If you voted for Obama, you voted for his policies.
If you had voted for McCain or Romney, you would have been voting for their policies instead. If their policies are the same, then as Obama's, then by voting for Obama, McCain, or Romney, you're voting for that policy. So you only have yourself to blame in supporting that policy.
If you didn't want to vote for that policy, you should have voted for someone who didn't support that policy. There were more than two choices in every race.
No, a better defensive strategy is to figure out why things happen, then take steps to prevent them from happening. Maybe if we as a nation fixed our foreign policy, we wouldn't have this stuff happening to us. Instead, we run around the world murdering women and children left and right, and then wonder why some people get so mad about this that they turn into terrorists and target us.
You're right, "I told you so" doesn't help when you're so stupid that you can't think about your actions and how they affect others. Instead, you're just doomed to make the same mistakes over and over, and suffer repercussions from those affected by your mistakes.
No, Obama isn't the only president to do awful things, he's the latest in a long string of Presidents doing awful things. The idiots are the Obama voters who railed against Bush for crap like this, but now that Obama's in office, are all busy defending his policies that are exactly like Bush's.
And you're an idiot for thinking that politics have nothing to do with a terrorist attack. Why do you think these attacks happen? Because they "hate us for our freedom"? You can't get any stupider than that.
I think it is more like driving becoming irrelevent as driverless cars bocome more common. The main cause of accidents is people and eventually there will be sufficient pressure to actually ban manual driving. Then you can only go where the car will let you, and you will be tracked all the way.
Perhaps, but this doesn't apply very well as an analogy to the internet, Google, or Facebook. You could make a valid argument that human-driven cars should be phased out because 1) humans are more dangerous/accident-prone than computers, and 2) mixing human- and computer-driven cars could have various problems, at the least that without any humans, computer-driven cars could team up into high-speed caravans and not need the slow speeds and wide spacing that human-driven cars need, thus packing a lot more cars onto a given road and decreasing travel times significantly. I'm not going to say I'm a proponent of this move at this time, for various reasons, but I believe this is the argument that could be made and that it's a valid argument.
However, these points don't map to the internet at all in any kind of analogy. Restricting us to Google and Facebook isn't going to improve the performance of the internet, as that's not how the internet works. And as I've already pointed out, there's tons of alternatives to both Google and Facebook. No one is forcing you to use either. Yes, there is a lot of tracking going on behind the scenes, largely by Google, but it's not universal, it only happens when a website you visit uses Google Analytics for tracking. Not all websites do this (I seriously doubt Bing or anything else Microsoft-owned does, nor anything owned by Yahoo), and besides, these tracking mechanisms still don't know who you are unless you visit Google on your own, with a Google login, so that they can associate your IP address with their other information on you. Otherwise, you're just an anonymous IP address, and don't forget, we don't have static IPs these days from ISPs, so your IP address could get reassigned to a different ISP customer at any time. And finally, I really don't understand what all the fear-mongering about Facebook is about. There's no reason at all to use Facebook unless you choose to do so, and more and more people have been abandoning Facebook in recent years.
They're allowed an airport because 1) we need an airport there, and 2) no one else can do security better in this country. There's no shortage of incidents of people sneaking things through the TSA, in intentional tests and otherwise. The 9/11 terrorists picked Boston for several reasons (proximity to NYC namely, leaving their planes plenty of fuel after traveling the short distance between the two), but the lax security wasn't one of them. It's not like the 9/11 terrorist planners went around to various airports around the country, tested their security effectiveness, and found Boston to be the worst of the bunch. Boston was no worse than anyplace else, and surely still isn't any better or worse with the TSA idiots running things.
Boston does NOT have a "track record of massive incompetence", compared to the rest of the country. It's not Boston that's incompetent, it's the entire USA. Crumbling infrastructure is not unique to Boston; you can find that all over the entire Northeast and just about everyplace else that's older than 40 years too. There's countless articles about this problem, and they don't focus on Boston. Remember that bridge that collapsed several years ago with cars on it? Where was that? Minnesota IIRC.
There was an interesting article in Wired magazine on the topic: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/ [wired.com] It provides insights about how we, as users, choose the closed platforms (e.g. google, facebook). And the more we turn away from the true open and anonymous internet, the more irrelevant the internet becomes.
