So you're not going to mention dinosaurs, which existed (rational evidence given by their fossilized bones), because it might ruffle some people who believe in something for which there is no rational evidence?
Say, don't creationists simply believe that dinosaurs were created and are therefore not offended by dinosaurs?
The number is rather numeric. ABC is rather symbolic, wouldn't you say?:)
So a bunch of "boffins" (yes I read The Register sometimes) created a magnetic field which, measured in some completely arbitrary units of flux density, precisely achieved a figure which is the square of the number of digits endowing the two human upper appendages.
Never in the history of the planet has there not been climate change. We are experiencing global warming now, which is a fact. What is not a fact is that the global warming is accelerated relative to where it "should" otherwise be (i.e. in the absence of industrialized human activity). This hypothesis is being pandered about like science and used to bully people into supporting various initiatives, and paying taxes, etc. It is politics, and not science.
What is also anti-science is to reject the most plausible explanation that is based on the current evidence.
There is no room in science to accept creationism in favor of evolution, because the evidence only supports evolution.
Other ideas are only conjectures not backed by evidence (evolution plus some acceleration by extra-terrestrials) or faith (creationism).
Science demands us not to take explanations rooted in conjectures or faith seriously.
Science leaves only room to improve the understanding: a better explanation that is rooted in the same data, or in new data.
Climate change, as such, is not controversial in any way. Never in the history of the Earth, as far as we know, has the climate ever stopped changing!
So of course when people say the loaded term "climate change" now, they actually mean "climate change accelerated by human activity", not climate change per se. And not just any climate change, but specifically, global warming. The hypothesis that we are supposed to believe is that man's activity is causing accelerated global warming.
This hypothesis (that man's activity is causing accelerated global warming, not that there is accelerated global warming!) is just a conjecture, and not real science. It is politics. People are supposed to take this for granted without questioning, and promptly change their behaviors when asked to do so by their governments, and to pay various taxes and such or otherwise support various wacky "green" initiatives, none of which do anything to put a dent in global warming.
"We can manufacture gazillionabyte memory chips the size of a pinhead. Of course, the interface hardware for reading/wrting the data is the size of a small fridge..."
Because the database is on a remote server, and that is where the queries are executing!
The model you're describing is that of the database running on the local machine. Data is encrypted between the database server and disk, but not encrypted in the database and not between the database and client. So the database is just a stock program running SQL queries or whatever in the usual way.
But what if the database must be a remote server? That's how most people use databases, for the purpose of sharing data among many people, scalability, and availability.
If the data in a database is naively encrypted, then the server cannot perform complex queries. The client must download entire tables, decrypt them, and perform the joins locally. Or so you would think.
This is the part that these researchers seem to have attacked, from my understanding: somehow get the server to do useful queries on encrypted data without decrypting it without the monstrous overhead of the naive solutions.
Firstly, most home users do not use any DNS, free or otherwise. No "home router infrastructure" as such depends on this. What depends on it is being able to "phone home" by domain rather than IP address. That is not "infrastructure", and nobody owes that to you. Anyway, if anyone did owe that to you, it would be your provider, who is probably gouging you to begin with, not some independent outfit out there on the net.
Secondly, the basic paid service is cheap. DynDNS charges me about fifty bucks a year to keep my domain registered, and the DNS service. For that I get several host names in my domain, and an MX record for receiving mail. Pennies a day!
Having your own domain rather than some generic one that is obviously not yours (and instantly marks you as a freetard) is worth every one of those pennies.
You can profit while using GPL-ed code that you wrote yourself by using it in proprietary programs as much as you wish. That's basically the idea behind the GPL. It wasn't Stallman's intent, of course, but that's how it is used.
Use the GPL to dump free versions of your program on the market, and try to build a proprietary business on the side.
The GPL is nto enough, which is why the Free Software Foundation uses one more tool, which is not often talked about: the official GNU projects require major contributors (e.g. people submitting patches for new features) to assign their copyright to the FSF.
Yes, GNU software is "free" not because of the GPL, but because of the GPL plus everyone signing over their copyright to the FSF, including a signed paper from their employer assuring that they have no claim on the code.
