India is one of the countries where tens of millions of Internet users have free access to Wikipedia Zero, but cannot afford the data charges to access the rest of the Internet, making Wikipedia a potential gatekeeper.
The publishers are (slowly) moving from simply copying plain-text, which they used to print (on dead trees), to web-sites, where hyper-linking is possible.
That's all you need — usually there is no reason to corral the links into a separate "info-box".
As the print-magazines wane and digital ones rise, this realization will come to the (still) technically-illiterate journalists and even their editors.
Meanwhile here on Slashdot (and other forums, where links are allowed), there is simply no excuse for making a claim without a clickable citation behind it... See the paragraph above for an example.
That picture shows, how unpleasant it is to have cable running on poles instead of burying them underground. It is not about the ugliness of competition.
To stop the over crowding, power companies were forced to merge and de-clutter the streets.
Nonsense. Where there is one cable (whether on a pole or underground), there may as well be four or five — from competing companies.
I'd go further and suggest, gas- and water-pipes can compete too. If Tokyo has competing subway lines certainly NYC (or LA or other large cities) can have competing utilities...
So you're proposing having two sets of wires running to each house and business?
Why not? When I signed up for FiOS, a Verizon technician came over and ran a fiber-cable to my house from the pole nearby. Comcast's coax cables are running from the same pole to my neighbors.
Distribution is generally a monopoly, generation is not.
If a campus — of multiple buildings — can be interconnected, why can't multiple adjacent campuses be connected to each other?
In a reasonably thickly-settled area the distance between multiple homes is less than that between buildings of university or corporate campus. So TFA would seem to suggest, distribution does not have to be a monopoly either.
most solar companies I work with
Heh, if the distribution suddenly does not have to be a monopoly, it does not matter, whether the generation is solar or what have you.
SolarCity claims its GridLogic program can provide electricity to communities and businesses for less than they pay for utility power
For decades we were told over and over, how the utility power is a "natural monopoly" and how, therefor, it can not be subject to competition...
and the facilities can still be connected to their area's utility power grid as an added backup.
This nod does not seem like anything more than a fig-leaf. Because, if I my campus or block or town can connect to a utility's grid, it can also connect to another town's grid — or simply that of a different commercial power-generation provider (solar or otherwise).
Wouldn't the elderly be better off on a space station?
I would think, constructing such a station would be orders of (decimal) magnitude more expensive and complicated, than building a habitat on the Moon.
Yes, your deliveries from Earth would be cheaper for such a station, but you are going to need a lot more delivered starting from scratch in empty space. And maintaining a constant spin is a non-trivial engineering task, whereas we already know just about everything required for building on the Moon.
Develop a BSD distro with a desktop environment and a modern web browser, and set it out for a million end users to use with a $50k cash prize for the first exploit, and you'll be paying out in a day, tops.
You didn't read the post, that started this thread, did you? I was not claiming, that BSD is uniquely impenetrable — but that executables built by hand (for specific -march and with -fstack-protector on) are harder to break into through the memory-corruption attacks, such as the one, through which Firefox was exploited according to TFA.
From the towering heights of FreeBSD (and other BSDs), the puny differences between your various Linux distributions are negligible, inconsequential, and uninteresting.
This is not "strawman" — such government overreach and assertiveness is an inevitable outcome of Statists, who think, their taxes buy them civilization.
Even an incredibly weak government can take everything you have.
No, not if I am reasonably armed and have my neighbors' support.
Moreover, an "incredibly weak government" would not even know about me and there being anything worth taking from me...
And would mean that earth-quality emergency medical care would be almost impossible to get.
Blah! Of course, well-qualified medical personnel would have to live on the moon with their (would-be) patients.
Seriously, the last people you want to put onto a rocket and launch at several Gs up, into a high radiation environment
The acceleration should be possible to overcome with well-designed equipment. Sure, some of the people may not be fit enough to reliable survive the travel, but enough of them will be able to do so once — and then enjoy many years of life after that.
people who can die from hitting something too hard.
Avoiding hitting something "too hard" will be much easier if the gravity is 1/5th of what you've struggled with your whole life...
A security researcher identified by HP only as ilxu1a delivered the first exploit of the day with an out-of-bounds memory vulnerability in Firefox that took less than one second to execute. For his efforts, ilxu1a was awarded $15,000.
To successfully exploit such a vulnerability (other than to make the browser to simply crash), and attacker needs to craft the attack to place just the right content into memory.
By building the browser yourself (with CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS and even CC and CXX set to something unusual — such as to target only your specific -march) — rather than downloading prebuilt binaries — you make the attacker's job much harder. To successfully exploit your browser, he'll now need to make a custom exploit just for you.