This doesn't make any sense at all. This is like saying that cars are becoming irrelevant because people frequently use toll roads, or that roads are becoming irrelevant because people choose to buy cars which they (supposedly) can't work on themselves, or because they choose to rent or lease cars.
Google and Facebook don't work without the internet. It may not be the open and anonymous internet you and I like, but it is still the internet: a global data communications network. Google and Facebook don't even require any special software to work: they work on many different browsers, most of which are open-source and Free/free. Yes, they have problems (and yes, Facebook is a completely worthless waste of time, which is why I don't use it), but they aren't making the internet "irrelevant". You don't need Google to go to other sites; you can just type in their URL manually, or use a competing search engine like Bing or DuckDuckGo. You don't need Facebook to talk to your friends, in fact you don't need Facebook for squat. Email is still the preferred method of communications for business, as much as stupid teenagers and 20-somethings might refuse to admit it.
Yes, getting iSP service in the US isn't anonymous; I'm not sure it ever was to be honest. I've had ISP service or other internet access since 1991, and it was either tied to my college admission, or I had to sign up for it with an ISP company, which was impossible without giving them some details about myself so they knew how to bill me for it. Regardless, there's still options for anonymity, namely with VPNs. Your ISP can do all the deep-packet inspection it likes, it can't crack a VPN session, and they can't forbid VPN use since so many people rely on VPNs to access their work systems from home. Lots of people now ever use VPNs for ALL their internet use; many VPN services even provide optional software which disables your internet connection unless the VPN is running, so you can be sure nothing you do is trackable by your ISP or anyone in the US (as the VPN's exit node is in another country like Sweden or Romania).
It's kinda like giving JFK credit for landing men on the Moon. JFK didn't do it by any means, but without him or some other politicians, it never would have happened. The Apollo program scientists, engineers, technicians, astronauts, etc. actually made it all happen, but without funding provided and policy created by the Federal government (and JFK at the head of one of its branches) at the time, all those people would not have been able to work on that project and land people on the Moon.
Al Gore didn't invent the internet by any means, but he played an important part in turning it into what it is now, and he deserves some credit for that. It's not often that politicians do things that are far-sighted and really useful to the country and society, and the internet is one of the most useful infrastructural things created in a long time. Now maybe if Gore hadn't done it, someone else would have, but who knows how long that might have taken.
Actually, some of us are less worried about how scary guns look as we are in how many rounds they let loose before someone can get to them.
That has little to do with what constitutes an "assault rifle". According to liberal politicians, an "assault weapon" (by which they really mean an "assault rifle") also has several 'important' features to make it what it is. One really big one is a bayonet mount. No hunting rifle has a bayonet mount, but they're fairly common on assault rifles. This of course is a highly dangerous feature that no civilian should have on a gun he owns, because bayonets have been used so often for bloody rampages in schools and malls and daycare centers around the country.
Another important feature is an adjustable stock. Unlike hunting rifles which are made of a single piece of wood (usually expensive walnut), "assault rifles" frequently have stocks which can be adjusted for the user's arm length. Apparently this somehow turns a harmless semi-auto rifle (like an AR-15 circa 1965) into an instrument of mass destruction, though I still haven't figured out how, but apparently some politicians know better than me.
One final feature is a barrel shroud. Hunting rifles don't have these, so if you touch the barrel after shooting them, you'll burn your hands. But on many "assault rifles", they have a thin piece of vented metal suspended over the barrel, so that you can grab it without hurting yourself. Perhaps this feature was used to devastating effect in many mass shootings?
If we can just ban these features, we'll have guns which are perfectly safe for civilians to wield.
You're too kind. In the last 12 years, Slashdot went from a major internet forum to a has-been, a shadow of its former self, with most users fleeing for greener pastures.
If some government conducted drone strikes against mob members (high-ranking and otherwise), but did so without any regard whatsoever for collateral damage, what would be the result? For instance, suppose we had drones dropping bombs on alleged mob members when they were just walking down the street, but these bombs of course killed not only the alleged mobster, but scores of unrelated civilians who happened to be on the sidewalk or driving by at the time. I imagine this would create quite a few "terrorists" who, after watching their wife and child die in an attack, would decide they had nothing left to lose and would violently attack anyone they associated with the bombing.