The programmers writing under the GPL are the ones hoping to get bought out! In fact, they are retaining more leverage for that situation, by retaining the exclusive right to make proprietary versions of the program one day. If some company wants to sell proprietary, enhanced versions of the program, they/have/ to make a deal with the copyright holders.
The author of a BSD program is only valuable to the extent that he perhaps understands the program better than anyone. That translates more to being hired in a technical role than to being bought out.
A license like BSD doesn't take away any customer's freedom. It increases the customer's choice; use the original free version(s) of the program (exactly as with the GPL case), or buy proprietary products which include that same code (not possible under the GPL without someone breaking the law).
Thus BSD: more choice
Someone taking a piece of code and using it in a nonfree program does not destroy the free programs that are also based on that code.
If you don't like the nonfree programs, don't use them. Use and promote the free ones.
I'm never putting another thing under the GPL again. I have done so in the past, but I repent.
The PDF paper trashes NoScript. That is to say, it is mentioned in a paragraph that basically states that Firefox has add-ons, and add-ons are a security threat. Nothing is mentioned about the security benefits that add-ons can provide.
Did they install NoScript? Evaluating Firefox security without this script blocker is like evaluating a compiler without using its optimization options.
Slashdot Mirror
Just the same way we hear changes in bodily orientation, thanks to the semicircular canals, which are in the inner ear.
I hear a kind of saxophone sound when spinning left about my vertical axis; in the opposite direction it takes on more of a clarinet tone.
Get rid of that office shit and replace with Vim and Emacs. :) :)
So you're not going to mention dinosaurs, which existed (rational evidence given by their fossilized bones), because it might ruffle some people who believe in something for which there is no rational evidence?
Say, don't creationists simply believe that dinosaurs were created and are therefore not offended by dinosaurs?
If the neighborhood still watched tube TV's, you could distort or completely blank everyone's picture within an X mile radius.
The number is rather numeric. ABC is rather symbolic, wouldn't you say? :)
So a bunch of "boffins" (yes I read The Register sometimes) created a magnetic field which, measured in some completely arbitrary units of flux density, precisely achieved a figure which is the square of the number of digits endowing the two human upper appendages.
Never in the history of the planet has there not been climate change. We are experiencing global warming now, which is a fact. What is not a fact is that the global warming is accelerated relative to where it "should" otherwise be (i.e. in the absence of industrialized human activity). This hypothesis is being pandered about like science and used to bully people into supporting various initiatives, and paying taxes, etc. It is politics, and not science.
What is also anti-science is to reject the most plausible explanation that is based on the current evidence.
There is no room in science to accept creationism in favor of evolution, because the evidence only supports evolution.
Other ideas are only conjectures not backed by evidence (evolution plus some acceleration by extra-terrestrials) or faith (creationism).
Science demands us not to take explanations rooted in conjectures or faith seriously.
Science leaves only room to improve the understanding: a better explanation that is rooted in the same data, or in new data.
Climate change, as such, is not controversial in any way. Never in the history of the Earth, as far as we know, has the climate ever stopped changing!
So of course when people say the loaded term "climate change" now, they actually mean "climate change accelerated by human activity", not climate change per se. And not just any climate change, but specifically, global warming. The hypothesis that we are supposed to believe is that man's activity is causing accelerated global warming.
This hypothesis (that man's activity is causing accelerated global warming, not that there is accelerated global warming!) is just a conjecture, and not real science. It is politics. People are supposed to take this for granted without questioning, and promptly change their behaviors when asked to do so by their governments, and to pay various taxes and such or otherwise support various wacky "green" initiatives, none of which do anything to put a dent in global warming.
"We can manufacture gazillionabyte memory chips the size of a pinhead. Of course, the interface hardware for reading/wrting the data is the size of a small fridge..."
Moreover, the bandwidth is a kilobyte per second.
I don't want an order of magnitude more storage; I want to be able to process all the storage that I have in the blink of an eye.
All participants were British civil servants!
So we now know with a lot of certainty that British civil servants go daft past 45.
Well, gee, who wouldda thunk?
Maybe some of the cognitive tests should have engaged their skills at maintaining career longevity in a backstabbing, ass-kissing environment.
If you didn't exercise your brain starting in childhood by going to school, you would be dumb as a brick.
