Sounds like you're one of the fanatics on the other side.
Not really. I've actually tried to look at some of the arguments used against AGW, and most of it really is gibberish. Plausible sounding gibberish to a layman, but gibberish just the same. A large portion of the official scientific criticism of AGW has come from industry-sponsored research groups who come up with ahem, very questionable approaches. The unofficial criticism is pretty well Alice in Wonderland reality-disconnect territory.
I've been following this with increasing attention for 20 years. 20 years ago, I was a skeptic. These days, while there is still room for improvement in the science and the models, the evidence supporting AGW is pretty overwhelming. But most of the criticism of AGW in the last 10 years has been very reminiscent of two other scientific fiascos, the attempts by the tobacco industry to discredit research linking their product with cancer and other serious health issues, and the efforts by intelligent design proponents to stir up "controversy" over evolution. Like evolution, AGW can certainly stand some improvement, but its hard to conduct worthwhile research that advances the field when you spend your time fighting the lies and PR of moneyed interests who are dedicating substantial resources to discredit all the work (whether bad or good) that you've done.
Just as with evolution, there's a large portion of the population willing to accept "theories" opposing AGW even when they are trivially demonstrable as false or invalid, because those people are going to grab at any straws that allow them to avoid re-evaluating fundamental tenets of their world view. Which is pretty standard for people, they'll resist change until something smacks them in the face with a 2x4. The big problem though is that this 2x4 is going to smack everyone around, not just the ones with their head in the sand.
Right but there is a point at which any person just gives up on his critics.
That's too bad. The debate about global warming isn't a bar room argument.
Actually that's pretty well what it has devolved into on the denier side. Actually most bar-room arguments are probably better grounded in reality because they usually involve subjects in which the participants actually have some applicable experience and because the participants aren't lying their faces off due to ulterior motives (with the possible exception of relationship gossip).
If the scientists "give up", then that means they've left the field to the opposition.
There is no point in "debating" with someone who keeps on spouting gibberish. You waste your time and make it seem like their gibberish actually warrants being taken seriously.
In fact most socio-economic systems suffer from the same effect when attempting to scale up, even capitalism, but communism is particularly vulnerable because it fundamentally assumes a degree of altruistic cooperation on behalf of its participants. When that assumption breaks down, various 'communist' movements attempt to enforce it through totalitarian hierarchies that just make the problem worse.
Actually since both types of hedonism come down to varying degrees of chemical rewards in the brain for certain behaviours, from a biomedical standpoint, the difference is only quantitative, not qualitative.
All in all, those three qualities in a society makes it likely they will have lots of sex (hedonism), and in doing so spread disease (narcissism) , while being unlikely to change when someone tells them it might be a good idea (self-righteous).
Oh yeah? Who is being more self righteous? The person who has lots of sex (and potentially might have used prophylactics if they weren't deliberately kept ignorant by others), or the person who is trying to ignore millennia of evolutionary pressure and telling everyone else to stick to abstinence while ignoring solid research that indicates that a substantial portion of the population is unlikely to stick to a policy of abstinence regardless of how noble and dedicated their intentions are be celibate. In my book, the self-righteous twit is the one who insists on forcing their preference for abstinence on everyone else when it's a demonstrably faulty policy, instead of the poor gullible or ignorant fool who tries to follow that faulty policy and fails.
To elaborate on the above, religious figures that don't believe in evolution think the above is just fine because what will happen is the unfaithful will die (and go to hell!) and they'll get more faithful followers. In practice though, the reproductive urge is the strongest human drive as a result of eons of evolution and trumps the comparatively recent neural innovation of being good little religious followers. So you get plagues that devastate their communities.
Yeah but the problem is that most people enjoy sex and ignore religious proscriptions against sex outside of marriage, but find using a condom a hassle and therefore pay attention to that religious proscription and avoid using condoms. Mayhem ensues.
Actually the GPs post is right on, both fail because the practices are incompatible with human nature. Communism can work in small communities where there are significant advantages from altruistic cooperation and interpersonal bonds to discourage abuse (see most primitive hunter-gatherer cultures with communal child-raising and food production), but breaks down in larger environments where gaming the system for personal benefit becomes easier because there is a degree of anonymity which facilitates exploitation of others. Abstinence theoretically is the most effective method of birth control and STD prevention, but it ignores that the urge for sexual reproduction is one of the strongest and most basic drives of the human hormonal and neural systems.
Heh. One of my friends once told me a story years ago about him walking down the street, hearing a horrible noise, and looking around to see this high end exotic sports car stopped in the middle of the street. Nothing had hit it, but apparently the driver had done something so seriously wrong (probably with the transmission) that they couldn't get the car to start again.