Drones killing civilians is an accident; people thought there was a military target there.
Bullshit. What really happened is 1) some Americans thought there was a military target there (such as a young man, who according to US doctrine is automatically a "militant" just because he's male and of "militant age"), and 2) there were a bunch of other people (women & children) around this "target". The Americans don't give a shit about any collateral damage, so they just bomb away, killing everyone around the target.
I'm sorry, but when you target civilians (despite any lame excuses), you can't complain when the enemy targets your civilians.
We brought this on ourselves. Good job, Obama voters.
I don't see the difference. It's well documented that USA drone attacks have killed scores of women and children. Most civilized people consider those "civilians".
Is this really something that Boston deserves to be singled out for? It seems to me that the 9/11 terrorists probably could have gotten through security at just about any airport in the US. And look what happened afterwards: how long did it take them to just do the most sensible thing to prevent these hijackings, something they somehow never thought of doing before: installing locking doors for the cockpits, so that no one can enter. Even now, we still have ridiculously expensive and ineffective security measures (the TSA), despite all kinds of evidence that it isn't working.
And Boston isn't the only place with shitty infrastructure; that condition exists all over the country.
Don't blame Boston for incompetence and corruption: blame the USA. Blaming Boston for the USA's problems is like blaming your chubby hand for your health problems when you're 200 pounds overweight.
I think the bottom line here is: the type of advertising that's effective for your business, if any, depends entirely on the nature of your business and its industry. The type of advertising that works well for a local restaurant is probably not the type of advertising that works well for a company that sells specialized products to another industry, for instance.
If they weren't rolling their own I wouldn't have bitched about them not using something already shown to work (eg. mysql and a very long list of others)
What are you talking about? According to this LWN thread, Kmail2/Akonadi does in fact use MySQL as the default backend database, though it can also use SQLite or Postgres.
Last thing is it's not really the "KDE team" doing it but instead a side project.
Akonadi is one of the main components of KDE4; its developers definitely qualify as part of the "KDE team". KMail is part of the PIM suite, again not some side project, but one of the main parts of KDE (maybe not as "main" as Kwin, but still much more close to the core of the project than, say, Gwenview).
I'd also like to add that it's highly unlikely the KDE team is using an "undocumented" database; logically, they'd be using an existing FOSS database like MySQL, PostgreSQL, or most likely SQLite. Also, the idea that an email system "doesn't need" a database is just ridiculous; what do you think Google uses for Gmail? You don't get search performance like that in an inbox with tens of thousands of emails with emails stored in individual files a la maildir.
I don't know what database Akonadi/Kmail is using underneath, nor what schema nor any other implementation details, so I can't comment on whether that particular design is sensible or not. I'm just responding to the previous poster who implies that databases aren't even necessary since they store their data in files in a filesystem, showing a complete lack of understanding of what databases are and why you'd use them in many systems.
No, this link doesn't explain anything, at least related to the conspiracy-theory stuff you spouted earlier and now with two tanks. The link is the standard advice about premium vs. regular-octane gasoline (petrol in UK), though it's not quite correct, because it implies that you may see some kind of difference in a regular car, which is incorrect, you won't. The simple truth is this: if your car requires premium fuel, then that's what you need to use, because you have a high-compression engine that's designed for it. If your car doesn't require it, don't waste your money, because it won't do you one iota of good. Premium fuel has less energy in it; its advantage is that it's more resistant to preignition, which is only a problem on higher-compression engines.
So, in summary: if your car says (usually right on the dashboard next to the fuel gauge, and also on a label near the gas cap) "PREMIUM FUEL ONLY", then use that. If you don't have any such label, get the cheap stuff.
I love how Slashdot is supposed to be a place for IT experts, but its members have about the same knowledge of computers as AOL users, as shown by this post. Do you Slashdot morons not even understand databases?
I hate to admit that for past 4 years, my primary OS has been win7 and OS X to do my much of my work on Linux servers. why? I need a Desktop Envirment with a consistent UI that's free of bugs.