And, if you include -fstack-protector or equivalent among your compiler-flags, you may even be able to make such attacks impossible for good.
There is no point in building large cities on the moon. Seriously, why? If you want to live underground, do it on Earth.
One use would be for retirement communities — the thought occurred to me some 10 or 15 years ago, but then read about it somewhere in Heinlein's writings.
The low gravity of Moon would allow the elderly (and other infirm) to remain mobile for many years after they would've become wheelchair-bound on Earth... Considering the wealth of (relatively) many of the elderly in the Western world, they may be able to pay for such retirement even before some other industries take hold up there.
Maybe the solution is to provide (more?) aid to Mexico so people don't want to leave there
Yes — aid them by helping free market to take hold. But not in Mexico — most of the (captured) illegals aren't from Mexico — not any more. Maybe, that's because our Southern neighbor managed to dislodge the Institutional Revolution Party from power?
Build-a-Wall: that is stupid. it didnt work in berlin, it didnt work in china, it doesnt work in Israel
You seem to think, that if the wall fails to prevent all trespass, it may as well not exist at all. This is profoundly wrong.
Contrary to your unsubstantiated statements, the wall did work in Berlin:
It was a desperate – and effective - move by the GDR (German Democratic Republic) to stop East Berliners escaping from the Soviet-controlled East German state into the West of the city
Opponents of the wall grudgingly acknowledge that it's been effective in stopping bombers
A wall around my property is also working very nicely, thank you very much, as is one around the White House and other numerous installations world-wide, both private and public — fence-builders are not out of business, are they?
It didn't do much for China, because walls by themselves aren't enough — an unattended and unpatrolled border will be breached — but it still slows an invasion down and makes the defenders' (if there are any!) job easier.
One has to try real hard to get more wrong than you just did, congratulations...
The destination is total pervasive surveillance of the population.
This has always been the destination of Statists since the very concept of State was invented by humans. The only effective limit is the capabilities of the State — sensory organs of rulers and their staff, and the recording and cataloging technologies of the times. Computers greatly expanded the latter in the past several decades, they are now expanding the former — and the State wishes to use everything available to the max, as it always did.
A false sense of control/power is the driver.
Why is it a false sense? It sure seems to be working. I'm not claiming, this is necessarily a good thing, but it is working...
70 seats are divided among parties [...] Additional 71 seats are given differently.
Ah, so you have a hybrid system, yes, there are countries like that. Not sure, which way is "better".
Presidential elections are just for individuals (usually there are 20 or so candidates).
Of whom only 2 or 3 are really viable, right? With all the others being so far in the pre-election polls, they may as well not be running. Here there is also a bunch of "Presidential Candidates" listed on the ballot every time — even a "party" named, literally, "NSA did 911" fields a candidate of its own, for example.
But I didn't mean to enter into a detailed comparison of the systems — just to explain the major differences which lead to the US tending to have relatively few (but huge) parties...
Bugger off, asshole. You can't hold an argument without calling an opponent names — so full of hate you are. And now you are going to talk about semantics? What a piece of useless watery shit, leaving stinky little puddles wherever you go, poisoning everything around and attracting nothing but excreta-eating insects.
It is exactly your worthless kind, that's the reason we need the contract enforcement in the first place — because you've never made a sincere promise to anyone, or, even when you did, never felt bound by your word — what a quaint concept!
When your dishonesty is put on display, even if it is just to you — nobody else here knows your little secrets nor how many ships you've jumped — you feel hurt and jealous of strangers, who seem more trustworthy. So you find excuses in the weaselese concepts like "adhesive contracts" carefully prepared for you by the previous generations of stinking little weasels like yourself with flies buzzing around them wherever they go.
others say that freedom also means the freedom not to do something
Yeah, that's the least effective argument for Barack Obama. If he can force you to buy health insurance, forcing you to vote is a piece of cake. That's what Statists calling themselves "Liberals" do: whatever they believe to be a good idea, they try to make mandatory, and what they disapprove of, must be banned...
As I understand, in the US you get to choose one from two candidates (unlike in my country where there are 20 or so parties etc you get a lot to choose from in the first round).
You do not understand. Nor do you know very much. There are many candidates on the ballots — from other than the two main parties. And voters are free to write-in any name they please (including themselves). This is not only a nominal opportunity — America used to have a powerful third party (American Whigs), which fielded its own share of presidents, for example. And just recently Ross Perot ran as independent and got a perfectly respectable share of the vote.
Worse, what you don't get — and I don't blame you, because local anti-American nihilists are just as ignorant — is that Americans vote for individuals, rather than political parties. Which party (if any) the individual chooses to associate with is up to him — and sometimes politicians even switch parties after the election. On contrast, in your country, voting is for parties, who then get to decide, which persons will represent them in legislature, etc.