You betcha. Those Hellfire missiles, kill, clean, and cook the quarry all at once.
Re:Banks etc. should publish certs offline Re:Geee
on
OpenSSL 1.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
The feds don`t need to do mitm between you and your bank. If they want to go to the trouble of checking your banking activity, they probably have enough evidence to get a search warrant from a judge. It`s your common communications like phone and e-mail that the police want to be able to snoop on without the hassle of a court order. The feds get a copy of major money movements from the domestic banks anyways, and they can figure out how much you have from the interest statements transmitted to the tax collection branch of government. Foreign banks in tax havens are admittedly a different matter, but that isn't a concern for most of the population.
The people that want to do mitm attacks between you and your (domestic or foreign) bank are the criminals that want to pilfer your accounts.
True, although you could run multiple VMs, each with separate Oracle instances to get better security boundaries than you would from separate Oracle instances on a single O/S VM. You`ll have more overhead from the multiple kernel setups of course, but it might be necessary for secure consolidation to maintain PCI DSS or regulatory compliance.
That's absolutely true, it's one of the reasons why you'll be hard pressed to find any enterprise development shop that developers and tests under anything other than the target RDBMS(es).
So what? Do you know a lot of people who develop web pages for users of Internet Explorer (using "standard" HTML and CSS) and yet who only do their testing on Mozilla? Or who develop on Intel architecture for deployment on SPARC (be it Linux or Solaris) without ever testing on the target platform? While you can do some cross-development based on an abstracted interface, not doing testing on the target platform to eliminate implementation differences is a good way to wind up looking for a new job.
The "parse a string" API is simply indefensible when you want to build queries modularly, especially when there's no standardized grammar that's actually worth a damn for implementers.
Actually SQL92 is pretty well supported by most modern databases. The real differences that would matter to an application developer tend to be in basic data types other than integers and character strings. Prepared statements and parametrized queries may not be as easy to use as "slap a string together" and do require a little care aforethought. On the other hand, they're not as prone to SQL injection vulnerabilities either. If you're careful, you can still build a query modularly so that it gets customized for a particular target database - you just can't keep changing it on the fly, so it has to be targeted for a single purpose. Maybe you mean something completely different by "building queries modularly" but if so you'll have to be a little more explicit because it's hard to see how you're going to do it in a DB-independent way.
Even now the SQL standard still has no concept of indexes, so you will always be in vendor-land there.
Huh? Why should the query language have any concept of indexes? It's an abstraction, Any index usage hints are going to be implementation specific. Asking for a generic SQL extension for indexes is a little bit like wanting standardized inline assembler directives in Java. While it is sometimes necessary to put in hints in queries, I would think those hints are always to provide extra information to work around the peculiarities of a particular query optimizer, and are therefore database specific.
There are problems with SQL (you pointed out Date's issues with nulls). However most of the developer complaints I have heard tend to fall more under "Those who don't understand SQL are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
It's like saying that you should have a stick-shift car because automatic transmissions don't go as fast. It's just moronic.
Bad car analogy. Automatic transmissions are less efficient than manual transmissions so given the same engine and all other things being equal, the car with the manual transmission will go faster. Now if you had said
It's like saying that you should have a stick-shift because paddle shifters are gay. It's just moronic.
It's not heresy. However, I have seen a lot of crap data models produced by developers (even worse than what I come up with as GUI designs). I have also seen developers produce SQL that looked OK at first glance but performed abysmally under certain conditions (and have even saved the odd project by finding those and fixing them when the system started dying under load). If you access a SQL database like you would a set of flat files, it is never going to give you the performance that a flat file access will give you for raw throughput because you've got all the extra communications latency. However if you re-write your search and extract queries to pull your data in a single SQL statement instead of a statement for each of your N tables involved in the result, then SQL is going to kick ass as soon as you start getting enough data and users placing enough queries that all the indexes and caching can pay off.
Flat files will work better for certain types of unstructured data, but most people who get crap performance out of SQL databases just don't understand how to use SQL databases properly. Which is why those True Believers tend to get upset about crap SQL implementations: because those tend to bog down a SQL server and slow down all the well-written apps too.
No, the real problem with most SQL DBAs is that they haven't adapted to agile methodologies. They still want the data model to be spring fully armored from Zeus' head according to classic waterfall planning. What they need to do is to get some data modelling tools that support round trip engineering so that they can make changes as the developer needs them and have upgrade scripts checked into source control along with the code on new builds. Right now there's only a few tools like ErWin and Data Architect that support that kind of development, and they tend to be ridiculously expensive. The one exception is DeZign for Databases Professional which is comparatively cheap. A lot of companies will lay out a lot of cash for developer tools but won't fork over the dough necessary for their data modelers/DBAs to properly support developer activity. So yeah, the DBAs tend to be a little reticent to do all that work by hand. While there are some developers who still use notepad or gedit by choice, nobody seems to expect them to do it, or to have the same productivity as someone with a decent tool chain.