Well you'll need to give up on Windows then, thanks to Win8. Your argument had merit about 2 years ago, with Windows UIs being quite stable all the way back to Win95, but that's all out the window now, pardon the pun. Now we just have to wait to see if Apple jumps on the "let's royally fuck up stable UIs!" bandwagon and completely screws up OS X.
Also rant: cache sizes have been going down to make place for more processors. I personally do numerical calculations, and I find this trend to be a disaster. At this point, my only hope is that eventually, with thousands of cores on chips, we'll be back to something which looks like a vector processor.
Instead of using a CPU to do these calculations, maybe you should use a vector processor instead. Every computer these days has one, it's called a "GPU". Google for "GPGPU".
That sounds like a conspiracy theory akin to UFOs. It should be relatively easy to actually check the gasoline for its octane rating. Plus, there's lots of cars which cannot run properly on low-octane fuel (all the higher-end cars require premium these days; their engines are high-compression). So unless they're actually giving away premium fuel for the cost of regular so that they don't have to have a separate tank, that sounds pretty ridiculous.
Plus, I seriously doubt they have leaded fuel in the UK any more. Only third-world countries like Mexico still allow leaded fuel to be used, because it's so polluting.
This is what you get for having a government that refuses to do any meaningful regulation. Meanwhile, in the highly regulated European countries, they have lots of options for fast and cheap internet access, not to mention tons of options for cheap and reliable cellular service, another thing we're completely lacking here.
Does something about a person being rich and celebrated make them so much different from you as to their taste in music? Really?
Yes, if they're rich because they're in the music business, definitely. If some musician/artist/singer/whatever-they-call-themselves-these-days-even-though-they-have-zero-talent "tweets" about how great their music is, why should I care? What else are they going to say, "I released a new album today, but it's really quite mediocre and I think you'd be happier buying so-and-so's new album"? Are you one of those morons who listens to rich people when those rich people tell you to buy their stuff, thus making them even richer? That sounds exactly like Sarah Palin's hordes of idiot fans, all fawning over her because she's "successful", and then going and buying her crappy books, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Slashdot Mirror
If you voted for Obama, you voted for his policies.
If you had voted for McCain or Romney, you would have been voting for their policies instead. If their policies are the same, then as Obama's, then by voting for Obama, McCain, or Romney, you're voting for that policy. So you only have yourself to blame in supporting that policy.
If you didn't want to vote for that policy, you should have voted for someone who didn't support that policy. There were more than two choices in every race.
No, a better defensive strategy is to figure out why things happen, then take steps to prevent them from happening. Maybe if we as a nation fixed our foreign policy, we wouldn't have this stuff happening to us. Instead, we run around the world murdering women and children left and right, and then wonder why some people get so mad about this that they turn into terrorists and target us.
You're right, "I told you so" doesn't help when you're so stupid that you can't think about your actions and how they affect others. Instead, you're just doomed to make the same mistakes over and over, and suffer repercussions from those affected by your mistakes.
No, Obama isn't the only president to do awful things, he's the latest in a long string of Presidents doing awful things. The idiots are the Obama voters who railed against Bush for crap like this, but now that Obama's in office, are all busy defending his policies that are exactly like Bush's.
And you're an idiot for thinking that politics have nothing to do with a terrorist attack. Why do you think these attacks happen? Because they "hate us for our freedom"? You can't get any stupider than that.
I think it is more like driving becoming irrelevent as driverless cars bocome more common.
The main cause of accidents is people and eventually there will be sufficient pressure to actually ban manual driving.
Then you can only go where the car will let you, and you will be tracked all the way.
Perhaps, but this doesn't apply very well as an analogy to the internet, Google, or Facebook. You could make a valid argument that human-driven cars should be phased out because 1) humans are more dangerous/accident-prone than computers, and 2) mixing human- and computer-driven cars could have various problems, at the least that without any humans, computer-driven cars could team up into high-speed caravans and not need the slow speeds and wide spacing that human-driven cars need, thus packing a lot more cars onto a given road and decreasing travel times significantly. I'm not going to say I'm a proponent of this move at this time, for various reasons, but I believe this is the argument that could be made and that it's a valid argument.