Like stalactites and stalagmites, the two systems meet in the middle (or almost so), but come from the opposite directions...
Those who support PostgreSQL argue that its standards support and ACID compliance outweighs MySQL's speed.
One expression I remember seeing on the topic went something like: "I can make it as fast as you want as long as it does not have to actually work". The conversation was about filesystems comparing (the non-complying) async-mode with the safer (but slower) alternatives, that actually stood by the promise of fsync(2).
And another, more modern idea (only about 10 years old) quote is "Object/Relational Mapping is the Vietnam of Computer Science". Which, for the purposes of TFA, may be interpreted as something like "who cares for ACID compliance — we can deal with occasional data-corruption and inconsistencies — just make it fast in the usual case".
I rather doubt, we'll settle the question in this discussion...
Slashdot Mirror
Awesome... Meanwhile, Heaven forbid Facebook or any other KKKorporation sponsors some poors' Internet-access. No, better they have no Internet-access at all!
The publishers are (slowly) moving from simply copying plain-text, which they used to print (on dead trees), to web-sites, where hyper-linking is possible.
That's all you need — usually there is no reason to corral the links into a separate "info-box".
As the print-magazines wane and digital ones rise, this realization will come to the (still) technically-illiterate journalists and even their editors.
Meanwhile here on Slashdot (and other forums, where links are allowed), there is simply no excuse for making a claim without a clickable citation behind it... See the paragraph above for an example.
That picture shows, how unpleasant it is to have cable running on poles instead of burying them underground. It is not about the ugliness of competition.
Nonsense. Where there is one cable (whether on a pole or underground), there may as well be four or five — from competing companies.
I'd go further and suggest, gas- and water-pipes can compete too. If Tokyo has competing subway lines certainly NYC (or LA or other large cities) can have competing utilities...
Why not? When I signed up for FiOS, a Verizon technician came over and ran a fiber-cable to my house from the pole nearby. Comcast's coax cables are running from the same pole to my neighbors.
Why can't the same be done with power cables?
If a campus — of multiple buildings — can be interconnected, why can't multiple adjacent campuses be connected to each other?
In a reasonably thickly-settled area the distance between multiple homes is less than that between buildings of university or corporate campus. So TFA would seem to suggest, distribution does not have to be a monopoly either.
Heh, if the distribution suddenly does not have to be a monopoly, it does not matter, whether the generation is solar or what have you.
For decades we were told over and over, how the utility power is a "natural monopoly" and how, therefor, it can not be subject to competition...
This nod does not seem like anything more than a fig-leaf. Because, if I my campus or block or town can connect to a utility's grid, it can also connect to another town's grid — or simply that of a different commercial power-generation provider (solar or otherwise).
Either way, the myth of natural monopoly is crumbling.
I would think, constructing such a station would be orders of (decimal) magnitude more expensive and complicated, than building a habitat on the Moon.
Yes, your deliveries from Earth would be cheaper for such a station, but you are going to need a lot more delivered starting from scratch in empty space. And maintaining a constant spin is a non-trivial engineering task, whereas we already know just about everything required for building on the Moon.
Not if you use FreeBSD:
You didn't read the post, that started this thread, did you? I was not claiming, that BSD is uniquely impenetrable — but that executables built by hand (for specific -march and with -fstack-protector on) are harder to break into through the memory-corruption attacks, such as the one, through which Firefox was exploited according to TFA.
From the towering heights of FreeBSD (and other BSDs), the puny differences between your various Linux distributions are negligible, inconsequential, and uninteresting.
This is not "strawman" — such government overreach and assertiveness is an inevitable outcome of Statists, who think, their taxes buy them civilization.
No, not if I am reasonably armed and have my neighbors' support.
Moreover, an "incredibly weak government" would not even know about me and there being anything worth taking from me...
Blah! Of course, well-qualified medical personnel would have to live on the moon with their (would-be) patients.
The acceleration should be possible to overcome with well-designed equipment. Sure, some of the people may not be fit enough to reliable survive the travel, but enough of them will be able to do so once — and then enjoy many years of life after that.
Avoiding hitting something "too hard" will be much easier if the gravity is 1/5th of what you've struggled with your whole life...
To successfully exploit such a vulnerability (other than to make the browser to simply crash), and attacker needs to craft the attack to place just the right content into memory.
By building the browser yourself (with CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS and even CC and CXX set to something unusual — such as to target only your specific -march) — rather than downloading prebuilt binaries — you make the attacker's job much harder. To successfully exploit your browser, he'll now need to make a custom exploit just for you.
And, if you include -fstack-protector or equivalent among your compiler-flags, you may even be able to make such attacks impossible for good.