What requires training to acquire cannot be retained without ongoing training!!!
What I remember from the news segment was that the study covered civil servants in Britain.
As in people who don't use the little cognitive function that they have to begin with.
Do people really think that something which is hard won by education and training will just maintain itself without any use?
It's obvious!!!
The GNU Public License (partially) waives distribution rights. In no way does it waive attribution rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(copyright)
Sorry, I don't see how that helps. The idea is that no program on the database server has the key to actually decrypt the data.
The problem isn't only that you don't trust the network in between, but that you don't trust the database server admins.
Because the database is on a remote server, and that is where the queries are executing!
The model you're describing is that of the database running on the local machine. Data is encrypted between the database server and disk, but not encrypted in the database and not between the database and client. So the database is just a stock program running SQL queries or whatever in the usual way.
But what if the database must be a remote server? That's how most people use databases, for the purpose of sharing data among many people, scalability, and availability.
If the data in a database is naively encrypted, then the server cannot perform complex queries. The client must download entire tables, decrypt them, and perform the joins locally. Or so you would think.
This is the part that these researchers seem to have attacked, from my understanding: somehow get the server to do useful queries on encrypted data without decrypting it without the monstrous overhead of the naive solutions.
Keep buying parts, match them on part number and recover the full "frame".
You can easily do that if you're the copyright holder.
The GPL was not created in a vacuum. It's a tool used by the FSF, together with copyright assignment.
You cannot contribute to a GNU project even if you put your contribution under the GPL, if you refuse to assign the copyright to the FSF.
What a bunch of incredible crock!
Firstly, most home users do not use any DNS, free or otherwise. No "home router infrastructure" as such depends on this. What depends on it is being able to "phone home" by domain rather than IP address. That is not "infrastructure", and nobody owes that to you. Anyway, if anyone did owe that to you, it would be your provider, who is probably gouging you to begin with, not some independent outfit out there on the net.
Secondly, the basic paid service is cheap. DynDNS charges me about fifty bucks a year to keep my domain registered, and the DNS service. For that I get several host names in my domain, and an MX record for receiving mail. Pennies a day!
Having your own domain rather than some generic one that is obviously not yours (and instantly marks you as a freetard) is worth every one of those pennies.
You can profit while using GPL-ed code that you wrote yourself by using it in proprietary programs as much as you wish. That's basically the idea behind the GPL. It wasn't Stallman's intent, of course, but that's how it is used.
Use the GPL to dump free versions of your program on the market, and try to build a proprietary business on the side.
The GPL is nto enough, which is why the Free Software Foundation uses one more tool, which is not often talked about: the official GNU projects require major contributors (e.g. people submitting patches for new features) to assign their copyright to the FSF.
Yes, GNU software is "free" not because of the GPL, but because of the GPL plus everyone signing over their copyright to the FSF, including a signed paper from their employer assuring that they have no claim on the code.
The programmers writing under the GPL are the ones hoping to get bought out! In fact, they are retaining more leverage for that situation, by retaining the exclusive right to make proprietary versions of the program one day. If some company wants to sell proprietary, enhanced versions of the program, they /have/ to make a deal with the copyright holders.
The author of a BSD program is only valuable to the extent that he perhaps understands the program better than anyone. That translates more to being hired in a technical role than to being bought out.
A license like BSD doesn't take away any customer's freedom. It increases the customer's choice; use the original free version(s) of the program (exactly as with the GPL case), or buy proprietary products which include that same code (not possible under the GPL without someone breaking the law).
Thus BSD: more choice
Someone taking a piece of code and using it in a nonfree program does not destroy the free programs that are also based on that code.
If you don't like the nonfree programs, don't use them. Use and promote the free ones.
I'm never putting another thing under the GPL again. I have done so in the past, but I repent.
The PDF paper trashes NoScript. That is to say, it is mentioned in a paragraph that basically states that Firefox has add-ons, and add-ons are a security threat. Nothing is mentioned about the security benefits that add-ons can provide.
So, since most people won't use Firefox, so we shouldn't test it at all.
Did they install NoScript? Evaluating Firefox security without this script blocker is like evaluating a compiler without using its optimization options.