However, these points don't map to the internet at all in any kind of analogy. Restricting us to Google and Facebook isn't going to improve the performance of the internet, as that's not how the internet works. And as I've already pointed out, there's tons of alternatives to both Google and Facebook. No one is forcing you to use either. Yes, there is a lot of tracking going on behind the scenes, largely by Google, but it's not universal, it only happens when a website you visit uses Google Analytics for tracking. Not all websites do this (I seriously doubt Bing or anything else Microsoft-owned does, nor anything owned by Yahoo), and besides, these tracking mechanisms still don't know who you are unless you visit Google on your own, with a Google login, so that they can associate your IP address with their other information on you. Otherwise, you're just an anonymous IP address, and don't forget, we don't have static IPs these days from ISPs, so your IP address could get reassigned to a different ISP customer at any time. And finally, I really don't understand what all the fear-mongering about Facebook is about. There's no reason at all to use Facebook unless you choose to do so, and more and more people have been abandoning Facebook in recent years.
They're allowed an airport because 1) we need an airport there, and 2) no one else can do security better in this country. There's no shortage of incidents of people sneaking things through the TSA, in intentional tests and otherwise. The 9/11 terrorists picked Boston for several reasons (proximity to NYC namely, leaving their planes plenty of fuel after traveling the short distance between the two), but the lax security wasn't one of them. It's not like the 9/11 terrorist planners went around to various airports around the country, tested their security effectiveness, and found Boston to be the worst of the bunch. Boston was no worse than anyplace else, and surely still isn't any better or worse with the TSA idiots running things.
Boston does NOT have a "track record of massive incompetence", compared to the rest of the country. It's not Boston that's incompetent, it's the entire USA. Crumbling infrastructure is not unique to Boston; you can find that all over the entire Northeast and just about everyplace else that's older than 40 years too. There's countless articles about this problem, and they don't focus on Boston. Remember that bridge that collapsed several years ago with cars on it? Where was that? Minnesota IIRC.
There was an interesting article in Wired magazine on the topic: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/ [wired.com] It provides insights about how we, as users, choose the closed platforms (e.g. google, facebook). And the more we turn away from the true open and anonymous internet, the more irrelevant the internet becomes.
This doesn't make any sense at all. This is like saying that cars are becoming irrelevant because people frequently use toll roads, or that roads are becoming irrelevant because people choose to buy cars which they (supposedly) can't work on themselves, or because they choose to rent or lease cars.
Google and Facebook don't work without the internet. It may not be the open and anonymous internet you and I like, but it is still the internet: a global data communications network. Google and Facebook don't even require any special software to work: they work on many different browsers, most of which are open-source and Free/free. Yes, they have problems (and yes, Facebook is a completely worthless waste of time, which is why I don't use it), but they aren't making the internet "irrelevant". You don't need Google to go to other sites; you can just type in their URL manually, or use a competing search engine like Bing or DuckDuckGo. You don't need Facebook to talk to your friends, in fact you don't need Facebook for squat. Email is still the preferred method of communications for business, as much as stupid teenagers and 20-somethings might refuse to admit it.
Yes, getting iSP service in the US isn't anonymous; I'm not sure it ever was to be honest. I've had ISP service or other internet access since 1991, and it was either tied to my college admission, or I had to sign up for it with an ISP company, which was impossible without giving them some details about myself so they knew how to bill me for it. Regardless, there's still options for anonymity, namely with VPNs. Your ISP can do all the deep-packet inspection it likes, it can't crack a VPN session, and they can't forbid VPN use since so many people rely on VPNs to access their work systems from home. Lots of people now ever use VPNs for ALL their internet use; many VPN services even provide optional software which disables your internet connection unless the VPN is running, so you can be sure nothing you do is trackable by your ISP or anyone in the US (as the VPN's exit node is in another country like Sweden or Romania).
It's kinda like giving JFK credit for landing men on the Moon. JFK didn't do it by any means, but without him or some other politicians, it never would have happened. The Apollo program scientists, engineers, technicians, astronauts, etc. actually made it all happen, but without funding provided and policy created by the Federal government (and JFK at the head of one of its branches) at the time, all those people would not have been able to work on that project and land people on the Moon.