One use would be for retirement communities — the thought occurred to me some 10 or 15 years ago, but then read about it somewhere in Heinlein's writings.
The low gravity of Moon would allow the elderly (and other infirm) to remain mobile for many years after they would've become wheelchair-bound on Earth... Considering the wealth of (relatively) many of the elderly in the Western world, they may be able to pay for such retirement even before some other industries take hold up there.
No, it is more like we are importing them.
Yes — aid them by helping free market to take hold. But not in Mexico — most of the (captured) illegals aren't from Mexico — not any more. Maybe, that's because our Southern neighbor managed to dislodge the Institutional Revolution Party from power?
From Russia, you Putinista asshole.
You seem to think, that if the wall fails to prevent all trespass, it may as well not exist at all. This is profoundly wrong.
Contrary to your unsubstantiated statements, the wall did work in Berlin:
and still works in Israel:
A wall around my property is also working very nicely, thank you very much, as is one around the White House and other numerous installations world-wide, both private and public — fence-builders are not out of business, are they?
It didn't do much for China, because walls by themselves aren't enough — an unattended and unpatrolled border will be breached — but it still slows an invasion down and makes the defenders' (if there are any!) job easier.
One has to try real hard to get more wrong than you just did, congratulations...
This has always been the destination of Statists since the very concept of State was invented by humans. The only effective limit is the capabilities of the State — sensory organs of rulers and their staff, and the recording and cataloging technologies of the times. Computers greatly expanded the latter in the past several decades, they are now expanding the former — and the State wishes to use everything available to the max, as it always did.
Why is it a false sense? It sure seems to be working. I'm not claiming, this is necessarily a good thing, but it is working...
A government strong enough to give you everything you want, is also strong enough to take away everything you have.
Ah, so you have a hybrid system, yes, there are countries like that. Not sure, which way is "better".
Of whom only 2 or 3 are really viable, right? With all the others being so far in the pre-election polls, they may as well not be running. Here there is also a bunch of "Presidential Candidates" listed on the ballot every time — even a "party" named, literally, "NSA did 911" fields a candidate of its own, for example.
But I didn't mean to enter into a detailed comparison of the systems — just to explain the major differences which lead to the US tending to have relatively few (but huge) parties...
Bugger off, asshole. You can't hold an argument without calling an opponent names — so full of hate you are. And now you are going to talk about semantics? What a piece of useless watery shit, leaving stinky little puddles wherever you go, poisoning everything around and attracting nothing but excreta-eating insects.
It is exactly your worthless kind, that's the reason we need the contract enforcement in the first place — because you've never made a sincere promise to anyone, or, even when you did, never felt bound by your word — what a quaint concept!
When your dishonesty is put on display, even if it is just to you — nobody else here knows your little secrets nor how many ships you've jumped — you feel hurt and jealous of strangers, who seem more trustworthy. So you find excuses in the weaselese concepts like "adhesive contracts" carefully prepared for you by the previous generations of stinking little weasels like yourself with flies buzzing around them wherever they go.
Please, don't hate.
Haters gonna hate.
Yeah, that's the least effective argument for Barack Obama. If he can force you to buy health insurance, forcing you to vote is a piece of cake. That's what Statists calling themselves "Liberals" do: whatever they believe to be a good idea, they try to make mandatory, and what they disapprove of, must be banned...
(Gebyy/synzronvg zl nff.)
You do not understand. Nor do you know very much. There are many candidates on the ballots — from other than the two main parties. And voters are free to write-in any name they please (including themselves). This is not only a nominal opportunity — America used to have a powerful third party (American Whigs), which fielded its own share of presidents, for example. And just recently Ross Perot ran as independent and got a perfectly respectable share of the vote.
Worse, what you don't get — and I don't blame you, because local anti-American nihilists are just as ignorant — is that Americans vote for individuals, rather than political parties. Which party (if any) the individual chooses to associate with is up to him — and sometimes politicians even switch parties after the election. On contrast, in your country, voting is for parties, who then get to decide, which persons will represent them in legislature, etc.
Like stalactites and stalagmites, the two systems meet in the middle (or almost so), but come from the opposite directions...
One expression I remember seeing on the topic went something like: "I can make it as fast as you want as long as it does not have to actually work". The conversation was about filesystems comparing (the non-complying) async-mode with the safer (but slower) alternatives, that actually stood by the promise of fsync(2).
And another, more modern idea (only about 10 years old) quote is "Object/Relational Mapping is the Vietnam of Computer Science". Which, for the purposes of TFA, may be interpreted as something like "who cares for ACID compliance — we can deal with occasional data-corruption and inconsistencies — just make it fast in the usual case".
I rather doubt, we'll settle the question in this discussion...