong reading of TFA. What they're saying is that absence of SMART failures is no indication of absence of failure, but certain types of SMART failure are very good indicators of impending doom.
The argument that DRM is "workable" breaks down because the encrypted message is delivered to a party who is expected to BOTH decrypt the message, and NOT know the keys. But the keys had to be used to effect the decryption!
:-)
I can almost imagine a quantum crypto scheme that would allow for exactly that... luckily I doubt the content industries are going to be in their current pig-headed state long enough for the tech to advance that far, though
Because I'm too lazy to google the spec, does anyone know what the keyspace is? Is a DOS attack on the whole system (forcing them to revoke a large enough proportion of keys to cause problems) viable?
That's true. I hadn't thought of that.
It's quite clever, actually. Any DRM-aware application that doesn't save state before shutting down will be vilified as being broken the first time anyone loses important data because of a false positive, and any DRM-aware application that does is in violation of this patent. This makes any DRM-aware application either a) broken, or b) illegal. Very neat. Simple, but neat.
If I'm remembering correctly, it's even better than it sounds from the article. Given strong enough sunlight, I believe it can use mud instead of cement. This is half-remembered from the last time this concept came around (a couple of years ago, I think), so it may have been ditched, but if it's true... well, yay all round, really.
It's worth pointing out why you can't virtualise that whole chain. It's because there's a super-secret key at the hardware level, in a tamper-resistant casing, which is used to verify everything. Of course, if you can get *that* key, everything falls apart.
In other words, it's not the cameras, it's the databases.
Don't forget the bandwidth.
There are 400,000(ish) private CCTV cameras in London. Assuming a frame is generated every 2 seconds per camera, and say for the moment that they're 320x240 at 8bits per pixel, that gives a continuous data stream of 15 gigabytes per second.
Just storing that much data is a problem, let alone processing it - for now.
It will be soon. The police in the UK are already starting to make noises about ensuring that all private CCTV cameras are up to forensic spec. It's a relatively short series of steps (which I can't see a particular barrier to) between that and the private CCTV network growing, at the police's request, to join the "official" network.
If that policeman was watching me all the time, following me everywhere I went without any evidence that I might be up to anything naughty, then there wouldn't be any difference.
We've got at most couple of years' grace period while there simply isn't enough bandwidth and processing power for the deployed cameras to be actively monitored at all times. There's a presumptive freedom that comes with that, and we're going to lose it. With a lot of luck, we might eventually get it back.
Why does that make PageRank broken? That's not the problem it tries to solve. Google might be broken for slavishly adhering to PageRank, but that's a different matter entirely...
What good is a virgin sacrifice? Surely a virginity sacrifice would be more... entertaining?
You're right to ask, but it shouldn't matter. Both the kernel IO/swap interaction and Amarok must be at fault. A user-level application should *never* make a machine unusable - if it happens, it's a kernel failure. Causing it in the first place is a design flaw in the application.
It could be argued that preventing this situation is analogous to solving the halting problem. I've never seen it couched in those terms, but I wouldn't argue with it if it was.
It's always worth getting in a flap about it. The more people get desensitised to that sort of behaviour, the less likely they are to react in the correct way when someone actually means it. Frogs boiling and all that.
This reminds me: why is it that Americans think England is a country?
Erm... Because it is a country? I refer you to an authority on the matter.
No.
'Cos nobody else has pointed it out yet, Craig Murray is more valid because he used (until relatively recently) to be the British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, has held top secret clearance, and has seen first hand how the government PR machine works. He makes the point in the comments on his blog post that if he'd still been in the post when the arrests happened, he'd have seen the files on at least one of the detainees, because the detainee is an Uzbek.
If memory serves, he stood down over the principle of Western intelligence agencies relying on evidence provided by the Uzbek secret police from torture victims. Or he might have been pushed. Can't quite recall the details right now.
No, you don't. They can actually arrest you and physically bring you to the courtroom if you refuse to show up voluntarily, and refusing to answer questions can get you held in contempt of court.
Fair enough. I'm misinformed.
The fact *that* it happens is not reason to think that it *should*. And yes, as far as I'm aware, you do have the right to say "I'm not testifying against X". Apart from anything else, a forced testimony would be about as reliable as a forced confession.