Al Gore didn't invent the internet by any means, but he played an important part in turning it into what it is now, and he deserves some credit for that. It's not often that politicians do things that are far-sighted and really useful to the country and society, and the internet is one of the most useful infrastructural things created in a long time. Now maybe if Gore hadn't done it, someone else would have, but who knows how long that might have taken.
Actually, some of us are less worried about how scary guns look as we are in how many rounds they let loose before someone can get to them.
That has little to do with what constitutes an "assault rifle". According to liberal politicians, an "assault weapon" (by which they really mean an "assault rifle") also has several 'important' features to make it what it is. One really big one is a bayonet mount. No hunting rifle has a bayonet mount, but they're fairly common on assault rifles. This of course is a highly dangerous feature that no civilian should have on a gun he owns, because bayonets have been used so often for bloody rampages in schools and malls and daycare centers around the country.
Another important feature is an adjustable stock. Unlike hunting rifles which are made of a single piece of wood (usually expensive walnut), "assault rifles" frequently have stocks which can be adjusted for the user's arm length. Apparently this somehow turns a harmless semi-auto rifle (like an AR-15 circa 1965) into an instrument of mass destruction, though I still haven't figured out how, but apparently some politicians know better than me.
One final feature is a barrel shroud. Hunting rifles don't have these, so if you touch the barrel after shooting them, you'll burn your hands. But on many "assault rifles", they have a thin piece of vented metal suspended over the barrel, so that you can grab it without hurting yourself. Perhaps this feature was used to devastating effect in many mass shootings?
If we can just ban these features, we'll have guns which are perfectly safe for civilians to wield.
You're too kind. In the last 12 years, Slashdot went from a major internet forum to a has-been, a shadow of its former self, with most users fleeing for greener pastures.
If some government conducted drone strikes against mob members (high-ranking and otherwise), but did so without any regard whatsoever for collateral damage, what would be the result? For instance, suppose we had drones dropping bombs on alleged mob members when they were just walking down the street, but these bombs of course killed not only the alleged mobster, but scores of unrelated civilians who happened to be on the sidewalk or driving by at the time. I imagine this would create quite a few "terrorists" who, after watching their wife and child die in an attack, would decide they had nothing left to lose and would violently attack anyone they associated with the bombing.
Drones killing civilians is an accident; people thought there was a military target there.
Bullshit. What really happened is 1) some Americans thought there was a military target there (such as a young man, who according to US doctrine is automatically a "militant" just because he's male and of "militant age"), and 2) there were a bunch of other people (women & children) around this "target". The Americans don't give a shit about any collateral damage, so they just bomb away, killing everyone around the target.
I'm sorry, but when you target civilians (despite any lame excuses), you can't complain when the enemy targets your civilians.
We brought this on ourselves. Good job, Obama voters.
I don't see the difference. It's well documented that USA drone attacks have killed scores of women and children. Most civilized people consider those "civilians".
Is this really something that Boston deserves to be singled out for? It seems to me that the 9/11 terrorists probably could have gotten through security at just about any airport in the US. And look what happened afterwards: how long did it take them to just do the most sensible thing to prevent these hijackings, something they somehow never thought of doing before: installing locking doors for the cockpits, so that no one can enter. Even now, we still have ridiculously expensive and ineffective security measures (the TSA), despite all kinds of evidence that it isn't working.
And Boston isn't the only place with shitty infrastructure; that condition exists all over the country.
Don't blame Boston for incompetence and corruption: blame the USA. Blaming Boston for the USA's problems is like blaming your chubby hand for your health problems when you're 200 pounds overweight.
I think the bottom line here is: the type of advertising that's effective for your business, if any, depends entirely on the nature of your business and its industry. The type of advertising that works well for a local restaurant is probably not the type of advertising that works well for a company that sells specialized products to another industry, for instance.
If they weren't rolling their own I wouldn't have bitched about them not using something already shown to work (eg. mysql and a very long list of others)
What are you talking about? According to this LWN thread, Kmail2/Akonadi does in fact use MySQL as the default backend database, though it can also use SQLite or Postgres.
Last thing is it's not really the "KDE team" doing it but instead a side project.