Or even "your query is against U.S. law so we won't give you results. BTW, your source IP address and the time of this query has been forwarded to the appropriate government political apparatchik".
While there probably are children still learning the use of language using slashdot, it seems to be a reasonable expectation that most posters would be adults with a reasonable command of language who can be held to a higher standard. That said, due to its international nature, this type of problem on slashdot is more likely to be ESL-related.
Sure. On the other hand that is pretty close to what people said about South Korea in the 80's. Nowadays Hyundai, which used to be synonymous with dispose-a-cars, has now passed Toyota and Honda to become the leaderin customer satisfaction. I suspect the Chinese took a real close look at what South Korea did - first get the foreign investment and trade connections by providing cheap labour, then increase quality to move up the food chain.
True, but irrelevant, unless you're an accuntant or economental.
Or an IRS auditor. Spending on infrastructure assets vs. external services often have significant implications come tax time. Which is why accountants care, and why it is not as simple as your abysmally bad example implies.
rigorously checks the source code for potential security problems caused by buffer overflows, copyright infringements, and permitted protocols as well as APIs."
I have trouble imagining how that is possible considering that you don't submit your source code to the App Store.
Without the source code, copyright infringement is probably the most difficult to detect, but they may be specifically talking about copyrighted music or some other audiovisual media clip used in an app without authorization of the author/composer/producer, not copyrighted code. on the other hand, use of non-permitted protocols and APIs could be pretty easily tested for with binaries only (any API calls will need linker/loader info in the executable, and you can run the app in a sandbox to see what it tries to do). As for buffer overflows, while it won't be as efficient as with source, they do have a number of avenues:
a) running through a decompiler before running through a code checker,
b) automated testing apps for testing any/all input widgets
c) see if any input APIs for telecommunications such as bluetooth/IP have load/link references, trace how those are used (ie. what ports are listened to), and then hammer them with automated testing.
A lot of the above could be automated. Sure, it won't be close to foolproof or anywhere as effective as a proper code review but it's better than what NewEgg or any other PC software distributor does for you. If somebody put out a really crappy piece of software full of holes, it will flag it (and probably also let Apple know to scrutinize apps from that developer more closely).
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. I've actually tried to look at some of the arguments used against AGW, and most of it really is gibberish. Plausible sounding gibberish to a layman, but gibberish just the same. A large portion of the official scientific criticism of AGW has come from industry-sponsored research groups who come up with ahem, very questionable approaches. The unofficial criticism is pretty well Alice in Wonderland reality-disconnect territory.
I've been following this with increasing attention for 20 years. 20 years ago, I was a skeptic. These days, while there is still room for improvement in the science and the models, the evidence supporting AGW is pretty overwhelming. But most of the criticism of AGW in the last 10 years has been very reminiscent of two other scientific fiascos, the attempts by the tobacco industry to discredit research linking their product with cancer and other serious health issues, and the efforts by intelligent design proponents to stir up "controversy" over evolution. Like evolution, AGW can certainly stand some improvement, but its hard to conduct worthwhile research that advances the field when you spend your time fighting the lies and PR of moneyed interests who are dedicating substantial resources to discredit all the work (whether bad or good) that you've done.
Just as with evolution, there's a large portion of the population willing to accept "theories" opposing AGW even when they are trivially demonstrable as false or invalid, because those people are going to grab at any straws that allow them to avoid re-evaluating fundamental tenets of their world view. Which is pretty standard for people, they'll resist change until something smacks them in the face with a 2x4. The big problem though is that this 2x4 is going to smack everyone around, not just the ones with their head in the sand.
Actually that's pretty well what it has devolved into on the denier side. Actually most bar-room arguments are probably better grounded in reality because they usually involve subjects in which the participants actually have some applicable experience and because the participants aren't lying their faces off due to ulterior motives (with the possible exception of relationship gossip).
There is no point in "debating" with someone who keeps on spouting gibberish. You waste your time and make it seem like their gibberish actually warrants being taken seriously.
Ahh, a dualist. How cute.
In fact most socio-economic systems suffer from the same effect when attempting to scale up, even capitalism, but communism is particularly vulnerable because it fundamentally assumes a degree of altruistic cooperation on behalf of its participants. When that assumption breaks down, various 'communist' movements attempt to enforce it through totalitarian hierarchies that just make the problem worse.