Akonadi is one of the main components of KDE4; its developers definitely qualify as part of the "KDE team". KMail is part of the PIM suite, again not some side project, but one of the main parts of KDE (maybe not as "main" as Kwin, but still much more close to the core of the project than, say, Gwenview).
I'd also like to add that it's highly unlikely the KDE team is using an "undocumented" database; logically, they'd be using an existing FOSS database like MySQL, PostgreSQL, or most likely SQLite. Also, the idea that an email system "doesn't need" a database is just ridiculous; what do you think Google uses for Gmail? You don't get search performance like that in an inbox with tens of thousands of emails with emails stored in individual files a la maildir.
I don't know what database Akonadi/Kmail is using underneath, nor what schema nor any other implementation details, so I can't comment on whether that particular design is sensible or not. I'm just responding to the previous poster who implies that databases aren't even necessary since they store their data in files in a filesystem, showing a complete lack of understanding of what databases are and why you'd use them in many systems.
No, this link doesn't explain anything, at least related to the conspiracy-theory stuff you spouted earlier and now with two tanks. The link is the standard advice about premium vs. regular-octane gasoline (petrol in UK), though it's not quite correct, because it implies that you may see some kind of difference in a regular car, which is incorrect, you won't. The simple truth is this: if your car requires premium fuel, then that's what you need to use, because you have a high-compression engine that's designed for it. If your car doesn't require it, don't waste your money, because it won't do you one iota of good. Premium fuel has less energy in it; its advantage is that it's more resistant to preignition, which is only a problem on higher-compression engines.
So, in summary: if your car says (usually right on the dashboard next to the fuel gauge, and also on a label near the gas cap) "PREMIUM FUEL ONLY", then use that. If you don't have any such label, get the cheap stuff.
I love how Slashdot is supposed to be a place for IT experts, but its members have about the same knowledge of computers as AOL users, as shown by this post. Do you Slashdot morons not even understand databases?
Apart from having a facebook page, you can also incent customers to refer their friends through Facebook
Ok, you just lost me there with that word. You're a marketer, not a real human.
I hate to admit that for past 4 years, my primary OS has been win7 and OS X to do my much of my work on Linux servers. why? I need a Desktop Envirment with a consistent UI that's free of bugs.
Well you'll need to give up on Windows then, thanks to Win8. Your argument had merit about 2 years ago, with Windows UIs being quite stable all the way back to Win95, but that's all out the window now, pardon the pun. Now we just have to wait to see if Apple jumps on the "let's royally fuck up stable UIs!" bandwagon and completely screws up OS X.
Also rant: cache sizes have been going down to make place for more processors. I personally do numerical calculations, and I find this trend to be a disaster. At this point, my only hope is that eventually, with thousands of cores on chips, we'll be back to something which looks like a vector processor.
Instead of using a CPU to do these calculations, maybe you should use a vector processor instead. Every computer these days has one, it's called a "GPU". Google for "GPGPU".
That sounds like a conspiracy theory akin to UFOs. It should be relatively easy to actually check the gasoline for its octane rating. Plus, there's lots of cars which cannot run properly on low-octane fuel (all the higher-end cars require premium these days; their engines are high-compression). So unless they're actually giving away premium fuel for the cost of regular so that they don't have to have a separate tank, that sounds pretty ridiculous.
Plus, I seriously doubt they have leaded fuel in the UK any more. Only third-world countries like Mexico still allow leaded fuel to be used, because it's so polluting.
This is what you get for having a government that refuses to do any meaningful regulation. Meanwhile, in the highly regulated European countries, they have lots of options for fast and cheap internet access, not to mention tons of options for cheap and reliable cellular service, another thing we're completely lacking here.
Does something about a person being rich and celebrated make them so much different from you as to their taste in music? Really?
Yes, if they're rich because they're in the music business, definitely. If some musician/artist/singer/whatever-they-call-themselves-these-days-even-though-they-have-zero-talent "tweets" about how great their music is, why should I care? What else are they going to say, "I released a new album today, but it's really quite mediocre and I think you'd be happier buying so-and-so's new album"? Are you one of those morons who listens to rich people when those rich people tell you to buy their stuff, thus making them even richer? That sounds exactly like Sarah Palin's hordes of idiot fans, all fawning over her because she's "successful", and then going and buying her crappy books, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.