Actually since both types of hedonism come down to varying degrees of chemical rewards in the brain for certain behaviours, from a biomedical standpoint, the difference is only quantitative, not qualitative.
Oh yeah? Who is being more self righteous? The person who has lots of sex (and potentially might have used prophylactics if they weren't deliberately kept ignorant by others), or the person who is trying to ignore millennia of evolutionary pressure and telling everyone else to stick to abstinence while ignoring solid research that indicates that a substantial portion of the population is unlikely to stick to a policy of abstinence regardless of how noble and dedicated their intentions are be celibate. In my book, the self-righteous twit is the one who insists on forcing their preference for abstinence on everyone else when it's a demonstrably faulty policy, instead of the poor gullible or ignorant fool who tries to follow that faulty policy and fails.
To elaborate on the above, religious figures that don't believe in evolution think the above is just fine because what will happen is the unfaithful will die (and go to hell!) and they'll get more faithful followers. In practice though, the reproductive urge is the strongest human drive as a result of eons of evolution and trumps the comparatively recent neural innovation of being good little religious followers. So you get plagues that devastate their communities.
Yeah but the problem is that most people enjoy sex and ignore religious proscriptions against sex outside of marriage, but find using a condom a hassle and therefore pay attention to that religious proscription and avoid using condoms. Mayhem ensues.
Actually the GPs post is right on, both fail because the practices are incompatible with human nature. Communism can work in small communities where there are significant advantages from altruistic cooperation and interpersonal bonds to discourage abuse (see most primitive hunter-gatherer cultures with communal child-raising and food production), but breaks down in larger environments where gaming the system for personal benefit becomes easier because there is a degree of anonymity which facilitates exploitation of others. Abstinence theoretically is the most effective method of birth control and STD prevention, but it ignores that the urge for sexual reproduction is one of the strongest and most basic drives of the human hormonal and neural systems.
Heh. One of my friends once told me a story years ago about him walking down the street, hearing a horrible noise, and looking around to see this high end exotic sports car stopped in the middle of the street. Nothing had hit it, but apparently the driver had done something so seriously wrong (probably with the transmission) that they couldn't get the car to start again.
You betcha. Those Hellfire missiles, kill, clean, and cook the quarry all at once.
The feds don`t need to do mitm between you and your bank. If they want to go to the trouble of checking your banking activity, they probably have enough evidence to get a search warrant from a judge. It`s your common communications like phone and e-mail that the police want to be able to snoop on without the hassle of a court order. The feds get a copy of major money movements from the domestic banks anyways, and they can figure out how much you have from the interest statements transmitted to the tax collection branch of government. Foreign banks in tax havens are admittedly a different matter, but that isn't a concern for most of the population.
The people that want to do mitm attacks between you and your (domestic or foreign) bank are the criminals that want to pilfer your accounts.
True, although you could run multiple VMs, each with separate Oracle instances to get better security boundaries than you would from separate Oracle instances on a single O/S VM. You`ll have more overhead from the multiple kernel setups of course, but it might be necessary for secure consolidation to maintain PCI DSS or regulatory compliance.
So what? Do you know a lot of people who develop web pages for users of Internet Explorer (using "standard" HTML and CSS) and yet who only do their testing on Mozilla? Or who develop on Intel architecture for deployment on SPARC (be it Linux or Solaris) without ever testing on the target platform? While you can do some cross-development based on an abstracted interface, not doing testing on the target platform to eliminate implementation differences is a good way to wind up looking for a new job.
Actually SQL92 is pretty well supported by most modern databases. The real differences that would matter to an application developer tend to be in basic data types other than integers and character strings. Prepared statements and parametrized queries may not be as easy to use as "slap a string together" and do require a little care aforethought. On the other hand, they're not as prone to SQL injection vulnerabilities either. If you're careful, you can still build a query modularly so that it gets customized for a particular target database - you just can't keep changing it on the fly, so it has to be targeted for a single purpose. Maybe you mean something completely different by "building queries modularly" but if so you'll have to be a little more explicit because it's hard to see how you're going to do it in a DB-independent way.
Huh? Why should the query language have any concept of indexes? It's an abstraction, Any index usage hints are going to be implementation specific. Asking for a generic SQL extension for indexes is a little bit like wanting standardized inline assembler directives in Java. While it is sometimes necessary to put in hints in queries, I would think those hints are always to provide extra information to work around the peculiarities of a particular query optimizer, and are therefore database specific.
There are problems with SQL (you pointed out Date's issues with nulls). However most of the developer complaints I have heard tend to fall more under "Those who don't understand SQL are condemned to reinvent it, poorly."
Bad car analogy. Automatic transmissions are less efficient than manual transmissions so given the same engine and all other things being equal, the car with the manual transmission will go faster. Now if you had said
then you might have had a point.
It's not heresy. However, I have seen a lot of crap data models produced by developers (even worse than what I come up with as GUI designs). I have also seen developers produce SQL that looked OK at first glance but performed abysmally under certain conditions (and have even saved the odd project by finding those and fixing them when the system started dying under load). If you access a SQL database like you would a set of flat files, it is never going to give you the performance that a flat file access will give you for raw throughput because you've got all the extra communications latency. However if you re-write your search and extract queries to pull your data in a single SQL statement instead of a statement for each of your N tables involved in the result, then SQL is going to kick ass as soon as you start getting enough data and users placing enough queries that all the indexes and caching can pay off.
Flat files will work better for certain types of unstructured data, but most people who get crap performance out of SQL databases just don't understand how to use SQL databases properly. Which is why those True Believers tend to get upset about crap SQL implementations: because those tend to bog down a SQL server and slow down all the well-written apps too.
No, the real problem with most SQL DBAs is that they haven't adapted to agile methodologies. They still want the data model to be spring fully armored from Zeus' head according to classic waterfall planning. What they need to do is to get some data modelling tools that support round trip engineering so that they can make changes as the developer needs them and have upgrade scripts checked into source control along with the code on new builds. Right now there's only a few tools like ErWin and Data Architect that support that kind of development, and they tend to be ridiculously expensive. The one exception is DeZign for Databases Professional which is comparatively cheap. A lot of companies will lay out a lot of cash for developer tools but won't fork over the dough necessary for their data modelers/DBAs to properly support developer activity. So yeah, the DBAs tend to be a little reticent to do all that work by hand. While there are some developers who still use notepad or gedit by choice, nobody seems to expect them to do it, or to have the same productivity as someone with a decent tool chain.
Or even "your query is against U.S. law so we won't give you results. BTW, your source IP address and the time of this query has been forwarded to the appropriate government political apparatchik".
While there probably are children still learning the use of language using slashdot, it seems to be a reasonable expectation that most posters would be adults with a reasonable command of language who can be held to a higher standard. That said, due to its international nature, this type of problem on slashdot is more likely to be ESL-related.
Uh oh. Looks like you can`t Just Google It. Not only that, but they have all of 0xDEAD*
; <<>> DiG 9.2.4 <<>> -x 222.173.190.239
;; global options: printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 44377
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 0
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;239.190.173.222.in-addr.arpa. IN PTR
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
173.222.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN SOA dns1.ctnt.com.cn. root.dns1.ctnt.com.cn. 2005100802 10800 3600 604800 3600
173.222.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN SOA dns1.ctnt.com.cn. root.dns1.ctnt.com.cn. 2005100802 10800 3600 604800 3600
Sure. On the other hand that is pretty close to what people said about South Korea in the 80's. Nowadays Hyundai, which used to be synonymous with dispose-a-cars, has now passed Toyota and Honda to become the leaderin customer satisfaction. I suspect the Chinese took a real close look at what South Korea did - first get the foreign investment and trade connections by providing cheap labour, then increase quality to move up the food chain.
Yep, USA capitalists are a bunch of burger-eating surrender monkeys.
So if they didn't need all that bandwidth for YouTube, they could be selling their bandwidth instead of trading it.
That`s not how peering agreements work. It`s not like trying to sell power back to the power company.
Or an IRS auditor. Spending on infrastructure assets vs. external services often have significant implications come tax time. Which is why accountants care, and why it is not as simple as your abysmally bad example implies.
Without the source code, copyright infringement is probably the most difficult to detect, but they may be specifically talking about copyrighted music or some other audiovisual media clip used in an app without authorization of the author/composer/producer, not copyrighted code. on the other hand, use of non-permitted protocols and APIs could be pretty easily tested for with binaries only (any API calls will need linker/loader info in the executable, and you can run the app in a sandbox to see what it tries to do). As for buffer overflows, while it won't be as efficient as with source, they do have a number of avenues:
a) running through a decompiler before running through a code checker,
b) automated testing apps for testing any/all input widgets
c) see if any input APIs for telecommunications such as bluetooth/IP have load/link references, trace how those are used (ie. what ports are listened to), and then hammer them with automated testing.
A lot of the above could be automated. Sure, it won't be close to foolproof or anywhere as effective as a proper code review but it's better than what NewEgg or any other PC software distributor does for you. If somebody put out a really crappy piece of software full of holes, it will flag it (and probably also let Apple know to scrutinize apps from that developer more closely).